Ex Parte Sarnoff

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 5, 2014

11018082 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 5, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte TIM SARNOFF ____________________ Appeal 2012-003333 Application 11/018,082 Technology Center 2600 ____________________ Before RICHARD E. SCHAFER, ROBERT E. NAPPI, and WILLIAM M. FINK, Administrative Patent Judges. FINK, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1–4, 7, 8, 11, 18, 20–28, 31, 33, 34, and 38–51. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant’s Invention Appellant’s invention relates to the digital representation of captured motion from a live event, such as a sports competition. (Spec. 2-3 and Appeal 2012-003333 Application 11/018,082 2 Abstract.)1 In particular, transmitters or markers, such as RFID tags, are attached to moving objects or players and their emitted signals are captured at various time intervals by receivers in known locations. (Id. at 3–4.) From these signals, the marker positions can be calculated, stored and later reproduced to a viewer in a television or Internet broadcast. (Id.) Claims on Appeal Claims 1, 24, 45, and 46 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1 is illustrative of Appellant’s invention and is reproduced below with disputed limitations emphasized: 1. A representation system for building a digital representation of a live event and presenting the digital representation to a player, comprising: a marker to emit a signal; a plurality of receivers to receive said signal from said marker, wherein each receiver of said plurality of receivers generates respective reception information based on the received signal, and wherein the reception information includes a signal strength of the received signal; a data collector coupled to said plurality of receivers, wherein said data collector receives the reception information from at least two receivers; a model generator coupled to said data collector, said model generator generating a position model including an estimate of a position of said marker using known positions of said plurality of receivers and times when different receivers of said plurality of receivers received the same signal from a particular marker, wherein said position model indicates the position of said marker over time; and 1 Our decision refers to Appellant’s Appeal Brief filed September 23, 2011 (“App. Br.”); Examiner’s Answer mailed October 21, 2011 (“Ans.”); Appellant’s Reply Brief filed December 21, 2011; Final Office Action mailed March 25, 2011 (“Final Act.”); and the original Specification filed December 20, 2004 (“Spec.”). Appeal 2012-003333 Application 11/018,082 3 an image generator to generate an image from said position model including representative models identifying said estimated position of said marker, wherein said model generator and said image generator are also configured to produce predicted effects on the position model of commands and actions taken by the player to generate the image. Evidence Considered Greenspun US 5,150,310 September 22, 1992 Doi US 6,278,418 B1 August 21, 2001 Menache US 2006/0125691 A1 June 15, 2006 Examiner’s Rejections Claims 1–4, 7, 8, 11, 18, 21–28, 31, 33, 34, 38, 42, 45–47, and 50 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Greenspun in view of Doi. (Ans. 5–14.) Claims 20, 39–41, 43, 44, 48, 49, and 51 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Greenspun in view of Doi, and in further view of Menache. (Ans. 14–20.) Issue on Appeal Based on Appellant’s arguments, the dispositive issue on appeal is whether Greenspun discloses “a model generator . . . [for] generating a position model” and “an image generator to generate an image,” and whether Doi discloses “produc[ing] predicted effects.” (App. Br. 7–17; Ans. 20–24; Reply Br. 3–8.) Appeal 2012-003333 Application 11/018,082 4 ANALYSIS With respect to Appellant’s independent claims 1, 24, 45, and 46, the Examiner relies on the combination of Greenspun and Doi. (Ans. 5–8.) The Examiner finds that Greenspun discloses a method/system for accurately determining the position of multiple movable objects by affixing transmitters for emitting energy pulses that are received by receivers at various time intervals. (Ans. 5–6.) From the received signals, the “x, y, z coordinates” of each transmitter can be calculated and, if desired, a two- or three- dimensional representation of the transmitter locations can be displayed on a workstation. (Id. at 6.) In particular, the Examiner finds that Greenspun discloses all of the claim limitations of independent claims 1, 24, 45, and 46, except for using the signal strength and producing predicted effects. (Id. at 5–7.) The Examiner finds that Doi teaches a position detecting unit for detecting the positions of players in three-dimensional space based on sensors that the players wear. (Ans. 7.) Of importance here, the Examiner finds that Doi teaches using the signal strength from the players’ sensors and producing a predicted result from the players’ use of weapons that do not actually exist. (Id.) In addition, the Examiner finds that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement the “signal strength as taught by Doi in the system of Greenspun because it provides additional data to aid in determining the position of the transmitters.” (Id. at 8.) Appellant disputes the Examiner’s factual finding regarding Greenspun and Doi. (App. Br. 7–17.) Specifically, Appellant argues that Greenspun does not disclose the claimed “model generator . . . [for] generating a position model,” and “image generator to generate an image,” Appeal 2012-003333 Application 11/018,082 5 and that Doi does not disclose the claimed “wherein said model generator and image generator . . . produce predicted effects.” 2 (Id.) We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments. For each of the disputed limitations, the Examiner identifies where the evidence of record teaches the limitation. (Ans. 20–24.) We agree with the Examiner findings as they are supported by the evidence. By contrast, for each limitation in dispute, Appellant directs us to features or “advantageous results,” (App. Br. 16), in Appellant’s Specification that are allegedly not taught by Greenspun or Doi. As the Examiner notes, however, the claims do not define over the specific features or advantageous results in Appellant’s Specification. Accordingly, for the reasons set forth in the Examiner’s Answer, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in finding claims 1, 24, 45, and 46 unpatentable over the combination of Greenspun and Doi. Because we are not persuaded that the disclosures of Greenspun and Doi do not fall within the scope of the claims, we sustain the Examiner’s rejections of independent claims 1, 24, 45, and 46. With respect to the dependent claims 2–4, 7, 8, 11, 18, 20–23, 25–28, 31, 33, 34, 38–44, and 47–51, Appellants make no separate patentability arguments. Therefore, we sustain the rejections of these claims as well. 2 Appellant directs arguments to the specific language of claim 1, but alleges that independent claims 24, 45, and 46 contain substantially similar limitations. (App. Br. 17.) We generally agree that limitations at issue can be treated similarly for purposes of this Appeal. Appeal 2012-003333 Application 11/018,082 6 CONCLUSION On the record before us, we conclude that the Examiner has not erred in rejecting claims 1–4, 7, 8, 11, 18, 20–28, 31, 33, 34, and 38–51 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). DECISION We AFFIRM the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1–4, 7, 8, 11, 18, 20–28, 31, 33, 34, and 38–51. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a) (1) (iv). AFFIRMED eld