Carsim proposed an architecture where a system takes a natural language description, converts it into a formal description and instantiates corresponding scene elements. This was done in 2002, before Microsoft issued this patent. Reference: http://doc.utwente.nl/36659/1/00000051.pdf

Let alone that Stanford's Wordseye works similarly, Confucius, probably more!

In reference to the patent: US20060217979

  • The cited Microsoft document is an application, not a patent. If you think you have prior art, submit it to the USPTO.
    – Eric S
    Feb 18, 2017 at 0:18
  • Yes, how do I do that?
    – NB27
    Feb 18, 2017 at 13:48
  • That can be done only for applications, it's called third party observation. For granted patents like this invalidation costs money.
    – user18033
    Feb 18, 2017 at 16:58

2 Answers 2


The patent has been issued with narrowed claims:


The examination went through some steps and prior art was considered.

You can find the docket here:


The documents named (non)-final rejection and the responses contain the relevant communication with explanations to why certain claim elements were deemed inventive and others not.

Basically, Microsoft found something in there that had not been done before and got a patent for it. That's how it goes.

And to answer your question - yes, they did check.


The cited Microsoft document is a patent application, not yet a patent. Applications are often written with broad claims that get narrowed as the patent is prosecuted. You should review this question and answer to understand better the patent process: Is this patent valid? Granted? Which countries does it cover? Are there family members?.

If you are worried about this application, then you could post the question as a request for prior art and community members would help you find such.


You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .