ALDIN DYNAMICS, EHF.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Feb 28, 2022

2021000513 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 28, 2022)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450 www.uspto.gov APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 16/166,395 10/22/2018 Hrafn Thorri Thorisson A2161-700110 6845 37462 7590 02/28/2022 LANDO & ANASTASI, LLP 60 STATE STREET, 23RD FLOOR BOSTON, MA 02109 EXAMINER IMPERIAL, JED-JUSTIN ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2612 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/28/2022 ELECTRONIC Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding. The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication. Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the following e-mail address(es): CKent@LALaw.com docketing@LALaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte HRAFN THORRI THORISSON, PALL ARINBJARNAR, and GUNNAR STEINN VALGARDSSON ________________ Appeal 2021-000513 Application 16/166,395 Technology Center 2600 ____________ Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, JOHNNY A. KUMAR, and MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-20, which constitute all the claims pending in this application.1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42 (2012). Appellant identifies ALDIN DYNAMICS, EHF as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 3. Appeal 2021-000513 Application 16/166,395 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction The claimed subject matter relates to navigating a virtual reality environment. Spec. 7:1-8:3. According to Appellant, conventional virtual reality navigation techniques include continuous linear locomotion and teleportation, which each suffer from different disadvantages. Id. The claimed subject matter instead uses a waypoint-based locomotion system. Id. at 8:4-15. Claim 1 is illustrative of the appealed subject matter and reads as follows: 1. A method of navigating a Virtual Reality (VR) environment, the method comprising: providing the VR environment; receiving, from an end user in the VR environment, inputs indicative of a user-drawn path drawn by the end user in the VR environment, the user-drawn path originating at a position of the end user and terminating at a terminal point in the VR environment; generating a plurality of waypoints along the user-drawn path; moving the end user to a first waypoint of the plurality of waypoints; pausing the end user at the first waypoint; and moving, responsive to a criterion being met, the end user to a second waypoint of the plurality of waypoints. The Examiner’s Rejections Claims 1-5, 7-12, 14-18, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Trimby (US 2007/0276709 A1; Nov. 29, 2007), Charaniya (US 7,746,343 B1; June 29, 2010), and Meskauskas (US 2014/0006631 A1; Jan. 2, 2014). Final Act. 3-8. Appeal 2021-000513 Application 16/166,395 3 Claims 6, 13, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Trimby, Charaniya, Meskauskas, and Reynolds (US 2012/0208639 A1; Aug. 16, 2012). Final Act. 8-10. ANALYSIS Appellant argues the Examiner errs in rejecting claim 1 because Trimby, Charaniya, and Meskauskas do not teach or suggest “generating a plurality of waypoints along the user-drawn path.” See Appeal Br. 7-8; Reply Br. 2-3. In particular, Appellant argues Trimby teaches navigational points that are defined in advance of a user beginning to traverse a virtual environment. Appeal Br. 7. Appellant argues Trimby teaches a path-finding algorithm determines an optimal path along the predefined nodes. Id. Appellant argues that because Trimby teaches a path that is generated subsequent to generation of a group of nodes, Trimby does not teach generating nodes along a path. Id. Appellant has not persuaded us of Examiner error. The Examiner finds, and we agree, Trimby teaches a VR environment where start and destination nodes are defined in advance and an algorithm explores different paths to find the best route from the start to the destination. Ans. 4 (citing Trimby ¶ 80). The system includes fixed navigational nodes and dynamic navigational nodes that can each be included in the path generated for the user. Id. (citing Trimby ¶ 94). The Examiner finds the dynamic navigational nodes that are included in the path teach the “generating” limitation. Id. We agree. Trimby’s algorithm generates waypoints along a route from a start node to a destination node, and these generated waypoints are placed at previously-defined navigational nodes. The fact that the generated waypoints use predefined navigational nodes does not change the fact that these Appeal 2021-000513 Application 16/166,395 4 waypoints are generated along the user-drawn path. Appellant’s argument that Trimby’s nodes are defined prior to the user drawing the path is not persuasive of error because it is not commensurate with the scope of the claims. Claim 1 does not require that the waypoints are generated from nothing without any relation to previously defined navigation points. We, therefore, agree with the Examiner that Trimby generates a plurality of waypoints along the user-drawn path. Appellant also argues an ordinarily skilled artisan would not have been motivated to combine Meskauskas and Trimby because the proposed combination would directly contradict the stated principle of operation of Trimby. See Appeal Br. 9-12; Reply Br. 3-5. In particular, Appellant argues Trimby discloses an automatic pathfinding system that overcomes the disadvantages of semi-autonomous or directly controlled modes of navigation. Appeal Br. 9-10. Appellant argues Trimby draws a clear, technical distinction between its disclosed embodiments and systems in which a user is allowed to draw a path because manually drawn paths require collision detection, which harms performance. Id. at 9. Appellant has not persuaded us of Examiner error. The Examiner finds, and we agree, Trimby teaches that the ability for a user to toggle between automated, semi-autonomous, and directly controlled navigational modes is very desirable. Ans. 5 (citing Trimby ¶ 2). Thus, contrary to Appellant’s argument, Trimby does not teach that a system should only use its disclosed automated navigation. Instead, Trimby teaches that allowing a user to manually draw a route in some circumstances, while relying on its disclosed automated navigation in other circumstances, is a desirable feature Appeal 2021-000513 Application 16/166,395 5 for a VR system. Trimby ¶ 2. We, therefore, disagree that the proposed combination would change the principle of operation of Trimby. Appellant also argues Trimby, Charaniya, and Meskauskas do not teach or suggest “receiving, from an end user in the VR environment, inputs indicative of a user-drawn path drawn by the end user in the VR environment, the user-drawn path originating at a position of the end user and terminating at a terminal point in the VR environment,” as recited in claim 1. See Appeal Br. 12-14; Reply Br. 5-6. In particular, Appellant argues the Examiner admits Trimby does not teach this limitation, but finds Meskauskas teaches “wherein the path is a user-drawn path drawn by the end user.” Appeal Br. 13. Appellant argues Meskauskas teaches a user drawing a route on a user interface presenting a map, which is not a VR environment. Id. Appellant argues that neither Trimby nor Meskauskas teaches a user drawing a path in a VR environment. Id. at 13-14. Appellant has not persuaded us of Examiner error. The Examiner finds, and we agree, Trimby teaches the reception of inputs, from an end user in the VR environment, indicative of a path in the VR environment. Ans. 5-6 (citing Trimby ¶ 80). The Examiner finds Meskauskas teaches a map-based application that allows a user to draw a route between two or more points on a map. Id. at 6 (citing Trimby ¶ 37). The Examiner finds an ordinarily skilled artisan would combine Meskauskas and Trimby to allow an end user to draw a route or path in Trimby’s VR environment. Id. Appellant’s argument is unpersuasive of error because it focuses on the individual teachings of Meskauskas and Trimby. Each reference cited by the Examiner must be read, not in isolation, but for what it fairly teaches in combination with the prior art as a whole. See In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 Appeal 2021-000513 Application 16/166,395 6 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Appellant’s argument also presumes that Meskauskas’s map application would be bodily incorporated into Trimby’s system. But, “[t]he test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference. . . . Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of those references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.” In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). For these reasons, we sustain the obviousness rejection of claim 1. We also sustain the obviousness rejection of independent claims 8 and 14, which Appellant argues are patentable for the same reasons. See Appeal Br. 14. We also sustain the rejection of claims 2-5, 7, 9-12, 15-18, and 20, which Appellant do not separately argue, for the same reasons. See id. CONCLUSION In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1-5, 7-12, 14-18, 20 103 Trimby, Charaniya, Meskauskas 1-5, 7-12, 14-18, 20 6, 13, 19 103 Trimby, Charaniya, Meskauskas, Reynolds 6, 13, 19 Overall Outcome 1-20 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). See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f). AFFIRMED