2019006549 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 2, 2021)

Andrew Basile

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardApr 2, 2021

2019006549 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 2, 2021)

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. 15/349,153 11/11/2016 Andrew R. Basile JR. CWPR-103-B 5179 48980 7590 04/02/2021 YOUNG BASILE 3001 WEST BIG BEAVER ROAD SUITE 624 TROY, MI 48084 EXAMINER ILUYOMADE, IFEDAYO B ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2624 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 04/02/2021 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): audit@youngbasile.com docketing@youngbasile.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte ANDREW R. BASILE, JR. Appeal 2019-006549 Application 15/349,153 Technology Center 2600 Before JEAN R. HOMERE, JEREMY J. CURCURI, and ADAM J. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judges. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–7 and 14–22. Appeal Br. 18–20 (Claims App.). Claims 8–13 are cancelled. Id. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 Herein, “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as the inventor, Andrew R. Basile, Jr. Appeal Br. 3. Appeal 2019-006549 Application 15/349,153 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction The claimed subject matter is directed to a “virtual reality system [that] can change the field of view to alert the user that bad posture has been detected.” Spec. ¶ 16. Claims 1–7 and 14–22 are pending; claims 1, 14, and 21 are independent. Appeal Br. 18–20. Claim 1 is reproduced below for reference (emphasis added): 1. A method for outputting fields of view of a virtual reality system according to postures of a user of the virtual reality system, the method comprising: outputting a field of view to a display of the virtual reality system such that the field of view corresponds to a tracked motion of a head of the user; detecting, using a sensor of the virtual reality system, a posture of the user; and upon determining that the posture of the user is not acceptable, altering the field of view based on the posture of the user such that the field of view differs from the tracked motion of the head of the user. Appeal Br. 18 (Claims Appendix). The Examiner’s Rejection The Examiner relies on the following prior art: Name Reference Date Takagi US 2013/0278497 A1 Oct. 24, 2013 Burns US 2016/0026242 A1 Jan. 28, 2016 Shin US 2016/0035208 A1 Feb. 4, 2016 Claims 1–7, and 14–22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Burns, Shin, and Takagi. Final Act. 2. Appeal 2019-006549 Application 15/349,153 3 ANALYSIS Appellant argues the Examiner’s rejection is in error, because “the cited portions of Takagi do not relate to ‘altering the field of view ... such that the field of view differs from the tracked motion of the head of the user’” as claimed. Appeal Br. 13. Particularly, Appellant contends “[t]he field of view in claim 1 is an attribute that affects how content is rendered,” whereas “[t]he adjustment made in Takagi changes the location - in real world space - at which an image is displayed relative to a user’s eye.” Id. We are persuaded the Examiner errs in citing to Takagi for the disputed limitations. Claim 1 recites altering a user’s field of view, which “determines which scene [] from the virtual world [] is to be rendered and displayed to [the] user.” Spec. ¶ 25. Takagi, as relied upon by the Examiner, teaches an “image area position is adjusted.” Takagi ¶ 74; Ans. 18. We find Appellant’s contention reasonable, because in the embodiment cited by the Examiner, Takagi’s image area position is the location of a displayed “virtual image.” Takagi ¶ 47. Thus, adjusting Takagi’s image area position merely changes the location of the same virtual image without changing the scene that is rendered, or “field of view.” See Takagi, Figs. 4B–4C, ¶ 64 (“As a specific method for moving the image area GI, the image area position of the image area GI can be adjusted by using the device position drive unit 80 to physically move the liquid crystal display device.”). We find Takagi’s image area position adjustment, as cited by the Examiner, does not teach or suggest the claimed “altering the field of view.” Appeal 2019-006549 Application 15/349,153 4 The Examiner, furthermore, does not rely on the other cited references for this limitation. See Ans. 17–19. Accordingly, we are persuaded the Examiner errs in finding all limitations of claim 1 are taught or suggested by the cited references. CONCLUSION We do not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of independent claim 1, independent claims 14 and 21 which recite similar limitations, or the claims dependent thereon. DECISION SUMMARY Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1–7, 14–22 103 Burns, Shin, Takagi 1–7, 14–22 REVERSED