AUDI AG

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Feb 10, 2021

2019004997 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 10, 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.
15/368,065 12/02/2016 Marcus KUEHNE 2319.1224 5548
21171 7590 02/10/2021
STAAS & HALSEY LLP
SUITE 700
1201 NEW YORK AVENUE, N.W.
WASHINGTON, DC 20005
EXAMINER
BOYD, JONATHAN A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2627
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/10/2021 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):
ptomail@s-n-h.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MARCUS KUEHNE
Appeal 2019-004997
Application 15/368,065
Technology Center 2600
Before JEREMY J. CURCURI, JUSTIN BUSCH, and AMEE A. SHAH,
Administrative Patent Judges.
BUSCH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–15. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the term Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Audi AG. Appeal
Br. 1.
Appeal 2019-004997
Application 15/368,065

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claimed subject matter relates to an accurate acquisition of smart
glasses’ position in a virtual reality. Claim 1, reproduced below, is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A display system, comprising:
electronic smart glasses having a display device;
a sensor device configured to detect a change in position
of the electronic smart glasses as long as the electronic smart
glasses are arranged in a detection area of the sensor device; and
at least one processor configured to
drive the display device of the electronic smart
glasses to adapt contents displayed by the display device of the
electronic smart glasses to the position of the electronic smart
glasses in dependence on the change in position detected by the
sensor, and
change an alignment of the sensor device in
correspondence with the change in position of the electronic
smart glasses and thereby cause the detection area of the sensor
device to follow the change in position of the electronic smart
glasses.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Lemelson US 2002/0105482 A1 Aug. 8, 2002
Curry US 2010/0026809 A1 Feb. 4, 2010
Latta US 2013/0326364 A1 Dec. 5, 2013
Osman US 2014/0361976 A1 Dec. 11, 2014

REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 8, 10, 11, and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Latta and Lemelson. Final Act. 7–11.
Appeal 2019-004997
Application 15/368,065

3
Claims 2, 3, and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Latta, Lemelson, and Curry. Final Act. 11–12.
Claims 4–7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Latta, Lemelson, Curry, and Osman. Final Act. 12–14.
Claims 9, 12, and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Latta, Lemelson, and Osman. Final Act. 15–16.

ANALYSIS
Appellant argues the obviousness rejection of claims 1–15 as a group.
See Appeal Br. 3–8. Accordingly, we select independent claim 1 as
representative of these claims. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
The Examiner finds Latta teaches or suggests the majority of
representative claim 1’s subject matter. Final Act. 7–9. The Examiner finds
Lemelson cures Latta’s deficiency and provides a reason for modifying Latta
with Lemelson’s teachings. Final Act. 9–10.
Appellant contends: (a) the Examiner has not provided evidence that
Lemelson’s tracking system is analogous to Latta’s display system;
(b) Lemelson does not cure Latta’s deficiency; and (c) there is no reason to
combine Lemelson’s different embodiments. Appeal Br. 3; see id. at 3–8;
Reply Br. 1–4. We address these contentions in order below.
ANALOGOUS ART
Appellant notes that, in prior office action responses, Appellant
previously asserted Lemelson was not analogous art to Latta. Appeal Br. 3;
Reply Br. 1.
The question of whether a person of ordinary skill in the art would
look to a reference—i.e., whether a reference is analogous art—asks whether
Appeal 2019-004997
Application 15/368,065

4
the particular reference is analogous to Appellant’s claimed subject matter.
More specifically, prior art is analogous art to the claimed invention if either
(1) the art is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention (even
if it addresses a different problem); or (2) the art is reasonably pertinent to
the problem faced by the inventor (even if it is not in the same field of
endeavor as the claimed invention). In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed.
Cir. 2004) (emphasis added); see also id. at 1325 (explaining that the first
test “requires the PTO to determine the appropriate field of endeavor by
reference to explanations of the invention’s subject matter in the patent
application, including the embodiments, function, and structure of the
claimed invention.”).
On this record, we determine Latta is in the same field of endeavor
(even when the field is evaluated narrowly as tracking users with wearable
displays for augmented or virtual reality systems) as Appellant’s invention
and Lemelson is at least reasonably pertinent to the problem Appellant’s
invention addresses (realigning a sensor used to track an object of interest
when the object is capable of moving out of the field of view of the sensor).
LATTA AND LEMELSON’S TEACHINGS
Of particular relevance to this Appeal, the Examiner finds Latta’s
capture device 20 teaches or suggests the recited “sensor device configured
to detect a change in position of the electronic smart glasses” because
device 20 captures movement of the users wearing head mounted display
devices 2 that corresponds to the change in position of the smart glasses.
Final Act. 7–8 (citing Latta ¶¶ 32, 34, 56–59, 65). The Examiner further
finds Latta’s system “drive[s] the display device of the electronic smart
glasses to adapt contents display by the display device of the electronic
Appeal 2019-004997
Application 15/368,065

5
smart glasses to the position of the electronic smart glasses in dependence on
the change in position detected by the sensor” because Latta’s system uses
sensor information, including information captured by capture device 20, to
update a scene model that is then used with position feedback data to render
images on head mounted display device 2. Final Act. 8 (citing Latta ¶¶ 70,
96, 126, 152, 158). The Examiner finds that Latta’s capture device 20 thus
follows the change in position of the smart glasses worn by the users but
Latta does not explicitly describe “chang[ing] an alignment of the sensor
device in correspondence with the change in position of the electronic smart
glasses.” Final Act. 8–9 (citing Latta ¶¶ 32, 70).
The Examiner finds Lemelson describes gimbaled sensor system 16
that includes using servos to move sensor 15 to follow a user’s head
movement so that “gimbaled sensor system 16 is locked onto the user’s eye
20 by following the 3-D head movement.” Final Act. 9 (quoting Lemelson
¶ 84); see id. (citing Lemelson ¶¶ 61, 77–85, Fig. 1B). Finally, the Examiner
concludes representative claim 1 would have been obvious because a person
of ordinary skill in the art would have combined these teachings to arrive at
the claimed invention in order
to provide a central sensor system to track and focus on a
required body part of the user in accordance with the movement
of the user within an area to effectively determine the user
location, movement and gesture to render virtual objects to the
user, thereby improving processing efficiency of the sensing
arrangement.
Final Act. 9–10.
Appeal 2019-004997
Application 15/368,065

6
Appellant argues in the Reply Brief2 that “[e]ven if both reference[s]
disclose tracking the head of a user, one of ordinary skill in the art would not
look to either reference to find prior art relevant ‘to detect[ing] a change in
position of the electronic smart glasses.’” Reply Br. 2 (quoting
representative claim 1, third brackets in original, emphasis added).
Appellant also argues Lemelson does not teach or suggest tracking glasses
specifically, but instead teaches tracking only “the entire head or tracking
the eyes when no glasses are worn.” Reply Br. 2; see id. at 2–4. To the
extent Appellant is asserting that Latta does not teach a sensor device
configured to detect a change in position of the glasses because Latta teaches
tracking the users’ heads instead of the display devices that the users wear
on their head, we disagree.
Moreover, we note representative claim 1 recites merely that the
“sensor device [is] configured to detect a change in position of the electronic
smart glasses as long as the electronic smart glasses are arranged in a
detection area of the sensor device.” Neither the claims nor the
Specification require a particular means or method of how the sensor detects
the change in position. More specifically, contrary to certain assertions
Appellant makes, representative claim 1 recites detecting a change in
position of the glasses, not tracking the glasses.

2 Appellant raises this argument, in part, regarding the alleged difference
between Lemelson’s and Latta’s fields of endeavors and problems solved.
Even if true, we fail to see how this assertion relates to whether Lemelson
and Latta are analogous to Appellant’s claimed invention. We discussed
above our determination that Latta and Lemelson are analogous art to
Appellant’s claimed invention.
Appeal 2019-004997
Application 15/368,065

7
The Specification describes one exemplary “advantageous
embodiment” in which “the sensor device has an infrared sensor which is
designed to detect at least one light-emitting diode arranged at the electronic
smart glasses.” However, neither the Specification nor the claims limit the
type of sensor or require direct sensing of the glasses themselves. In fact,
the Specification appears to consider the glasses’ and the person’s positions
to be interchangeable. See, e.g., Spec. ¶ 23 (describing adapting the
observation position within the virtual environment changes “in
correspondence with the real change in position of the person 10 in the real
detection space 14”). Thus, we construe representative claim 1’s sensor
device as including any sensor configured to detect a change in the glasses’
position. One example would include a system having a camera that tracks
and records a user wearing such glasses, thereby detecting the changed
positions of that user and their glasses.
Latta’s capture device 20, which may be a camera that captures
“image data from portions of a scene within its” field of view (FOV),
teaches the recited sensor. Latta ¶ 32. Latta’s camera captures and tracks
users “wearing head mounted display devices 2.” Latta ¶ 34; see id.
¶¶ 56–59; see also Final Act. 7 (finding that Latta’s head mounted display
devices teach or suggest the recited “electronic smart glasses having a
display device”). Latta then “develop[s] a representative model of each user
18a, 18b, 18c (or others) within the FOV of capture device 20 as each user
moves around in the scene.” Latta ¶ 65. By using a camera to track users
who are wearing head mounted display devices 2 and modeling users as they
move, Latta teaches or suggests a sensor device (i.e., camera) that detects a
change in position of the electronic smart glasses (i.e., display device 2) that
Appeal 2019-004997
Application 15/368,065

8
are worn by the users. Accordingly, we agree with and adopt the
Examiner’s finding that Latta teaches the recited sensor device.
Appellant’s argument in the Appeal Brief that Lemelson and Latta do
not teach the recited limitations does not address the Examiner’s actual
findings. More specifically, Appellant asserts that “there was no rationale
. . . regarding why one of ordinary skill in the art would use the gimbaled
sensor system of Lemelson et al. to modify Latta et al. ‘to adapt contents
displayed by the display device . . .’ as recited in claim 1.” Appeal Br. 4.
Appellant further contends “[n]othing has been cited or found in Lemelson
et al., including the ‘display 32 is in the shape of glasses that is mounted
over the user’s eyes 20’ (paragraph [0064]) illustrated in Fig. 1B, that”
adapts displayed content to the position of the smart glasses. Appeal Br. 4.
However, the Examiner finds Latta, not Lemelson, teaches a system
having a sensor that detects a change in positon of the smart glasses and
adapts display contents to the position of the smart glances in dependence on
the detected change in position. Although the Examiner relies on Lemelson
to teach changing the sensor’s alignment, the Examiner does not find
Lemelson teaches adapting the display.
Finally, as the Examiner explains, the Examiner finds Latta teaches
nearly the entire claimed subject matter and that, to remedy Latta’s
deficiency, Lemelson needs to teach or suggest only “detecting the position
of the user’s head to align gimbaled sensors.” Ans. 17. Lemelson teaches
changing a sensor’s (i.e., camera’s) alignment using pan/tilt servos to follow
the user’s head movement to lock on to the object of interest (i.e., a user’s
eye). Lemelson ¶¶ 77, 84. Latta already teaches tracking a user wearing
smart glasses using capture device 20. E.g., Latta ¶¶ 32, 70. Modifying
Appeal 2019-004997
Application 15/368,065

9
Latta to incorporate Lemelson’s teaching of moving a camera to track the
object of interest would have resulted in Latta’s capture device tracking a
user wearing smart glasses by adjusting the alignment of the camera in
correspondence with the change in position of the smart glasses worn by the
user. See Final Act. 9–10 (providing reason to combine Latta and
Lemelson). Accordingly, we agree with and adopt the Examiner’s finding
that Lemelson teaches or suggests the change an alignment step.
COMBINING LEMELSON’S DIFFERENT EMBODIMENTS
Finally, Appellant argues the Examiner has not provided a rationale
for combining Lemelson’s embodiment depicted in Figure 1B with the
embodiment(s) depicted in Figure 1A and/or Figure 1C. Appeal Br. 4–8.
As Appellant notes, Lemelson teaches sensing the user’s head as a
step in detecting a change in the user’s eye position in order to adjust the
camera alignment so that the camera’s focus stays centered on the user’s
eye. Appeal Br. 5 (quoting Lemelson ¶ 62). The Examiner’s findings,
however, do not rely on combining this teaching with the embodiment
depicted in Lemelson’s Figure 1B in which the user wears glasses. As
explained in the previous section, to remedy Latta’s deficiency, Lemelson
needs to teach or suggest only “detecting the position of the user’s head to
align gimbaled sensors.” Ans. 17. The Examiner finds Lemelson’s teaching
to align the sensor with the eye by tracking the user’s head because the eye
moves when the head moves is equally applicable to tracking smart glasses
that move as the user’s head moves. Ans. 17.
We agree with the Examiner. Modifying Latta’s system with
Lemelson’s ability to align a sensor in correspondence with the user’s eye by
tracking the user’s head movement, without any need to combine the
Appeal 2019-004997
Application 15/368,065

10
embodiment depicted in Figure 1B, results in a system that senses the user’s
head position in order to detect a change in the smart glasses position (rather
than the user’s eye) and change Latta’s camera’s alignment in
correspondence with that change in positon of the smart glasses worn by the
user.
CONCLUSION
For these reasons, we sustain the rejection of representative claim 1 as
obvious over Latta and Lemelson. As discussed above, Appellant does not
argue claims 2–15 separately with particularity. See Appeal Br. 2–8.
Therefore, for these same reasons, we also sustain the rejections of claims
2–15. Accordingly, the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1–15 are
AFFIRMED.
DECISION SUMMARY
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference Affirmed Reversed
1, 8, 10,
11, 13
103 Latta, Lemelson 1, 8, 10,
11, 13

2, 3, 14 103 Latta, Lemelson, Curry 2, 3, 14
4–7 103 Latta, Lemelson, Curry, Osman 4–7
9, 12, 15 103 Latta, Lemelson, Osman 9, 12, 15
Overall
Outcome
1–15
RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED