AURASMA LIMITED

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Nov 3, 2020

15522648 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Nov. 3, 2020)

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.
15/522,648 04/27/2017 Thomas Plowman 84625036 1131
22879 7590 11/03/2020
HP Inc.
3390 E. Harmony Road
Mail Stop 35
Fort Collins, CO 80528-9544
EXAMINER
PATEL, JITESH
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2616
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/03/2020 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):
ipa.mail@hp.com
jessica.pazdan@hp.com
yvonne.bailey@hp.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte THOMAS PLOWMAN and ED FILBY
Appeal 2019-003418
Application 15/522,648
Technology Center 2600
Before KEVIN F. TURNER, JENNIFER L. McKEOWN, and
CARL L. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
McKEOWN, 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 and 3–17. 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(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Hewlett-Packard
Development Company, L.P. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2019-003418
Application 15/522,648
2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claim invention relates to
a system to provide augmented reality content. The system
includes a connection engine to connect to a first device
determined to be within physical proximity of the system. A
feature extraction engine of the system is to generate a feature
extractor according to the first device and provide the feature
extractor to the first device via the connection engine. The
system includes an augmented reality generation engine to
generate a generated augmented reality content according to an
extracted feature provided by the feature extractor.
Abstract.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A system to provide augmented reality content,
comprising:
a processor to:
connect to a first device;
generate a feature extractor according to the first device,
wherein the feature extractor is to transform an extracted feature
from content provided by the first device into a code, and
wherein the extracted feature is based on at least one of a video
content and audio content provided by the first device;
provide the feature extractor to the first device;
receive the code comprising the transformed extracted
feature from the first device; and
generate augmented reality content according to the code
comprising the transformed extracted feature.

Appeal 2019-003418
Application 15/522,648
3
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Kim US 2011/0258175 A1 Oct. 20, 2011
Vaught US 2013/0187835 A1 July 25, 2013

REJECTION2
The Examiner rejects claims 1 and 3–17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Kim and Vaught. Final Act. 3–14.
OPINION
Appellant argues that Kim does not teach “generat[ing] a feature
extractor according to the first device, wherein the feature extractor is to
transform an extracted feature from content provided by the first device into
a code,” as recited by the claims. Appeal Br. 8–12. In particular, Appellant
contends
Kim merely describes sensing a marker, extracting image data,
and using a marker analyzer that analyzes the extracted marker
to generate marker data. (See Kim, paragraph [0036]). As such,
Kim appears simply to use a marker analyzer and does not
describe generating the marker analyzer.
Appeal Br. 9; see also Reply Br. 6 (presenting similar arguments).
Appellant asserts that Kim’s marker analyzer does not transform an
extracted feature into code because Kim only discloses searching for virtual
reality (VR) data corresponding to marker data. Appeal Br. 10.
Additionally, Appellant maintains that Kim’s marker analyzer cannot be the

2 As Appellant notes (Appeal Br. 6), the Examiner withdraws the objection
to claim 12 for informalities and the rejection of claim 5 as indefinite. See
Advisory Action 1–2.
Appeal 2019-003418
Application 15/522,648
4
claimed feature extractor because Kim teaches optionally omitting the
marker analyzer. Appeal Br. 11.
The Examiner, however, does not identify Kim’s marker analyzer as
the claimed feature extractor. See Final Act. 4. Namely, the Examiner
points out Kim’s augmented reality (AR) user device 400 “generates marker
data (generate a feature extractor comprising feature data).” Final Act. 4
(citing Kim ¶ 53). As such, the Examiner relies on Kim’s generated marker
data as the recited generated feature extractor. The Examiner further
explains, “a marker analyzer is not cited or relied upon to disclose the
limitations in question.” Ans. 5. Instead, Kim’s “marker data reads on a
[generated] feature extractor that is used to transform, using search, the
extracted content feature, the marker, to a code represented by VR data.” Id.
We are not persuaded of error in the Examiner’s rejection. As the
Examiner points out, Kim generates marker data and uses the marker data to
transform the extracted marker, i.e. extracted feature, to corresponding VR
data, i.e. code. Although Appellant asserts “the marker data as discussed in
Kim may, at best, be interpreted as transforming itself into a code, but
cannot properly be interpreted as a feature extractor to transform an
extracted feature into a code” (Reply Br. 8), Appellant fails to persuasively
support this argument. Notably, the Examiner explains Kim uses marker
data to transform the extracted marker, i.e. the extracted feature, to VR data,
i.e. code. As such, we are not persuaded that Kim fails to teach the claimed
generate a feature extractor according to the first device, wherein the feature
extractor is to transform an extracted feature from content provided by the
first device into a code.
Appellant next argues that Vaught and Kim combined fail to teach
providing the feature extractor to the first device. Appeal Br. 12–14.
Appeal 2019-003418
Application 15/522,648
5
Specifically, Appellant alleges that Vaught’s “feature of an image cannot
reasonably be interpreted as a ‘feature extractor,’ let alone a feature extractor
‘to transform an extracted feature from content provided by the first device
into a code. . .’.” Appeal Br. 13. Additionally, Appellant contends Kim does
not teach “providing an AR user device to a first device.” Appeal Br. 13.
The Examiner, though, points out that the rejection does not rely on
Vaught as teaching a feature extractor to transform an extracted feature into
code. Ans. 5–6. One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references
individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references.
See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., Inc.,
800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
The Examiner finds Vaught teaches providing image data, i.e., feature
extractor, to a device, where the device uses the image data to identify or
extract information, namely the particular object at which the user is gazing.
Final Act. 5; Ans. 6. The Examiner, then, combines Vaught with Kim’s
teachings of using marker data to transform an extracted marker into VR
data to arrive at the claimed limitation. Final Act. 4–5. As such, we find
Appellant’s argument unpersuasive.
With respect to claims 5 and 17, Appellant argues that Kim fails to
teach or suggest providing a specific augmented reality content at a specified
time according to the extracted feature. Appeal Br. 14–15. In particular,
Appellant maintains that Kim teaches sending the VR data “in response to
an event, i.e., if there is corresponding VR data” and nowhere discloses a
time element. Reply Br. 10–11. Additionally, Appellant contends that the
Examiner’s interpretation is unreasonably broad. Reply Br. 11.
We disagree. As the Examiner points out, “[c]laim 5 broadly recites
providing generated augmented reality content at a specified time according
Appeal 2019-003418
Application 15/522,648
6
to the extracted feature but the claim does not give special meaning to the
specified time.” Ans. 6. The Specification, similarly, broadly describes
[a]lthough the periodically extracted feature is described as being
captured every fifteen (15) seconds, the examples are not limited
thereto and the interval between the periodically extracted
features may be any time or may be randomly assigned after each
interval has been completed.
Spec. ¶ 16. Kim teaches “providing [of] augmented reality content at a time
when the feature is extracted,” (Ans. 7) and, as such, Kim teaches the
limitation of claims 5 and 17.
Accordingly, based on the record before us, we affirm the rejection of
claims 1 and 3–17 as unpatentable over Kim and Vaught.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 and 3–17 as unpatentable over
Kim and Vaught is affirmed.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 3–17 103 Kim, Vaught 1, 3–17

TIME PERIOD FOR 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