Ex Parte Aughey et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 20, 2016

13039284 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 20, 2016)

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.
13/039,284 03/02/2011 John H. Aughey 0902-3800(10-1032) 1576
121171 7590 12/20/2016
McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP/BOEING
300 South Wacker Drive,
Suite 3100
Chicago, IL 60606
EXAMINER
MA, TIZE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2613
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/20/2016 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte JOHN H. AUGHEY and DAVID D. FRIES
____________

Appeal 2016-002196
Application 13/039,2841
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before LARRY J. HUME, CARL L. SILVERMAN, and
JAMES W. DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judges.

SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 1–22, which constitute all the pending claims.
Final Act. 4–14. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as The Boeing Company.
App. Br. 1.
Appeal 2016-002196
Application 13/039,284

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The disclosed and claimed inventions relate to 3-D environment
manipulation. Abstract.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is exemplary of the subject matter on
appeal (disputed limitations emphasized):
1. A method for multi-input 3-D environment navigation, the method
comprising:
extrapolating by action of a processor a first input on a user
interface into a 3-D space to provide a first 3-D vector extrapolation
from a virtual camera location, a viewing frustum rendering a
viewing perspective of the 3-D space based on the virtual camera
location; and
relocating by action of the processor the viewing perspective of
the 3-D space based on a second 3-D vector extrapolation calculated
based on the first 3-D vector extrapolation, wherein:
the first input comprising a single finger pan translates the
viewing frustum in a 2-D translation while keeping a camera zoom
and orientation of the virtual camera location fixed, and
the first input comprising a two point touch causes vector
extrapolation of two touch points on the user interface into the 3-D
space at virtual touch points in the 3-D space and the virtual touch
points remain under the two touch points when the two touch points
are moved relative to each other and to the user interface, wherein
moving a first touch point to a first moved touch point and moving a
second touch point to a second moved touch point causes execution of
a view manipulation comprising a 3-D rotation, a 3-D translation,
and a 3-D resizing.

App. Br. 13. (Claims Appx.).
THE REJECTION
Claims 1–22 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Reisman et al. (US 8,451,268 B1; issued May 28,
2013) (“Reisman”) in view of Yoo et al. (US 2010/0146389 A1; published
June 10, 2010) (“Yoo”). Final Act. 4–14.
Appeal 2016-002196
Application 13/039,284

3
ANALYSIS
Appellants argue Reisman and Yoo do not teach the claim 1 limitation
extrapolating by action of a processor a first input on a user
interface into a 3-D space to provide a first 3-D vector extrapolation
from a virtual camera location, a viewing frustum rendering a
viewing perspective of the 3-D space based on the virtual camera
location.

App. Br. 4–10; Reply Br. 1–6.

According to Appellants, Reisman teaches touch points on the touch
screen are mapped in parallel to contacts directly below the touch points.
App. 5 (citing Reisman Figs. 2B, 2D, 2F, 5B, 6B; col. 4, ll. 43–52). In
particular, Appellants argue Reisman’s parallel mapping does not
correspond to provide a first 3-D vector extrapolation from a virtual camera
location, a viewing frustum rendering a viewing perspective of the 3-D
space based on the virtual camera location. Id. at 6.
Appellants argue Yoo “does not disclose any vector extrapolation or
any motivation to use extrapolated points not directly under touch points and
not directly perpendicular under the touchscreen [as in Riesman, supra].”
Reply Br. 3–5 (citing Yoo Fig. 2; ¶¶ 15, 31; see also App. Br. 8–10 (citing
Yoo Fig. 2; ¶¶ 25, 26, 30, 40). Appellants further argue Yoo teaches a set of
“particular gestures” for selectively executing individual movement but does
not teach vector extrapolation from a virtual camera location. Reply
Br. 4–5; see also App. Br. 8–10.
The Examiner finds Reisman teaches the disputed claim 1 limitation
but relies on Yoo for the phrase provide a first 3-D vector extrapolation
from a virtual camera location, a viewing frustum rendering a viewing
perspective of the 3-D space based on the virtual camera location. Final
Appeal 2016-002196
Application 13/039,284

4
Act. 4–6 (citing Riesman col. 3, ll. 15–61; col. 4, ll. 39–62; Fig. 2B; Yoo
¶¶ 24, 29). In an Advisory Action, the Examiner subsequently finds
Riesman’s parallel mapping discloses 3-D vector extrapolation from a
virtual camera location but does not teach the change of the virtual camera
location and change of the view based on the change of the virtual camera
location, and finds Yoo teaches this feature. Advisory Act. 2 (citing Riesman
Fig. 2).
In the Answer, the Examiner finds the phrase virtual camera location
is not well defined and can be a viewpoint and a first 3-D extrapolation from
a virtual camera location means drawing a 3-D line (real or imaginary) from
a viewpoint. Ans. 4. With this interpretation, the Examiner finds Riesman’s
parallel mapping teaches a virtual camera location at infinity. Ans. 4 (citing
Riesman Fig. 2; Spec. Fig. 10). The Examiner states the feature of “a virtual
camera location” in the rejection [final office action] did not rely on
Riesman because “it lacks the implicit feature of a viewing frustum” and,
therefore, “Yoo was introduced.” Ans. 5.
The Examiner additionally finds Yoo teaches a viewpoint or camera
location which is not at infinity and there would be a 3-D line drawn from
the viewpoint through the touch point on the user interface to the 3-D space,
similar to Appellants’ invention. Ans. 5 (citing Yoo Fig. 2; Spec. Fig 10).
The Examiner finds Yoo teaches a change in the viewpoint of the user and
the 3-D graphics is rendered based on the viewpoint and this teaches a
viewing frustum rendering a viewing perspective of the 3-D space based on
the virtual camera location. Ans. 5–6 (citing Yoo ¶¶ 24, 29).
We are persuaded by Appellants’ arguments regarding Riesman
because the Examiner’s claim interpretation to include Riesman’s parallel
Appeal 2016-002196
Application 13/039,284

5
mapping and camera at infinity is unreasonable and overbroad as would be
understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. In particular, claim 1 recites a
first 3-D vector extrapolation from a virtual camera location, a viewing
frustum rendering a viewing perspective of the 3-D space based on the
virtual camera location and it not seen how the Examiner’s interpretation to
include Riesman comprehends these terms. Moreover, the Examiner’s
interpretation is not consistent with the Specification. See Figs. 9, 10;
¶¶ 33, 58. Claim terms in a patent application are given the broadest
reasonable interpretation consistent with the Specification, as understood by
one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Crish, 393 F.3d 1253, 1256 (Fed.
Cir. 2004).
We are persuaded by Appellants’ arguments regarding Yoo because,
on the record before us, the Examiner’s findings insufficiently explain how
Yoo selectively executing movements teaches the disputed limitation; in
particular, the teaching of a 3-D vector extrapolation from a virtual camera
location.
In view of the above, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1, and
independent claims 8 and 14 which recite the disputed limitation in
commensurate form, and which are argued together with claim 1. We also
do not sustain the rejection of dependent claims 2–7, 9–13, and 15–22. Cf.
In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1266 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (“[D]ependent claims are
nonobvious if the independent claims from which they depend are
nonobvious . . . .”) Because our decision with regard to the disputed
limitation is dispositive of the rejection of these claims, we do not address
additional arguments raised by Appellants.
Appeal 2016-002196
Application 13/039,284

6
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–22 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
REVERSED