Ex Parte Baillot

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 26, 2015

11441241 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 26, 2015)

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.
11/441,241 05/26/2006 Yohan Baillot 4030-0014 8532
42624 7590 08/26/2015
DAVIDSON BERQUIST JACKSON & GOWDEY LLP
8300 Greensboro Dr, Suite 500
McLean, VA 22102
EXAMINER
MA, CALVIN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2693
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/26/2015 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 YOHAN BAILLOT
____________________

Appeal 2013-005467
Application No. 11/441,2411
Technology Center 2600
____________________

Before MARC S. HOFF, DAVID M. KOHUT, and ANDREW J. DILLON,
Administrative Patent Judges.

HOFF, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a final rejection of
claims 1–4 and 6–27.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

1 The real party in interest is Exelis, Inc.
2 Claim 5 has been cancelled (App. Br. 14, Claims App’x).
Appeal 2013-005467
Application No. 11/441,241

2
Appellant’s invention is a head-mounted display that provides a user
with an augmented view of an object being viewed. A tracking mechanism
determines the position and orientation of the head-mounted display relative
to the object being viewed. A computer system provides information for the
augmented view and repeatedly updates the augmented view of the object
being viewed based on the determined position and orientation of the display
(Abstract).
Claim 1 is exemplary of the claims on appeal:
1. A framework comprising:
a head-mounted display constructed and adapted to
provide a user with an augmented view of an object being
viewed;
a tracking mechanism constructed and adapted to
repeatedly determine the position and orientation of the head-
mounted display relative the object being viewed, wherein the
tracking system is constructed and adapted to determine its
position using a plurality of markers located on the object being
viewed; and
a computer system constructed and adapted to provide
information for the augmented view and to repeatedly update
the augmented view of the object being viewed based, at least
in part, on the determined position and orientation of the
display,
wherein the object being viewed is a physical object and
selected from: an apparatus, a device, an instrument panel and a
machine; and wherein the information for the augmented view
is selected from: maintenance and repair information for the
object, and wherein the augmented view of the object presents
the information at particular locations relative to the object
being viewed.

Appeal 2013-005467
Application No. 11/441,241

3
The Examiner relies upon the following prior art in rejecting the
claims on appeal:
Planas et al. US 6,112,015 Aug. 29, 2000
Navab US 6,675,091 B2 Jan. 6, 2004
Genc et al. US 2004/0113885 A1 June 17, 2004
Foxlin et al. US 2004/0149036 A1 Aug. 5, 2004
Katzir et al. US 2006/0043314 A1 Mar. 2, 2006

Claims 1–4, 9–19, and 22–27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Genc, Navab, and Planas.
Claims 6–8 and 21stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Genc, Navab, Planas, and Foxlin.
Claim 20 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Genc, Navab, Planas, and Katzir.
Throughout this decision, we make reference to the Appeal Brief
(“App. Br.,” filed Sept. 13, 2012), the Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed Mar.
14, 2013), and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed Jan. 16, 2013) for
their respective details.

ISSUE
Appellant argues that the combination of Genc, Navab, and Planas
fails to disclose or fairly suggest providing a user with an augmented view of
an object being viewed, wherein the object being viewed is a physical object
(App. Br. 7). Appellant argues that the Examiner admits that Genc and
Navab do not disclose this limitation (App. Br. 8), and contends that Planas
fails to make up the deficiency, as Planas displays a GUI display showing a
digital representation of an object, rather than the object being repaired itself
(App. Br. 8–9).
Appeal 2013-005467
Application No. 11/441,241

4
The Examiner responds that Appellant mischaracterized the
Examiner’s rejection. The Examiner states that Genc and Navab “teach[]
the physical object being displayable on screen” (Ans. 17), with Planas
being cited for “where the object is repaired” (Ans. 9).
Appellant then replies that the references relied upon by the Examiner
disclose displaying a digital representation of an object, rather than
displaying a physical object as claimed (Reply Br. 2). Appellant further
contends that the “repair” disclosed in Navab is a repair of data, rather than
the building the data represent (Reply Br. 5).
Appellant’s contentions present us with the following issues:
1. Does the combination of Genc, Navab, and Planas disclose or
fairly suggest providing an augmented view of an object being viewed,
wherein the object being viewed is a physical object?
2. Does Navab disclose that the information for the augmented view
is selected for maintenance and repair information for the object?

ANALYSIS
Appellant presents a unitary argument for all claims, making reference
to claim 1 as being representative (App. Br. 7). We will, therefore, treat all
claims as standing or falling with representative claim 1.
Appellant’s argument that the references do not provide an augmented
view of an object being viewed, wherein the object being viewed is a
physical object, is not persuasive. We agree with the Examiner’s finding
that Genc discloses a head-mounted display providing such an augmented
view of a physical object being viewed (i.e., workspace 18) (Ans. 5, citing
Genc, Fig. 1A).
Appeal 2013-005467
Application No. 11/441,241

5
We do not agree with Appellant that the cited references do not
disclose that the object being viewed (in an augmented manner) is a physical
object (App. Br. 11, 12). Planas, for example, discloses the display of a
computer network, which is a physical object. Navab discloses the display
of floor plans for a building, a physical object. The claim requirement for an
“object being viewed” being a “physical object,” wherein the information for
the augmented view is selected from maintenance and repair information for
the object, simply does not preclude interpretation that the view provided is
a digital representation of an object.
We are unpersuaded by Appellant that the updating of floor plan data
disclosed by Navab does not correspond to “maintenance and repair
information for the object” (Reply Br. 5). Rather, we agree with the
Examiner that the “repair” and updating of such information is pertinent to
the maintenance of the building that the data represent (see Ans. 6, 7, 19).
We are also unpersuaded by Appellant’s contention that Planas fails to
disclose an augmented view of a physical object being viewed (Reply Br. 8–
9), because the argument is not germane to the Examiner’s actual rejection.
As noted supra, the Examiner relies on Genc and Navab, rather than Planas,
for a teaching of such an augmented view of an object (Ans. 5–6).
Accordingly, we find that the combination of Genc, Navab, and
Planas discloses all the limitations of the claimed invention. We sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–4, 9–19, and 22–27.
We further sustain the rejection of claims 6–8 and 21 over Genc,
Navab, Planas, and Foxlin, not separately argued.
We further sustain the rejection of claim 20 over Genc, Navab, Planas,
and Katzir, not separately argued.
Appeal 2013-005467
Application No. 11/441,241

6
CONCLUSIONS
1. The combination of Genc, Navab, and Planas discloses providing
an augmented view of an object being viewed, wherein the object being
viewed is a physical object.
2. Navab discloses that the information for the augmented view is
selected from maintenance and repair information for the object.

ORDER
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–4 and 6–27 is affirmed.
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).

AFFIRMED
ACP