Ex Parte Cashen et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 7, 2018

14969762 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 7, 2018)

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.
14/969,762 12/15/2015 Daniel Cashen 138200-0023 1494
35684 7590
BUTZEL LONG, P.C.
IP DEPARTMENT
41000 Woodward Avenue
Stoneridge West
Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304
03/09/2018 EXAMINER
LHYMN, SARAH
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2613
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/09/2018 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):
PATENT@BUTZEL.COM
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DANIEL CASHEN and EMILY ROBB LAKEPORT
Appeal 2017-009196
Application 14/969,7621
Technology Center 2600
Before TERRENCE W. McMILLIN, KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, and
SCOTT B. HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 1-20, which constitute all of the claims pending in
this application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 Appellant identifies the Applicant, N.S. International, Ltd., as the real party
in interest. App. Br. 4.
Appeal 2017-009196
Application 14/969,762
THE INVENTION
The disclosed and claimed invention is directed to “an augmented
reality alignment system that applies a series of corrections and predicted
corrections based on static and dynamic error factor inputs in real time such
that a projected image may correctly align with its intended real-world target
and be displayed substantially free of distortion.” Spec. ^ 5.2
Claim 1, reproduced below with the disputed limitations italicized, is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. An augmented reality alignment method, comprising the
steps of:
receiving a target position input;
receiving at least one first dynamic error factor input, said
first dynamic error factor input including at least one of a curved
mirror position input, an eye position input, a kinematics input,
an orientation input, and a latency input;
determining a pixel position based on said target position
input and at least one of said first dynamic error factor inputs;
generating a graphic output based on said pixel position;
receiving at least one second dynamic error factor input
after generating said graphic output to correct said graphic
output for distortion; and
receiving at least one static error factor input to correct
said graphic output for distortion.
2 We refer to the Specification filed Aug. 8, 2016 (“Spec.”); Final Office
Action mailed Aug. 19, 2016 (“Final Act.”); Appeal Brief filed Jan. 18, 2017
(“App. Br.”); Examiner’s Answer mailed Apr. 14, 2017 (“Ans.”); and the
Reply Brief filed June 13, 2017 (“Reply Br.”).
3
Appeal 2017-009196
Application 14/969,762
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner as evidence in rejecting the
claims on appeal is:
Morita et al. (hereinafter “Morita”) US 2006/0244820 Al Nov. 2, 2006
Pentenrieder (hereinafter “Pentenrieder”) US 2007/0146391 Al June 28, 2007
Fujimura et al. (hereinafter “Fujimura”) US 2014/0268353 Al Sep. 18, 2014
Atsmon US 2015/0294505 Al Oct. 15,2015
Abovitz et al. (hereinafter “Abovitz”) US 2015/0309264 Al Oct. 29, 2015
Kessler et al. (hereinafter “Kessler”) US 2015/0355461 Al Dec. 10, 2015
Hua et al., Calibration of a Head-Mounted Projective Display for Augmented
Reality Systems, Proc. International Symposium on Mixed and Augmented
Reality (2002) IEEE (hereinafter “Hua”).
REJECTIONS
Claims 1-3, 15, and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Atsmon and Kessler. Final Act. 9.
Claims 4, 5, 9, 11-13, 19, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Atsmon, Kessler, Fujimura, and Hua. Final Act.
16.
Claims 6 and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Atsmon, Kessler, Fujimura, and Pentenrieder. Final Act.
25.
Claim 7 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Atsmon, Kessler, and Abovitz. Final Act. 27.
Claim 8 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Atsmon, Kessler, Fujimura, and Morita. Final Act. 28.
4
Appeal 2017-009196
Application 14/969,762
Claim 10 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Atsmon, Kessler, Fujimura, Hua, and Morita. Final Act. 30.
Claim 14 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Atsmon, Kessler, Fujimura, Hua, and Pentenrieder. Final Act. 32.
Claim 17 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Atsmon, Kessler, and Morita. Final Act. 34.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s
arguments that the Examiner erred. In reaching this decision, we have
considered all evidence presented and all arguments made by Appellant. We
are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments regarding claims 1-20.
Appellant argues the Examiner erred in finding the combination of
Atsmon and Kessler teaches “receiving at least one static error factor input
to correct said graphic output for distortion’’’ as recited in claim 1 (emphasis
added). App. Br. 10-11. More specifically, Appellant contends Kessler
teaches convergence correction considering errors in the design phase, but
does not teach correcting distortion or alignment. App. Br. 11.
During examination of a patent application, a claim is given its
broadest reasonable construction “in light of the specification as it would be
interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art.” In re Am. Acad, of Sci. Tech
Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (internal citations and quotations
omitted). There is a presumption that a claim term carries its ordinary and
customary meaning. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed.
Cir. 2007). An applicant may rebut this presumption, however, by acting as
his own lexicographer, providing a definition of the term in the specification
5
Appeal 2017-009196
Application 14/969,762
with “reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision.” See In re Paulsen,
30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994). In the absence of such a definition,
limitations are not to be read from the specification into the claims. In re
Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993). “[Although the
specification often describes very specific embodiments of the invention, we
have repeatedly warned against confining the claims to those embodiments.”
Phillips v. AWHCorp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (enbanc)
(citations omitted). Instead, the claims may embrace “different subject
matter than is illustrated in the specific embodiments in the specification.”
Nazomi Commc’ns., Inc. v. ARM Holdings, PLC, 403 F.3d 1364, 1369 (Fed.
Cir. 2005), cited with approval in Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1323.
Claim 1 recites “receiving at least one static error factor input to
correct said graphic output for distortion.” (Emphasis added). The claimed
one static error factor input includes “windshield surface, mounting, and
display unit optical variation static error factors.” Spec. ^ 150; see also
Spec. ^ 149. Accordingly, applying the broadest reasonable claim
construction, we agree with the Examiner’s determination that Kessler’s
windshield angle and curvature teaches the claimed one static error factor,
and Kessler’s convergence correction teaches the claimed correcting said
graphic output for distortion. Ans. 8; see Final Act. 11 (citing Kessler 67
(stating “convergence correction that compensates for windshield angle and
curvature”)).
Appellant has not provided evidence or argument to address the
Examiner’s findings and explain how the claimed one static error factor
input, including windshield surface, to correct graphic output for distortion
precludes Kessler’s windshield angle and curvature to provide convergence
6
Appeal 2017-009196
Application 14/969,762
correction. See Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010)
(precedential) (“If an appellant fails to present arguments on a particular
issue — or, more broadly, on a particular rejection — the Board will not, as
a general matter, unilaterally review those uncontested aspects of the
rejection.”).
Appellant further argues the Examiner erred in finding the
combination of Atsmon and Kessler teaches or suggests “receiving at least
one second dynamic error factor input after generating said graphic output
to correct said graphic output for distortion’’’ as recited in claim 1 (emphasis
added). App. Br. 12-14. More specifically, Appellant contends the claim
requires “receiving the second input after generating the graphic output,” but
Atsmon instead teaches “dynamically orienting . . . before the step of
generating a graphic output and then receiving a second input.” App. Br. 12;
see Reply Br. 2. Appellant argues Atsmon merely “generates the graphic in
the appropriate location considering a single error factor.” App. Br. 14; see
Reply Br. 3.
Claim 1 recites generating a graphic output based on a pixel position
determined from a received target position input and received first dynamic
error factor input said pixel position, and then “receiving at least one second
dynamic error factor input after generating said graphic output to correct
said graphic output for distortion, and receiving at least one static error
factor input to correct said graphic output for distortion” (emphasis added).
The claim does not require any steps be performed on the received second
dynamic error factor or received one static error factor. In other words,
claim 1 requires getting an error factor (receiving first dynamic error factor),
generating a graphic object, and then receiving an error factor (receiving
7
Appeal 2017-009196
Application 14/969,762
second dynamic error factor and first static error factor) within one process.
The only timing element required in the claim is that the second dynamic
error factor and first static error factor are received after generating a
graphic object.
Accordingly, applying the broadest reasonable claim construction, we
agree with the Examiner’s finding that Atsmon’s
[a]djlisting the presentation of data continuously (i.e., one
adjustment of presentation data after another), as well as having
cumulative adjustment based on, for example, orientation
adjustment and motion data adjustment (and any other data from
the various sensors described by Atsmon), corresponds to
receiving at least one second dynamic factor input after
generating said graphic output to correct said graphic output for
distortion.
Ans. 7-8 (citing Atsmon Fig. 6, 42, 67, 71, 72). As cited by the
Examiner (Ans. 7), Atsmon teaches “presentation of data on a display of
HMD device 201 is adjusted based on the orientation.” Atsmon ^ 71.
Atsmon further teaches the “data collection, orientation calculation, and/or
adjustment of presentation may be performed continuously (e.g., repeated at
regular intervals and/or with only processing delays between iterations) as
the orientation changes throughout the driving.” Atsmon ^ 43. In other
words, Atsmon teaches continuously and repeated adjusting the display
based on orientation changes.
Appellant has not provided evidence or argument that Atsmon’s
continuously adjusting the presentation based on orientation changes
(repeatedly calculating orientation changes and adjusting the presentation)
does not teach or otherwise suggest generating a graphic object and then
receiving a dynamic error factor input as required by claim 1.
8
Appeal 2017-009196
Application 14/969,762
Appellant further contends Atsmon does not teach an augmented
reality display system, and Kessler’s volumetric display differs from the
system of the present claims. App. Br. 9-10. We agree with the Examiner’s
finding that Atsmon teaches an augmented reality display system where
images are displayed and the presentation is dynamically oriented. Ans. 9.
We further agree with the Examiner’s finding that Kessler teaches
convergence correction which corresponds to correcting a graphic output for
distortion. Ans. 10. Appellant has not provided any argument or evidence
to address the Examiner’s findings.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1, along
with the rejections of commensurate claims 9 and 15, as well as dependent
claims 2-8, 10-14, and 16-20, for which Appellant relies on the same
arguments as discussed above for claim 1 (App. Br. 9, 15-19).
DECISION
For the above reasons, we affirm the Examiner’s decisions rejecting
claims 1-20.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv). See 37
C.F.R. § 41.50(f).
AFFIRMED
9