Ex Parte DeMers et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 15, 2016

13207010 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 15, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO.
13/207,010
89955 7590
HONEYWELL/IPL
Patent Services
115 Tabor Road
P.O.Box 377
FILING DATE
08/10/2011
04/19/2016
MORRIS PLAINS, NJ 07950
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Robert E. DeMers
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
H0029406-5446 (002.1386) 5073
EXAMINER
MAZUMDER, TAPAS
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2616
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/19/2016 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):
patentservices-us@honeywell.com
DL-ACS-SM-IP@Honeywell.com
docketing@ifllaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ROBERT E. DEMERS, STEPHEN MEED, and
JEFF LANCASTER
Appeal2014-005589
Application 13/207,0101
Technology Center 2600
Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, JEFFREY A. STEPHENS, and
STACY B. MARGOLIES, Administrative Patent Judges.
MARGOLIES, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This appeal arises under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final Office Action rejecting claims 1-15. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Honeywell
International, Inc. App. Br. 2.
Appeal2014-005589
Application 13/207,010
SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION
The invention is directed generally to a virtual display that depicts a
view of an external environment and a portion of a structure that blocks a
view of the external environment. See Abstract.
Claim 7 is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal and is
reproduced below:
7. An apparatus comprising:
a display device for displaying visual images within an
enclosure;
a location device configured to determine a location within
the enclosure in reference to an external environment;
at least one memory device configured to store data
representing a visual image of the external environment; and
a processing device configured to command the display
device to simultaneously generate (i) a view of the external
environment from the location and (ii) a structure representation,
the structure representation being a visual depiction of a structure
in the enclosure and appearing in front of the generated view of
the external environment without blocking the generated view of
the external environment.
REFERENCES AND REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejected claims 1--4, 8, and 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable in view of Stavaeus (US 2008/002163 6 A 1; Jan. 24,
2008), Jong (US 2005/0280706 Al; Dec. 22, 2005), and Tokuyama (US
6,796,408; Sept. 28, 2004). Final Act. 6-10.
The Examiner rejected claims 7, 10, 12, and 13 under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as being unpatentable in view of Stavaeus and Jong. Final Act. 3---6.
2
Appeal2014-005589
Application 13/207,010
The Examiner rejected claims 5 and 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable in view of Stavaeus, Jong, Tokuyama, and Trescott (US
2008/0158371 Al; July 3, 2008). Final Act. 10-12.
The Examiner rejected claims 11, 14 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable in view of Stavaeus, Jong, and Trescott. Final Act.
12-14.
ISSUE
The pivotal issue is whether the Examiner erred in finding that
Stavaeus and Jong teach a processor configured to command a display
device to simultaneously generate a view of an external environment and a
"structure representation, the structure representation being a visual
depiction of a structure in the enclosure and appearing in front of the
generated view of the external environment without blocking the generated
view of the external environment," as recited in independent claim 7 and
similarly recited in independent claim 1.
ANALYSIS
Appellants argue, among other things, that Jong does not disclose
simultaneously rendering the claimed structure representation, and that the
Examiner does not rely on Stavaeus for disclosing this claim element. App.
Br. 12. Specifically, Appellants argue that Jong discloses simultaneous
rendering of a window covering onto a virtual window, and that the window
covering is a visual depiction of a structure that is not in the enclosure. Id.
Appellants also argue that the window covering actually blocks the
generated view of the external environment. Id.
3
Appeal2014-005589
Application 13/207,010
The Examiner responds that, in Jong, either the window or the
window covering is a structure. Ans. 15. The Examiner finds that Jong's
window does not block the generated view, and Jong's window covering can
be moved up so that the user's view of the external environment can be
unblocked. Id. at 15-16.
Appellants persuade us that the Examiner erred. The Examiner relies
on Jong for disclosing the claim element of a processing device configured
to command the display device to simultaneously generate both a view of
the external environment and "a structure representation, the structure
representation being a visual depiction of a structure in the enclosure and
appearing in front of the generated view of the external environment without
blocking the generated view of the external environment." See Ans. 4--5,
Final Act. 4--5. Appellants' Specification defines "enclosure" as "an
enclosed space within an environment where the structure of the enclosure
blocks the view from within the enclosure," and defines "structure" as "an
object that is part of the enclosure." Spec. 2-3. Neither the window nor the
window covering in Jong is the claimed "structure representation" because
neither is a visual depiction of a structure in the enclosure (as required by
claim 7) or a visual depiction of a portion of the structure (as required by
claim 1 ). The enclosure in Jong does not have a window or window
covering; rather, the enclosure is a windowless room. See Jong i-f 38 ("[T]he
goal of the present invention [is] to simulate an outdoor scene visible
window for a windowless room .... "); i-fi-1 1---6, 12. Jong discloses that the
window and window covering are virtual to create the appearance of a real
window and window covering in a windowless room. See Jong, Abstract, i-f
4
Appeal2014-005589
Application 13/207,010
38. We therefore disagree with the Examiner's findings that Jong discloses
commanding a display device to generate the claimed structure
representation, as required by claim 7 and similarly required by claim 1. See
Ans. 4--7, Final Act. 4--7. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's
rejection of independent claims 1 and 7 and dependent claims 2---6 and 8-15.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-15.
REVERSED
\
5