Ex Parte Hamelink

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 15, 2017

14062086 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 15, 2017)

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.
14/062,086 10/24/2013 Lawrence Robert Hamelink 12473 (VIST:0044) 1064
75576 7590 03/16/2017
Johnson Controls, Inc.
c/o Fletcher Yoder PC
P.O. Box 692289
Houston, TX 77269
EXAMINER
HARRIS, DOROTHY H
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2625
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/16/2017 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 LAWRENCE ROBERT HAMELINK
____________

Appeal 2017-001338
Application 14/062,086
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, JEFFREY S. SMITH, and
BETH Z. SHAW, Administrative Patent Judges.

SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2017-001338
Application 14/062,086

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the rejection of
claims 1–5, 8–14, and 17–19, which are all the claims pending in the
application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

Representative Claim
1. A system comprising:
a gaze tracker configured to provide gaze data
corresponding to a direction that an operator is looking; and
one or more processors configured to:
analyze the gaze data to determine whether a display is in
a central vision of the operator or whether the display is in a
peripheral vision of the operator;
provide a first type of image data to the display when the
display is in the central vision of the operator; and
provide a second type of image data to the display when
the display is in the peripheral vision of the operator;
wherein the first type of image data comprises first three-
dimensional (3D) image data that produces a first 3D image
when the display is within the central vision of the operator,
and the second type of image data comprises second 3D image
data that produces a second 3D image when the display is
within the peripheral vision of the operator; and
wherein the first 3D image includes a smaller
representation of a graphic of the second 3D image, the second
3D image comprises a subset of graphics from the first 3D
image, or a combination thereof.

Appeal 2017-001338
Application 14/062,086

3
Prior Art
Naegle US 2001/0028352 A1 Oct. 11, 2001
Grabowski US 2009/0005961 A1 Jan. 1, 2009
Ushio US 2011/0273543 A1 Nov. 10, 2011
Ng-Thow-Hing US 2015/0062168 A1 Mar. 5, 2015

Examiner’s Rejections
Claims 1, 2, 5, 10–14, 18, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as unpatentable over Naegle and Grabowski.
Claims 3, 4, and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Naegle, Grabowski, and Ng-Thow-Hing.
Claims 1, 2, 5, 8, 10–14, and 17–19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as unpatentable over Naegle and Ushio.
Claims 3, 4, and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Naegle, Ushio, and Ng-Thow-Hing.

ANALYSIS
We adopt the findings of fact made by the Examiner in the Final
Action and Examiner’s Answer as our own. We concur with the conclusions
reached by the Examiner for the reasons given in the Examiner’s Answer.
We highlight the following points for emphasis.

Section 103 rejection based on Naegle and Grabowski
Claim 1 recites “wherein the first 3D image includes a smaller
representation of a graphic of the second 3D image, the second 3D image
comprises a subset of graphics from the first 3D image, or a combination
thereof.” The Examiner relies on Figures 14A and 14B of Naegle to teach
Appeal 2017-001338
Application 14/062,086

4
this limitation. Final Act. 6–7. Appellant contends the in-focus, or sharp,
image of virtual cable shown in region 318a of Figure 14A of Grabowski is
not the same graphic as that of the out-of-focus, or blurry, image shown in
Figure 14B. Reply Br. 3. According to Appellant, changing the
blurriness/sharpness of an image does not teach modifying the size of the
image, nor does it teach displaying a smaller or larger representation of a
graphic. App. Br. 9.
However, claim 1 recites “the first 3D image includes a smaller
representation of a graphic of the second 3D image.” Claim 1 does not
recite modifying the size of the displayed image. Claim 1 also does not
recite displaying a smaller or larger representation of a graphic. Appellants’
contentions are not commensurate with the scope of claim 1. The scope of
“a smaller representation of a graphic of the second 3D image” encompasses
a data file for representing a graphic of the second 3D image, where the data
file is smaller than, and included in, a data file for representing the first
image.
The blurry image of the tree shown in Grabowski becomes in-focus
by adding data to provide additional details about the tree. The in-focus
image of the tree includes data representing the blurry image of the tree, and
additional data to show more details. Therefore, the in-focus image of the
tree in Grabowski teaches the “first 3D image includes a smaller
representation of a graphic of the second 3D image” within the meaning of
claim 1.
Further, the disputed wherein clause also recites “the second 3D
image comprises a subset of graphics from the first 3D image, or a
combination thereof.” Thus, to teach the disputed wherein clause, the prior
Appeal 2017-001338
Application 14/062,086

5
art only needs to teach one of either “first 3D image includes a smaller
representation of a graphic of the second 3D image” or “the second 3D
image comprises a subset of graphics from the first 3D image,” or both. The
difference between the blurry image and the in-focus image shown in
Figures 14A and 14B of Grabowski is that the blurry image is represented by
less data than the in-focus image, which is “a subset of graphics from the
first 3D image” within the meaning of claim 1.
Cumulative to the Examiner’s findings for the combination of Naegle
and Grabowski, we highlight Figures 18A and 18B and the corresponding
text of Naegle teach the limitations recited in claim 1. The Examiner finds
Figures 18A and 18B and the corresponding text of Naegle teach the
limitations of “analyze the gaze,” “provide a first type of image data,”
“provide a second type of image data,” and the first “wherein” clause recited
in claim 1. Final Act. 4–5. Appellant does not contest these findings.
We highlight that Figure 18A of Naegle teaches that when a user
gazes at an image including pixel 374, the image is within foveal region 354,
and has 32 samples (¶¶ 229–230), where a sample indicates information
such as color, depth, transparency, blur, and intensity (¶ 15). Figure 18B
teaches that when the user changes his gaze so that the image including
pixel 374 is within peripheral region 350, the image has one sample (¶ 231).
Because the 32 samples for pixel 374 in the foveal image of Figure 18A
include the one sample in the peripheral image of Figure 18B, Naegle
teaches “wherein the first 3D image includes a smaller representation of a
graphic of the second 3D image, the second 3D image comprises a subset of
graphics from the first 3D image, or a combination thereof.” Thus, Naegle
alone teaches the limitations of claim 1.
Appeal 2017-001338
Application 14/062,086

6
We sustain the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Naegle and Grabowski. Appellant does not present
arguments for separate patentability of claims 2, 5, 10–14, 18, and 19, which
fall with claim 1.

Section 103 rejection based on Naegle, Grabowski, and
Ng-Thow-Hing
Appellant presents arguments for the patentability of claims 3, 4, and
9 similar to those presented for claim 1. App. Br. 11. Appellant’s
arguments are unpersuasive for the reasons given in our analysis of claim 1.
We sustain the rejection of claims 3, 4, and 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Naegle, Grabowski, and Ng-Thow-Hing.

Section 103 rejection based on Naegle and Ushio
Appellant contends the combination of Naegle and Ushio does not
teach “wherein the first 3D image includes a smaller representation of a
graphic of the second 3D image, the second 3D image comprises a subset of
graphics from the first 3D image, or a combination thereof,” as recited in
claim 1. Reply Br. 3–4. Because Naegle alone teaches the limitations of
claim 1, as discussed above, we find the combination of Naegle and Ushio
also teaches the limitations of claim 1.
Further, displaying a three dimensional image using the left image and
the right image shown in Figure 4 of Ushio, then changing the distribution of
samples in the three dimensional image as the viewer’s gaze changes, as
taught by Paragraph 228 of Naegle, does no more than yield the predictable
result of saving memory and bandwidth by using extra samples of 3D image
Appeal 2017-001338
Application 14/062,086

7
data only in areas that benefit from increased resolution as taught by
Paragraph 213 of Naegle.
We sustain the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Naegle and Ushio. Appellant does not present arguments
for separate patentability of claims 2, 5, 10–14, 18, and 19, which fall with
claim 1.

Section 103 rejection based on Naegle, Ushio, and Ng-Thow-Hing
Appellant presents arguments for the patentability of claims 3, 4, and
9 similar to those presented for claim 1, which we find unpersuasive. For
the reasons discussed above with respect to claim 1, we sustain the rejection
of claims 3, 4, and 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Naegle,
Ushio, and Ng-Thow-Hing.

DECISION
The rejections of claims 1–5, 8–14, and 17–19 are 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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.50(f).

AFFIRMED