Ex Parte Harvill et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jul 29, 2004

09189179 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 29, 2004)

1
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was
not written for publication and is not binding precedent of the
Board.
Paper No. 24
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________
Ex parte YOUNG L. HARVILL, JEAN-JACQUES G. GRIMAUD
and JARON Z. LANIER
__________
Appeal No. 2003-1121
Application 09/189,179
___________
ON BRIEF
___________
Before OWENS, LEVY and BLANKENSHIP, Administrative Patent Judges.
OWENS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This appeal is from the final rejection of claims 17, 18,
20-28, 30-37 and 39, which are all of the claims pending in the
application.
THE INVENTION
The appellants claim an apparatus and method for providing a
tactile stimulus to a body part of a human operator in response
to interaction, in a virtual reality system, of a virtual
Appeal No. 2003-1121
Application 09/189,179

2
depiction of the body part with a virtual object. Claim 17,
directed toward the apparatus, is illustrative:
17. An apparatus for providing a stimulus to a human
operator, the apparatus for use in a virtual reality system in
which a part of the body of the human operator is depicted as a
virtual body part in a visual display, the apparatus comprising:
a position sensing subsystem configured to track a position
of the part of the body of the human operator;
a signaling unit coupled to the position sensing subsystem
and configured to provide an indication in response to the
virtual body part contacting a virtual object; and
a vibrating member for providing a tactile stimulus to the
part of the body of the human operator in response to the
indication from the signaling unit.
THE REFERENCES
King et al. (King) 4,565,999 Jan. 21, 1986
Fallacaro et al. (Fallacaro) 4,771,344 Sep. 13, 1988
(filed Nov. 13, 1986)
Leysieffer et al. (Leysieffer) 4,791,620 Dec. 13, 1988
(filed Mar. 21, 1986)
S.S. Fisher et al. (Fisher), “Virtual Environment Display
System”, ACM 1986 Workshop on Interactive 3D Graphics, Chapel
Hill, North Carolina 1-11 (Oct. 23-24, 1986).
THE REJECTIONS
The claims stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as follows:
claim 17 over Fisher in view of Fallacaro, claims 18-28, 32-37
and 39 over Fisher in view of Fallacaro and Leysieffer, and
claims 30 and 31 over Fisher in view of Fallacaro, Leysieffer and
King.
Appeal No. 2003-1121
Application 09/189,179

3
OPINION
We reverse the aforementioned rejections. We need to
address only the broadest independent claim, i.e., claim 17. The
examiner does not rely upon Leysieffer and King for any
disclosure that remedies the deficiency in Fisher and Fallacaro
as to the broadest claim.
Fisher discloses a system for visceral interaction of a user
with a surrounding virtual environment through gesture technology
(page 4). Fisher discloses (pages 4-6):
For tactile interaction with the displayed three
dimensional environment, the user wears lightweight
glove-like devices that transmit data-records of arm,
hand and finger shape and position to a host computer.
The gloves are instrumented with flex-sensing devices
at each finger joint, between fingers and across the
palm of the hand (see Fig. 7). Motion tracking sensors
like that described for tracking head motion are
mounted on each glove to transmit position and
orientation of the hands and arms to the host system
(see Fig. 8). One application of this technology is to
provide a three-dimensional cursor in the displayed
environment. And, in coordination with connected
speech recognition technology, the hand and arm gesture
information is used to effect indicated gestures in the
synthesized or remote environment (e.g. control of
robotic arms and end-effectors, and associated control
of auxiliary camera positions). Current
implementations of this research include a three-
dimensional graphic database of an articulated hand
that, in the display environment, is spatially
correspondent with the viewer’s real hand and is
directly controlled by the instrumented glove device
(see Fig. 9). With this capability, the operator can
pick-up and manipulate virtual objects that appear in
Appeal No. 2003-1121
Application 09/189,179

4
the surrounding virtual environment.
Fallacaro discloses a system for stimulating a viewer in
real time correspondence with one or more events occurring during
an audio and/or visual presentation (col. 1, lines 7-11).
Fallacaro discloses (col. 3, lines 24-41):
By way of example, the events may comprise punches
thrown and landed by boxers in a boxing match, and the
stimulation may comprise a gentle rap applied across
the knuckles of the viewers each time a boxer lands a
punch. In this embodiment, the viewers have the option
of selecting as between the two boxers such that a rap
will be applied across the knuckles of the viewers only
in response to punches landed by one or the other of
the two boxers. In another embodiment, the events
comprise specific frequencies occurring during a
concert, and the stimulation comprises impacting some
portion of the listener’s body each time the specific
frequencies occur. In a still further embodiment, the
events may comprise shots fired by tanks as viewed on a
video monitor in accordance with instruction received
from a video cartridge, and the stimulation may
comprise simulated firing of a three dimensional toy
tank situated in proximity to the participants.
The examiner argues (answer, page 6):
Fisher teaches a tactile input glove device which means
a user’s hand can feel the touch when a virtual body (a
glove on a display) contacting (selecting) a virtual
object (see figures 7-8) and tactile means for feeling
or means proceeding from the sense of touch (see
Webster’s II New Riverside University Dictionary). On
the other hand, if Fischer’s tactile input glove is not
provided a tactile feedback to a user to indicate a
virtual body contacting a virtual object, the tactile
input glove has no meaning since the tactile glove is
for a user to wear to controlling the motion or
movement of a virtual object on a display.
Appeal No. 2003-1121
Application 09/189,179

5
The examiner’s argument that Fisher’s tactile input glove is
for a user to wear to control the movement of a virtual object on
a display is correct. However, the examiner’s interpretation of
Fisher as disclosing that a user wearing a tactile input glove
feels the touch when a virtual glove contacts a virtual object on
a display is incorrect. As indicated by the above-cited portion
of Fisher, the term “tactile” as used by Fisher refers to the
interaction between the glove and the displayed virtual
environment, an exemplified interaction occurring when the
tactile input glove is used to cause a virtual glove to pick up
and manipulate virtual objects. Fisher does not disclose
feedback from the virtual environment to the user through the
glove.
The examiner argues that “[i]t would have been obvious to
have modified Fisher with the teaching of Fallacaro et al, since
Fisher and Fallacaro both provide feedback to an operator”
(answer, page 3). Actually, neither Fisher nor Fallacaro
provides tactile feedback to an operator. Fisher’s tactile input
glove provides input to the virtual environment, but there is no
feedback to that input through the glove. Fallacaro’s system
Appeal No. 2003-1121
Application 09/189,179

6
provides tactile stimulation to persons observing an audio and/or
visual presentation, but those persons do not provide input to
which that stimulation is a response.
We therefore conclude that the examiner has not carried the
burden of establishing a prima facie case of obviousness of the
appellants’ claimed invention.
DECISION
The rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of claim 17 over Fisher
in view of Fallacaro, claims 18-28, 32-37 and 39 over Fisher in
view of Fallacaro and Leysieffer, and claims 30 and 31 over
Fisher in view of Fallacaro, Leysieffer and King, are reversed.
REVERSED
)
TERRY J. OWENS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
STUART S. LEVY )
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
)
) INTERFERENCES
)
HOWARD B. BLANKENSHIP )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Appeal No. 2003-1121
Application 09/189,179

7
B. Noel Kivlin
Conley, Rose & Tayon
P.O. Box 398
Austin, TX 78767
TJO/ki