Ex Parte Kaino et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 29, 2017

13355927 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 29, 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.
1946-0425 3602
EXAMINER
BEARD, CHARLES LLOYD
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2616
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
13/355,927 01/23/2012
142241 7590 11/29/2017
Paratus Law Group, PLLC
1765 Greensboro Station Place
Suite 320
Tysons Corner, VA 22102
Akihiko KAINO
11/29/2017 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 AKIHIKO KAINO, YOSHIAKIIWAI, KENICHIRO 01,
SHUNICHI HOMMA, and JIANING WU
Appeal 2017-0030341
Application 13/355,927
Technology Center 2600
Before JAMES R. HUGHES, LARRY J. HUME, and
TERRENCE W. McMILLIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
HUGHES, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1—24, which constitute all the claims
pending in this application. Final Act. 1—2; App. Br. 5.2 We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Sony Corporation.
App. Br. 3.
2 We refer to Appellants’ Specification (“Spec.”) filed Jan. 23, 2012
(claiming benefit of Japanese Application No. P2011-016441, filed Jan. 28,
2011); Appeal Brief (“App. Br.”) filed Apr. 1, 2016; and Reply Brief
(“Reply Br.”) filed Dec. 20, 2016. We also refer to the Examiner’s Answer
Appeal 2017-003034
Application 13/355,927
We affirm.
Appellants ’ Invention
The invention generally concerns augmented or virtual reality
apparatuses, computer-readable media, and methods for displaying multiple
sources of interest in a display. An exemplary apparatus includes a control
unit that executes instructions to send signals (display information) notifying
a user of a first and a second source of interest. The first source of interest is
classified or determined to be a safe source of interest, for example, a real-
world object such as a building, an elevator in a building, or restaurant in a
building. The second source of interest is classified or determined to be a
potentially dangerous source of interest, for example, a real-world object
such as stairs or a driveway. The control unit also executes instructions to
display additional information associated with the first source of interest,
such as a rating of the restaurant in the building. When the second
(dangerous) source of interest is detected, the control unit executes
instructions to interrupt the display of the additional information and/or
display a warning (alarm). Spec. Tflf 2—8, 32—33, 87—89; Figs. 1,11;
Abstract.
Representative Claim
Independent claim 1, reproduced below with key disputed limitations
emphasized, exemplifies the invention:
1. An apparatus comprising:
memory storing instructions; and
a control unit executing the instructions to:
(“Ans.”) mailed Oct. 20, 2016, and Final Office Action (Final Rejection)
(“Final Act.”) mailed Nov. 2, 2015.
2
Appeal 2017-003034
Application 13/355,927
send signals to notify a user of a first source of
interest and a second source of interest, wherein:
the first source of interest is a safe source of
interest, and
the second source of interest is a dangerous
source of interest,
display additional information in association with
the first source of interest,
wherein when the dangerous source of interest is
detected, the control unit further executes instructions to
interrupt the display of the additional information.
Rejections on Appeal
1. The Examiner rejects claims 1—11, 13—17, 19-21, 23, and 24
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Alter et al. (US
2009/0293012 Al, published Nov. 26, 2009) (“Alter”), Ebersole et al. (US
2003/0210228 Al, published Nov. 13, 2003) (“Ebersole”) and Mochizuki
(US 2012/0068859 Al, published Mar. 22, 2012 (filed Sept. 20, 2010)).
2. The Examiner rejects claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Alter, Ebersole, Mochizuki, and Rammer (US
2009/0218157 Al, published Sept. 3, 2009).
3. The Examiner rejects claims 18—22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Alter, Ebersole, Mochizuki, and Vertegaal et al.
(US 2011/0043617 Al, published Feb. 24, 2011 (filed July. 26, 2010))
(“Vertegaal”).
ISSUE
Based upon our review of the record, Appellants’ contentions, and the
Examiner’s findings and conclusions, the determinative issue before us
3
Appeal 2017-003034
Application 13/355,927
follows:
Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Alter,
Ebersole, and Mochizuki collectively would have taught or suggested “when
the dangerous source of interest is detected, the control unit further executes
instructions to interrupt the display of the additional information” within the
meaning of Appellants’ claim 1 and the commensurate limitations of
claims 19, 20, and 24?
ANALYSIS
Appellants argue independent claims 1,19, 20, and 24 together. App.
Br. 12—16. Appellants provide nominal separate arguments with respect to
dependent claims 12, 18, and 22, but do not separately argue the dependent
claims with particularity and merely reiterate the contentions made with
respect to the independent claims. See App. Br. 16—18. Accordingly, we
select independent claim 1 as representative of Appellants’ arguments and
grouping with respect to claims 1—24. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
The Examiner rejects claim 1 as being obvious in view of Alter,
Ebersole, and Mochizuki. See Final Act. 10-14; Ans. 5—8. We adopt as our
own: (1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action
from which this appeal is taken (Final Act. 10—14), and (2) the reasons set
forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer (Ans. 5—8) in response to
Appellants’ Appeal Brief. We concur with the findings and conclusions
reached by the Examiner, and we address specific findings, conclusions, and
arguments for emphasis as follows.
Appellants contend Alter, Ebersole, and Mochizuki do not teach or
suggest the disputed features of representative claim 1. See App. Br. 12—16;
4
Appeal 2017-003034
Application 13/355,927
Reply Br. 4—8. Specifically, Appellants contend: (1) Alter does not teach
sending signals notifying a user of a safe source of interest and a dangerous
source of interest (see Reply Br. 4); (2) Ebersole does not teach sending
signals notifying a user of a safe source of interest, displaying “additional
information associated with the safe source of interest” (App. Br. 13), or
interrupting the display of the additional information (see App. Br. 13, Reply
Br. 5—6); and (3) Mochizuki does not teach notifying a user of a safe source
of interest, “displaying additional information in association with the safe
source of interest” (App. Br. 13), or executing instructions to “interrupt the
display of the additional information—“[n]o additional information
associated with the safe source of interest is being displayed and being
interrupted in the system of Mochizuki” (App. Br. 15) (see App. Br. 14—15;
Reply Br. 7—8).
We agree with the Examiner and find a preponderance of the evidence
demonstrates that the combination of Alter, Ebersole, and Mochizuki would
have taught or at least suggested the disputed features of Appellants’
claim 1. Appellants improperly attack the references individually instead of
addressing the combination of Alter, Ebersole, and Mochizuki as a whole,
and fails to appreciate the collective teachings of Alter, Ebersole, and
Mochizuki. See App. Br. 13—16; Reply Br. 4—8; cf. Ans. 7—8. The cited
references must be read, not in isolation, but for what each fairly teaches in
combination with the prior art as a whole. See In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800
F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (one cannot show non-obviousness by
attacking references individually where the rejections are based on
combinations of references). Appellants’ arguments do not take into account
5
Appeal 2017-003034
Application 13/355,927
what the combination of Alter, Ebersole, and Mochizuki would have
suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art —
The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a
secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the
structure of the primary reference;. .. Rather, the test is what the
combined teachings of the references would have suggested to
those of ordinary skill in the art.
In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981) (citations omitted).
With respect to Appellants’ first contention of error, Appellants
misconstrue the Examiner’s findings with respect to Alter. The Examiner
finds (and we concur) that Alter describes the physical structure (apparatus)
for sending signals to notify a user (i.e., displaying) of multiple sources of
interest. See Final Act. 10-12; Ans. 7—8. Appellants do not dispute that
Alter describes the recited structure, nor that Alter at least suggests multiple
sources of interest. Additionally, the Examiner finds Alter describes
displaying additional information associated with sources of interest (safe
sources of interest). See Final Act. 11—12; Ans. 7—8 (citing Alter H 34,
87—90). Appellants do not address this finding by the Examiner.
With respect to Appellants’ second contention of error, Appellants
also misconstrue the Examiner’s findings with respect to Ebersole. The
Examiner finds (and we concur), Ebersole describes displaying virtual or
augmented reality information including hazards or dangers (dangerous
sources of interest)—e.g., flames or fire (see Final Act. 12—14; Ans. 7—8
(citing Ebersole 92, 117—118, 125—126, 130-131, 136)); non-dangerous
(i.e., safe) sources of interest)—e.g., a safe path or safe navigation route (see
Final Act. 12—14; Ans. 7—8 (citing Ebersole H 91—92, 118, 130, 134, 137));
and additional information associated with the safe sources of interest)—
e.g., navigation information, messages, codes, and/or indicators (see Final
6
Appeal 2017-003034
Application 13/355,927
Act. 12-14; Ans. 7-8 (citing Ebersole H 91-92, 118, 125, 130, 134, 137)).
Appellants do not sufficiently explain why Ebersole does not at least suggest
these features.
With respect to Appellants’ third contention of error, Appellants again
misconstrue the Examiner’s findings with respect to Mochizuki. The
Examiner finds (and we concur) that Mochizuki describes displaying safe
information (sources of interest) and additional information associated with
the safe sources of interest such as navigation and intersection information
(see Final Act. 13—14; Ans. 7—8 (citing Mochizuki || 49, 51—52, 55, 57) (see
also Mochizuki H 46, 48) and interrupting the additional information
associated with the safe sources of interest when a hazardous situation is
detected (see Final Act. 13—14; Ans. 7—8 (citing Mochizuki || 50—52,
57—58)). Additionally, we find Mochizuki at least suggests displaying
conventional navigation information (i.e., first, safe sources of interest and
additional information associated with various sources of interest) (see
Mochizuki || 46, 51, 52) and interrupting the display of navigation
information (see Mochizuki 151; Figs. 2-4). Appellants do not sufficiently
explain why Mochizuki does not at least suggest these features.
We find that it would have been well within the skill of one skilled in
the art to combine such known techniques to provide an apparatus capable of
displaying multiple sources of interest and information associated with the
sources of interest as taught by Alter, displaying virtual or augmented reality
information including hazardous and safe sources of interest and additional
information associated with the safe sources of interest as taught by
Ebersole, and interrupting the display of additional information associated
with a safe source of interest (navigation information) as taught by
7
Appeal 2017-003034
Application 13/355,927
Mochizuki. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007)
(“[I]f a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of
ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar
devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual
application is beyond his or her skill.”). We are not persuaded that
combining the respective familiar elements of the cited references in the
manner proffered by the Examiner would have been “uniquely challenging
or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art” at the time of Appellant’s
invention. Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162
(Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing KSR, 550 U.S. at 418).
Thus, Appellants do not persuade us of error in the Examiner’s
obviousness rejection of representative independent claim 1. Accordingly,
we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of representative claim 1, independent
claims 19, 20, and 24, and dependent claims 2—18 and 21—23, not separately
argued with particularity {supra).
CONCLUSION
Appellants have not shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claims 1—24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1—24.
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).
AFFIRMED
8