Ex Parte Kipman et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 12, 2016

13192305 (P.T.A.B. May. 12, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/192,305 07/27/2011 AlexKipman
41505 7590 05/16/2016
Baker & Hostetler LLP (MICROSOFT CORPORATION)
CIRA CENTRE, 12TH FLOOR
2929 ARCH STREET
PHILADELPHIA, PA 19104-2891
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.
326454.03/103680.006762 5747
EXAMINER
LIM, STEVEN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2686
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/16/2016 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):
usdocket@microsoft.com
eofficemonitor@bakerlaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ALEX KIPMAN, KUDO TSUNODA, TODD ERIC,
JOHN CLAVIN, and KATHRYN STONE PEREZ
Appeal2014-007512
Application 13/192,305
Technology Center 2600
Before BRUCE R. WINSOR, DANIEL N. FISHMAN, and
AARON W. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judges.
WINSOR, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection
of claims 1-20, which constitute all the claims pending in this application.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 The real party in interest identified by Appellants is Microsoft Corporation.
(App. Br. 1.)
Appeal2014-007512
Application 13/192,305
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants' disclosed invention relates to presenting a user with a
three-dimensional (3-D) virtual environment as well as non-visual virtual
feedback, such as haptic feedback, for interactions that the user makes with
virtual objects in that environment. (Abstract.) Claim 1, which is
illustrative, reads as follows:
1. A system for providing non-visual sensory feedback to a
user interacting with a virtual object, comprising:
a processor; and
a memory communicatively coupled to the processor
when the system is operational, the memory bearing processor-
executable instructions that, when executed on the processor,
cause the system to at least:
receive data captured by a capture device, the data
reflecting a user location;
predict, based on the data, that a user is likely to
interact with the virtual object at a future time;
compute, prior to the future time, a non-visual
sensory feedback for the predicted future interaction; and
provide the computed non-visual sensory feedback
to the user at the future time.
The Examiner relies on the following prior art in rejecting the claims: 2
Davis us 5,423,554 June 13, 1995
Mor us 6,088,020 July 11, 2000
Doi US 6,278,418 Bl Aug. 21, 2001
Schleppenbach et al. US 6, 705,868 B 1 Mar.16, 2004
("Schleppenbach")
2 See Notice of References Cited (PT0-892), Feb. 16, 2012; Notice of
References Cited (PT0-892), Oct. 26, 2012.
2
Appeal2014-007512
Application 13/192,305
Rosenberg et al.
("Rosenberg")
Hughes et al.
("Hughes")
US 2006/0030383 Al Feb. 9, 2006
US 2006/0061545 Al Mar. 23, 2006
Appellants' admitted prior art ("AP A").
Claims 1---6, 11, 13, 14, and 18-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Davis, Hughes, and APA. (See Final
Act. 2-5.)
Claims 7-9 and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Davis, Hughes, APA, and Rosenberg. (See Final Act. 5.)3
Claim 10 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Davis, Hughes, AP A, Rosenberg, and Doi. (See Final
Act. 5-6.)
Claim 12 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Davis, Hughes, APA, and Doi. (See Final Act. 6.)
Claim 16 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Davis, Hughes, AP A, and Schleppenbach. (See Final Act.
6-7.)
Claim 17 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Davis, Hughes, APA, and Mor. (See Final Act. 7.)
Rather than repeat the arguments here, we refer to the Briefs ("App.
Br." filed Dec. 23, 2013; "Reply Br." filed June 24, 2014) and the
Specification ("Spec." filed July 27, 2011) for the positions of Appellants
and the Final Office Action ("Final Act." mailed June 21, 2013) and Answer
3 We treat the failure to mention AP A in the rejections of claims that depend,
directly or indirectly, from independent claims 1 and 11 to be an oversight of
no consequence. (See Final Act. 5-7.)
3
Appeal2014-007512
Application 13/192,305
("Ans." mailed Apr. 24, 2014) for the reasoning, findings, and conclusions
of the Examiner. Only those arguments actually made by Appellants have
been considered in this decision. Arguments that Appellants did not make in
the Briefs have not been considered and are deemed to be waived. See
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2013).
ISSUE
Based on Appellants' arguments, we discuss the appeal in reference
to claim 1. (Compare App. Br. 9-12 with App. Br. 5-9.) The issue
presented by Appellants' contentions is as follows: Does the combination of
Davis, Hughes, and APA teach or suggest a system that "compute[s], prior
to [a] future time, a non-visual sensory feedback for [a] predicted future
interaction" (the "disputed limitation") as recited in claim 1?
ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds that Davis teaches a system that "predict[s], based
on ... data [reflecting a user location], that a user is likely to interact with
[a] virtual object at a future time," as recited in claim 1. (Final Act. 2 (citing
Davis col. 13, 11. 13-15, Fig. 9A (items xp, yp)).) The Examiner relies on
Hughes to teach a system that "compute[s], prior to [a] future time, a non-
visual sensory feedback" to be presented at a future time "for [a] predicted
future interaction" as taught by Davis. (Final Act. 3 (citing Hughes i-fi-1 39,
42, 44, Fig. 1 (items 103-107, 113-117, 125 (microcomputer))).)
Appellants contend as follows:
[W]hile both Hughes and the claimed subject matter involve
computing vibrations to send to a user before an interaction that
causes this vibration to be sent to the user, their difference is as
4
Appeal2014-007512
Application 13/192,305
follows: Hughes computes possible vibrations to provide to a
user in the abstract, without regard to any predicted future
interaction that will cause the vibration to be provided to a user.
In contrast, the claimed subject matter involves computing a
specific vibration based on a specific predicted future interaction
that will cause the vibration to be provided to the user.
(App. Br. 6.) Appellants further explain as follows:
Hughes computes possible vibrations to provide to a user in the
abstract because Hughes does not calculate those vibrations
based on (or applied to) some specific interaction.
That is, Hughes calculates a variety of vibrations that
could theoretically be applied to a future interaction, and then
later on, when there is actually an interaction, calculates which
of these predetermined vibrations corresponds to the interaction.
So, Hughes is not computing the non-visual sensory feedback for
that specific predicted future interaction before the time at which
that future interaction occurs. Put another way, Hughes has a set
of pre-determined vibrations stored, but does not determine
which of these vibrations is to be given in response to a particular
future interaction until that future interaction actually occurs.
(Reply Br. 4--5.)
We find Appellants' contention unpersuasive because it argues
limitations not found in claim 1, i.e., that the claimed system computes a
"specific vibration based on a specific predicted future interaction" (App. Br.
6 (emphases added)). During prosecution, claims are given their broadest
reasonable interpretation in light of the Specification, In re Morris, 127 F.3d
1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997), without importing un-recited limitations into
the claims, In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The
disputed limitation of claim 1 merely requires that the "non-visual sensory
feedback for the predicted future interaction" be computed at some time
"prior to the future time." The claim recites no other limitations on the time,
manner, or nature of the computation. Indeed, nothing in claim 1 precludes
5
Appeal2014-007512
Application 13/192,305
the computation of the "non-visual sensory feedback" from being performed
by the processor prior to the recited "receiv[ing]" and "predict[ing]"
limitations.
Furthermore, as pointed out by the Examiner, Appellants' contention
does not take into account the Examiner's reliance on Davis in combination
with Hughes. (See Ans. 7-8 (§ (5)a.1.c ).) "[O]ne cannot show non-
obviousness by attacking references individually where, as here, the
rejections are based on combinations of references." In re Keller, 642 F.2d
413, 426 (CCPA 1981).
Accordingly, we conclude that Hughes's teaching of computing and
storing a set of predetermined vibrations for use when an interaction actually
occurs (see Reply Br. 4), when considered in light of Davis's teaching of
predicting a future user interaction, is encompassed within the broadest
reasonable interpretation of the disputed limitation.
Appellants do not persuade us of error in the rejection of claim 1.
Although nominally argued separately, Appellants' arguments for
independent claims 11 and 19 substantially repeat the arguments made for
claim 1. (See App. Br. 9-10.) Appellants contend that none of Rosenberg,
Doi, Schleppenbach, and Mor cures the deficiencies of the combination of
Davis and Hughes (id. at 10-12), but do not otherwise separately argue
dependent claims 2-10, 12-18, and 20 with particularity (see id. at 9-12).
Accordingly, we sustain the rejections of claims 1-20.
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-20 is affirmed.
6
Appeal2014-007512
Application 13/192,305
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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l)(iv) (2013).
AFFIRMED
7