Ex Parte Kurzweil

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 31, 2017

10734618 (P.T.A.B. May. 31, 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.
10/734,618 12/12/2003 Raymond C. Kurzweil 14202-006001 1664
26161 7590 06/02/2017
FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. (BO)
P.O. BOX 1022
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55440-1022
EXAMINER
NOLAN, PETER D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3661
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/02/2017 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):
PATDOCTC@fr.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte RAYMOND C. KURZWEIL
Appeal 2015-0023161
Application 10/734,6182
Technology Center 3600
Before HUBERT C. LORIN, TARA L. HUTCHINGS, and
MATTHEW S. MEYERS, Administrative Patent Judges.
HUTCHINGS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
1 Our decision references Appellant’s Appeal Brief (“App. Br.,” filed
Sept. 9, 2014) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” mailed Dec. 22, 2014), the
Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed Oct. 27, 2014) and Final Office Action
(“Final Act.,” mailed Jan. 16, 2014), and the Board’s Decision on Appeal
(“Prior Decision,” mailed Feb. 4, 2013).
2 Appellant identifies Kurzweil Technologies, Inc. as the real party in
interest. App. Br. 1.
Appeal 2015-002316
Application 10/734,618
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1, 4—15, and 18—26. An oral hearing was held on
Febraury 23, 2017. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
CLAIMED INVENTION
Appellant’s claimed invention “relates to virtual reality devices, and
in particular, using these devices for communication and contact.” Spec. 1,
11. 4—6.
Claims 1 and 9 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1,
reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A virtual reality encounter system comprising,
a mannequin;
a camera coupled to the mannequin, the camera capturing
an image of a first, physical location in which the mannequin is
disposed, and producing a first video image signal from the first
captured image;
a microphone coupled to the mannequin;
a processor configured to
receive audio signals from the microphone coupled
to the mannequin;
supplement the received audio signals with stored
virtual sounds;
receive the first video image signal;
morph the first video image signal; and
overlay a virtual environment over one or more
portions of the first video image signal to form a virtual
scene;
an adapter to send to a second, different physical location
the morphed, first video image signal with the overlaid virtual
scene to a communications network and the supplemented
received audio signals and to receive a second, video image
2
Appeal 2015-002316
Application 10/734,618
signal from the communications network, the second video
image signal of the second, different physical location; and
a set of goggles to render the second video image of the
second, different physical location on a pair of displays that are
integrated with the set of goggles.
REJECTIONS
Claims 1 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, as indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly
claim the subject matter that Appellant regards as the invention.
Claims 1, 8—10, 13, 15, 20, 21, and 24—26 are rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Abbasi (US 6,786,863 B2, iss. Sept.
7, 2004), Yee (US 6,016,385, iss. Jan. 18, 2000), Biocca (US
2002/0080094 Al, pub. June 27, 2002), and Saylor (US 7,466,827 B2, iss.
Dec. 16, 2008).
Claims 4—7, 14, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Abbasi, Yee, Biocca, Saylor, and Tremblay
(US 2004/0046777 Al, pub. Mar. 11, 2004).
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Abbasi, Yee, Biocca, Saylor, Tremblay, and Simmons
(US 2003/0030397 Al, pub. Feb. 13, 2003).
Claims 22 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Abbasi, Yee, Biocca, Saylor, and Simmons.
ANALYSIS
Indefiniteness
In rejecting independent claims 1 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph, the Examiner takes the position that it is unclear what
3
Appeal 2015-002316
Application 10/734,618
constitutes “stored virtual sounds,” as recited in claim 1, and similarly
recited in claim 15. Final Act. 6—7. The Examiner maintains that “[i]t is not
clear whether the scope of the claim limitation is only a stored sound file or
clip, or if the scope includes any stored computer-generated or synthetic
means to create an auditory impression, perceived to be what it is not in
actuality.” Id. at 7.
We agree with Appellant that the inquiry into the particular form of
the stored virtual sounds (e.g., a stored sound file or clip that is computer
generated or simulated) goes to breadth, not indefmiteness. See App. Br.
10-11; see also In re Miller, 441 F.2d 689, 693 (CCPA 1971) (“[Bjreadth is
not to be equated with indefmiteness.”). In our view, a person of ordinary
skill in the art would understand what is claimed when the claims are read in
light of the Specification, including the plain claim language, namely, that
the claimed stored virtual sounds supplement sounds that are received from
the microphone. See Spec. 8; see also Orthokinetics, Inc. v. Safety Travel
Chairs, Inc., 806 F.2d 1565, 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (The test for definiteness
under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph is whether “those skilled in the art
would understand what is claimed when the claim is read in light of the
specification.”).
In view of the foregoing, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection
of independent claims 1 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph.
Independent Claims 1 and 15, and Dependent Claims 8—10, 13, 20, 21, and
24-26
In rejecting claims 1 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), the Examiner
primarily relies on Abbasi as describing a virtual reality encounter system.
Final Act. 7—8, 17. The Examiner acknowledges that Abbasi does not
4
Appeal 2015-002316
Application 10/734,618
describe, in part, the claimed set of goggles. Id. at 8, 17. And the Examiner
relies on Yee to cure the deficiency. Id. at 8—9 (citing Yee, Figs. 1, 3, 4, col.
5.11. 11-37), 17-18 (citing Yee, Figs. 1, 3, 4, col. 5,11. 11-37).
Abbasi relates to enabling remote physical contact. Abbasi, col. 1,11.
66—67. A user kisses a first mechanical surrogate attached to a first
computer. The kiss is perceived at sensors located in the first mechanical
surrogate, and characteristics of the kiss are communicated by the first
computer to the second computer. Id. at col. 4,1. 62—col. 5,1. 1. The kiss is
recreated on a second mechanical surrogate attached to the second computer.
Id. at col. 5,11. 1—3. Video information is received from a video camera
attached to the first computing device and directed at a first user and
conveyed to a second computing device for display. Id. at col. 2,11. 54—60,
Fig. 1. In addition, audio information from a microphone attached to the
first computing device is conveyed to a speaker of the second computing
device. Id. at col. 2,11. 63—67. Users control privacy by selecting command
buttons on the display to enable or disable video or audio transmission. Id.
at col. 7,11. 31-35.
Yee describes a remote controlled robot that is controlled by an
operator reacting to feedback signals originating from the robot. Yee, col. 1,
11. 5—7. The operator sits in a command chair 11 wearing a virtual reality
helmet 13. Id. at col. 4,11. 9—11, Fig. 2. Virtual reality helmet 13 is
mounted on command chair 11 by a counter weight system 21, so that the
operator does not have to bear the weight of the helmet. Id. at col. 4,11. 18—
20.11. 43—47, Figs. 2, 5. Rotary encoders sense rotation of helmet 13 when
the operator turns his head, and transmits a signal to actuators to control the
robot’s head in a manner that duplicate movement by the operator. Id. at
5
Appeal 2015-002316
Application 10/734,618
col. 5,11. 5—10, 17—20. The helmet further includes operator screens 24
which are mounted in helmet 13 and positioned directly in front of the
operator’s eyes. Id. at col. 4,11. 13—17, Fig. 4. Operator screens 24 receive
and display video information from video robot cameras 22, which are
mounted on robot head 28 and correspond to the operator’s eyes. Id. at col.
5.11. 17—17. The operator also wears a force flexing glove 20 mounted on
an exoskeletal arm attached to the backrest of command chair 11. Id. at col.
4.11. 11—15. Command chair 11 also has a telescoping multirotational
support base 17 and foot pedals 18. Id. at col. 4,11. 15—17.
The Examiner determines that
[i]t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art
at the time of the invention to use the goggles of Yee as the
graphic output devices at each location of Abbasi. . . (locations
160 and 165) because Yee suggests using a pair of displays in
the headset to give a three-dimensional, thereby more realistic,
image to the operator (Yee: column 5, lines 35-37) and using
the same equipment at each location would provide for full-
duplex capability and provide each user the same experience
and immersion as the other (Abassi [sic]: column 2: lines 31-
36).
Final Act. 14; see also id. at 18—19.
Yet, Yee’s helmet enables the operator to view the robot’s
environment as if the operator were the robot, and the helmet senses the
operator’s action and movement in order for duplication at the remote robot.
And it is unclear why or how one of ordinary skill in the art would combine
a command chair having a mounted helmet for controlling a remote robot, as
described by Yee, with a system for remote physical contact with another
user using mechanical surrogates, as described by Abbasi, to arrive at
Appellant’s invention, as recited in claim 1 and similarly recited in claim 15.
6
Appeal 2015-002316
Application 10/734,618
In view of the foregoing, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of independent claims 1 and 15, and dependent claims 8—
10, 13, 20, 21, and 24—26.
Dependent Claims 4—7, 11, 12, 14, 18, 19, 22, and 23
Claims 4—7, 11, 12, 14, 18, 19, 22, and 23 each depend from one of
claims 1 and 15. The Examiner’s rejections of these dependent claims do
not cure the deficiencies in the rejection of independent claims 1 and 15.
Therefore, we reverse the Examiner’s rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of
dependent claims 4—7, 11, 12, 14, 18, 19, 22, and 23 for the same reasons
discussed above with respect to claims 1 and 15.
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph, is reversed.
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1, 4—15, and 18—26 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) are reversed.
REVERSED
7