Ex Parte Ligameri et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 27, 2018

14293543 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 27, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
14/293,543 06/02/2014 Mark R. Ligameri
154702 7590 08/29/2018
Zagorin Cave LLP (Dell)
4101 Parkstone Heights Drive
Suite 350
Austin, TX 78746
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.
DC-102469.01 1059
EXAMINER
CHU,DAVIDH
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2616
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/29/2018 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):
docket279@atxiplaw.com
rholland@atxiplaw.com
USPTO@dockettrak.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MARK R. LIGAMERI, RICHARD WILLIAM SCHUCKLE,
ROCCO ANCONA, GLEN ELLIOTT ROBSON, and
MICHIEL SEBASTIAAN EMANUEL PETRUS KNOPPERT
Appeal2018-000543
Application 14/293,543
Technology Center 2600
Before THU A. DANG, DENISE M. POTHIER, and
LINZY T. McCARTNEY, Administrative Patent Judges.
POTHIER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants 1,2 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 1, 3-11, and 15-20. Appeal Br. 3. Claims 2 and
12-14 have been canceled. Appeal Br. 5, 7 (Claims App.). We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.
1 Throughout this opinion, we refer to the Final Action (Final Act.) mailed
January 19, 2017, the Appeal Brief (Appeal Br.) filed June 8, 2017, the
Examiner's Answer (Ans.) mailed August 21, 2017, and the Reply Brief
(Reply Br.) filed October 23, 2017.
2 The real party in interest is listed as Dell Products, L.P. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal2018-000543
Application 14/293,543
Invention
Appellants' invention relates to an augmented virtual reality system
containing a display ( e.g., 12) and goggles ( e.g., 26). Spec., Abstract, Fig. 1.
"Positional cues at the display and/or goggles provide the relative position of
the display to the goggles." Spec., Abstract, Fig. 1; see also Spec. ,r 17.
Physical position cues 52 ( e.g., infrared lights placed in the display's bezel)
mark the physical housing boundary of display 12. Spec. ,r 17, Fig. 1.
Camera 38 captures an image with cues 52, such that the viewing angle of
the goggles and distance between display 12 and goggles 26 can be
determined. Display image positional cues 54 are presented in display 12,
are captured by camera 38, and provide "optimized position detection," such
as motion cues used to "indicate predictive information about motion
expected at goggles 26." Spec. ,r 17, Fig. 1.
Claim 1 is reproduced below with emphasis:
1. An information handling system comprising:
a housing;
processing components disposed in the housing and
operable to cooperate to process information;
a display interfaced with the processing components and
operable to present the information as visual images;
goggles interfaced with the processing components and
operable to present the information as visual images;
positional cues relating a position of the display relative
to a position of the goggles;
a position detector associated with the goggles and
operable to detect the positional cues; and
a compositing engine interfaced with the positional
detector and operable to manage generation of the visual
images at the goggles relative to the visual images of the
display based at least in part upon the positional cues detected
by the position detector;
2
Appeal2018-000543
Application 14/293,543
wherein the positional cues comprise one or more
predetermined markers presented as a visual image at
predetermined locations of the display with content visual
images presented at the display and the position detector
comprises a camera integrated with the goggles and operable to
capture an image of the predetermined markers, the position
detector applying the predetermined markers to determine a
relative orientation of the goggles to the display.
The Examiner relies on the following as evidence of unpatentability:
Tanimura
Bar-Zeev
Rekimoto
Geisner
Kobayashi
Ryu
Mikhailov
Haddick
US 7,928,977 B2
US 2012/0127284 Al
US 2013/0050261 Al
US 2013/0083173 Al
US 2014/0256429 Al
US 2014/0368529 Al
US 2015/0261291 Al
US 2015/0331241 Al
Apr. 19, 2011
May 24, 2012
Feb.28,2013
Apr. 4, 2013
Sept. 11, 2014
Dec. 18, 2014
Sept. 17, 2015
Nov. 19, 2015
Roger, STARBUCKS TESTS QR CODE PAYMENT 1-3 (2009), available at
http://2d-code.co.uk/starbucks-qr-code-payment/. 3
The Rejections
Claims 1 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Bar-Zeev, Tanimura, and Roger. Final Act. 2-5.
Claims 3 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Bar-Zeev, Tanimura, Roger, Kobayashi, and Rekimoto. Final Act. 5-7.
Claims 4 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Bar-Zeev, Tanimura, Roger, and Mikhailov. Final Act. 7-8.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Bar-Zeev, Tanimura, Roger, and Ryu. Final Act. 8-9.
3 This reference has three pages. We refer to these pages sequentially as
presented in the record.
3
Appeal2018-000543
Application 14/293,543
Claims 6-10 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Bar-Zeev, Tanimura, Roger, and Haddick. Final Act.
9-10.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Bar-Zeev, Tanimura, Roger, and Geisner. Final Act. 11-12.
OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OVER BAR-ZEEV,
TANIMURA, AND ROGER
Regarding representative claim 1, 4 the Examiner finds Bar-Zeev
teaches its claim limitations, except for the recitation that includes "the
positional cues comprise one or more predetermined markers presented as a
visual image at predetermined locations of the display with content visual
images presented at the display." Final Act. 2--4 (citing Bar-Zeev ,r,r 49-50,
53, 59, 125, 129-130, Figs. 1, 1 lB, 12B). The Examiner turns to Tanimura
and Roger to teach the missing recitation. Final Act. 4--5 ( citing Tanimura
5: 11-28, 54--62, Fig. 2 and Roger 1 (screen shot)); Ans. 2-3.
Appellants argue Tanimura "adds nothing to the Examiner's
rejection." Appeal Br. 3. In the Reply Brief, Appellants clarify that
Tanimura "adds nothing to the ... rejection in light of Bar-Zeev, which also
discloses a physical mark that indicates a position." Reply Br. 1. Appellants
further assert "Roger presents a QR code" but provides "no evidence that a
QR code marks a position on a display relative to the display that a camera
4 Claim 11 is argued separately from claim 1 but refers to the arguments
"[as] set forth above with respect to Claim 1." Appeal Br. 4. We select
claim 1 as representative. See 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv).
4
Appeal2018-000543
Application 14/293,543
can capture" (Appeal Br. 3) or is used to "provide[] a positional cue as
recited by Claims 1 and 11" (Reply Br. 2).
ISSUE
Under§ 103, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 by finding
that Bar-Zeev, Tanimura, and Roger collectively would have taught or
suggested "the positional cues comprise one or more predetermined markers
presented as a visual image at predetermined locations of the display with
content visual images presented at the display"?
ANALYSIS
Based on the record before us, we are not persuaded of error.
Bar-Zeev teaches head-mounted display (HMD) 2 (e.g., goggles) and
display 16 interacting through hub 12 creating an augmented reality. Bar-
Zeev, Abstract, ,r 25, Figs. 1, 12B. Bar-Zeev further teaches a camera on
HMD 2 ( e.g., 113 in Figure 1) identifying objects ( e.g., display 1110) in a
room. Bar-Zeev ,r,r 56, 129--130, Figs. 2, 1 lA-B. The camera senses visible
light to obtain an object's image and to recognize the outlined shapes of
objects in the camera's field of view. Bar-Zeev ,r 130, cited in Final Act. 3.
Bar-Zeev teaches using characteristics, such as an expected light intensity
which is seen at the location of the video display screen, to identify the
objects and discusses optionally determining the distance between the HMD
and objects (e.g., display 1110). Bar-Zeev ,r 130, cited in Final Act. 3; see
also Bar-Zeev ,r 171, Fig. 16 (step 1602). As such, Bar-Zeev teaches not
only using cues to identify objects but also suggests using cues to relate a
position of the display (e.g., light intensity at the location of the video
5
Appeal2018-000543
Application 14/293,543
display screen) to a position of the goggles ( e.g., distance between the
display and a HMD).
As noted above, Bar-Zeev suggests an optional technique of using
some cue or marker within the display ( e.g., light intensity characteristics at
a display location) to determine the distance (e.g., a position) of the display
relative to the HMD or goggles. See Bar-Zeev ,r 130. Yet, Bar-Zeev does
not discuss explicitly the cues are "one or more predetermined markers
presented as a visual image at predetermined locations of the display with
content visual images" as recited in claim 1. Final Act. 4. The rejection
thus applies Tanimura and Roger to cure the above-noted shortcomings in
Bar-Zeev. Final Act. 4--5; Ans. 2-3.
Tanimura suggests a known approach to determine a three-
dimensional position and orientation of a HMD using a marker ( e.g., 205).
Tanimura, Abstract, 5: 11-28, Fig. 1. Tanimura teaches the marker's
position is known in real space (e.g., predetermined), and this information is
used to calculate position and orientation of a HMD from objects within an
actually sensed image. Tanimura 5: 11--49, Fig. 1. As such, contrary to
Appellants' contentions (Appeal Br. 3; Reply Br. 1), Tanimura supplements
Bar-Zeev's teachings, suggesting a method known by ordinarily skilled
artisans to determine the position, including the distance between a display
and a HMD device as discussed in Bar-Zeev, of an object relative to a HMD
or goggles. See Tanimura 5: 11--49, Fig. 1. Moreover, when combining such
a method with Bar-Zeev, the resulting system would have included
"positional cues compris[ing] one or more predetermined markers presented
as a visual image at predetermined locations of the display" as recited.
6
Appeal2018-000543
Application 14/293,543
As previously discussed, Bar-Zeev teaches its positional cues are at
locations of the display ( e.g., expected light intensity which is seen at the
location of the video display screen) and suggests such cues can be used to
identify objects and determine distance between the HMD and the display.
Bar-Zeev ,r 130. To extent the teachings fail to teach the positional cues are
"content visual images presented at the display" as recited in claim 1, the
Examiner turns further to Roger. Final Act. 5. In particular, Roger is cited
for the limited purpose to illustrate one skilled in the art would have
recognized positional cues ( e.g., markers), such as those taught by the
combination of Bar-Zeev and Tanimura, can be part of a display as content
or an image. See Ans. 3 (stating "Roger was cited for[] teaching the use of
a marker that is displayed on a display device (iPhone )."); see also Final
Act. 5 ( emphasizing "the display with content visual images presented at the
display" language and discussing Roger). For this reason, Appellants'
contention that "[t]he Examiner has provided no evidence that a QR code
marks a position on a display relative to the display that a camera can
capture" (Appeal Br. 3; see also Reply Br. 1-2) attacks Roger alone without
considering the rejection as a whole and the references' collective teachings.
See In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986); see Ans. 3.
Appellants newly assert in the Reply Brief combining Roger with
Bar-Zeev and Tanimura "would not provide the recited element of locating a
display relative to a marker presented on the display." Reply Br. 2. This
argument is waived. 37 C.F.R. § 4I.41(b)(2) ("Any argument raised in the
reply brief which was not raised in the appeal brief, or is not responsive to
an argument raised in the examiner's answer, including any designated new
ground of rejection, will not be considered by the Board for purposes of the
7
Appeal2018-000543
Application 14/293,543
present appeal, unless good cause is shown.") Regardless, Appellants focus
on the information Roger's QR code contains (Reply Br. 2) rather than on
the limited teaching in Roger the rejection relies upon to suggest presenting
a marker in "as a visual image ... of the display with content visual images
presented in the display" claimed in claim 1. See Ans. 3. We refer above
for more details.
For the foregoing reasons, Appellants have not persuaded us of error
in the rejection of independent claim 1 and claim 11, which is not separately
argued.
THE REMAINING REJECTIONS
Appellants have not separately argued the remaining rejections.
Appeal Br. 2--4. Accordingly, we sustain the rejections of dependent claims
3-10 and 15-20 for reasons similar to those previously discussed.
DECISION
We affirm the rejections of claims 1, 3-11, and 15-20 under§ 103.
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