Ex parte Maguire

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jul 31, 2001

08364718 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 31, 2001)

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not written for publication and is not binding precedent of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. 29
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________
Ex parte FRANCIS J. MAGUIRE, JR.
_____________
Appeal No. 1999-1344
Application No. 08/364,718
______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before FLEMING, HAIRSTON and GROSS, Administrative Patent
Judges.
FLEMING, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal No. 1999-1344
Application 08/364,718
2
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from
the final rejection of claims 1-8, all the claims pending in
the application.
The instant invention discloses an eye tracking method
and apparatus that provides a new way to monitor the eye with
respect to more than one coordinate system. An eye attitude
monitor is combined with a head translatory position monitor
in order to relate the eye translatory position as well as its
attitude to an arbitrarily selected reference coordinate
system. Appellant's specification ("Specification"), page 3.
The term "attitude" means the angular rotations of an eye
visual axis with respect to arbitrarily selected axes of an
eye coordinate system. Specification, page 6. Eye attitude
can mean up to three axes of rotation (pitch, roll, yaw) about
an origin of an eye coordinate system. Specification, page 4.
A head attitude monitor is added to relate the attitude of the
eye to the arbitrarily selected reference coordinate system.
Specification, page 7. The eye tracking apparatus tracks the
attitude of one or both eyes with respect to a head attached
to a body. Specification, page 4. The origin of the eye
Appeal No. 1999-1344
Application 08/364,718
3
coordinate system is fixed in relation to the origin of a head
coordinate system. Specification, page 2. The attitude of the
head is monitored with respect to a selected first coordinate
system such as the body. Specification, page 6, line 32, to
page 7, line 1. The monitors provide sensed signals to a
computer. Specification, page 7. The computer inputs the
signals to perform eye-head coordinate transformations and
provides a tracking or visual axis signal to a control device.
Specification, page 8. The control device produces a signal
that may be used for many purposes including positioning an
image artifact and target acquisition for controlling a
projectile. Specification, page 8.
Appellant's independent claim 1, reproduced below, is
representative of the invention:
1. Apparatus, comprising:
an eye monitor, responsive to an eye direction, for
providing an eye direction signal with respect to an
associated head coordinate system;
a head translatory position monitor, responsive to a
translatory position associated with a head translating with
respect to a reference coordinate system, for providing a head
translatory position signal;
a signal processor, responsive to the eye direction
signal and the head translatory position signal, for providing
Appeal No. 1999-1344
Application 08/364,718
Appellant filed an Appeal Brief ("Brief") on April 30,1
1998. In response to the Examiner's Answer, Appellant filed a
Reply Brief on August 27, 1998.
The Examiner, in response to Appellant's Brief, filed an2
Examiner's Answer on June 24, 1998.
4
the eye direction signal referenced to the reference
coordinate system with respect to both head translatory
position and eye direction; and
a control, responsive to the eye direction signal
referenced to the reference coordinate signal, for providing a
control signal.
In rejecting Appellant's claims, the Examiner relies on
two references:
Lewis 4,028,725 Jun. 7, 1977
Beckman 5,383,990 Feb. 14, 1995
(filed Apr. 23, 1993)
Claims 1-8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
obvious over Lewis and Beckman. Rather than repeat the
arguments of Appellant and Examiner, we refer the reader to
the Appellant's Briefs and Examiner's Answer for the1 2
respective details thereof.
OPINION
With full consideration being given the subject matter on
appeal, the Examiner's rejection and the arguments of
Appeal No. 1999-1344
Application 08/364,718
5
Appellant and Examiner, for the reasons stated infra, we will
reverse the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-8 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as obvious over Lewis and Beckman.
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the Examiner
bears the initial burden of establishing a prima facie case of
obviousness. In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d
1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992). See also In re Piasecki, 745
F.2d 1468, 1471-72, 223 USPQ 785, 788 (Fed Cir. 1984)). The
Examiner can satisfy this burden only by showing some
objective teaching in the prior art or that knowledge
generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art would
lead that individual to combine the relevant teachings of the
references. In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1074, 5 USPQ2d 1596,
1598. Only if this initial burden is met does the burden of
coming forward with evidence or argument shift to the
Appellant. See Oetiker, 977 F.2d at 1445, 24 USPQ2d at 1444.
See also Piasecki, 745 F.2d at 1472, 223 USPQ at 788 ("After a
prima facie case of obviousness has been established, the
burden of going forward shifts to the applicant."). If the
examiner fails to establish a prima facie case, the rejection
Appeal No. 1999-1344
Application 08/364,718
6
is improper and accordingly merits reversal. In re Fine, 837
F.2d at 1074, 5 USPQ2d at 1598.
An obviousness analysis commences with a review and
consideration of all the pertinent evidence and arguments.
See Oetiker, 977 F.2d at 1445, 24 USPQ2d at 1444 ("In
reviewing the examiner's decision on appeal, the Board must
necessarily weigh all of the evidence and argument.").
Accordingly, we now consider the claims on appeal.
In traversing the Examiner's rejection of the claims, the
Appellant first argues that Beckman only discloses the
monitoring of head attitude and actually teaches the
suppression of the translatory position information from a
head sensor. Brief at page 6. Next, Appellant asserts that
there is no motivation to use sensed head translations with
eye monitoring to be found in Lewis or Beckman either alone or
in combination. Appellant argues that "[t]he speculations of
the Examiner with regard to providing greater accuracy and
enhanced control by using head translations do not come from
Lewis or Beckman but from the Examiner." Brief at page 6.
Additionally, Appellant asserts that Beckman and Lewis teach
Appeal No. 1999-1344
Application 08/364,718
7
sensing head attitude, not head position. Brief at page 9.
Finally, Appellant asserts that neither Lewis nor Beckman
enables the signal processing carried out by the claimed
signal processor. Brief at page 9.
The Examiner maintains that Lewis teaches an eye monitor,
position monitor, signal processor and control. Examiner's
Answer at page 3. However, the Examiner looks to the Beckman
reference for the teaching of head translational movement and
asserts that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary
skill in the art to utilize the Beckman method for sensing
both the translational and angular movements of the traveler's
head in the monitoring system taught by Lewis to provide an
accurate virtual image of a scene surrounding a vehicle
because a virtual reality control system would sense the
position and orientation of the traveler's head and adjust the
projection parameters to maintain the illusion that the
traveler is immersed in a real scene. Examiner's Answer at
page 4.
We find that Lewis enables a means of coordinating the
movement or control of a remote sensor with the movement of
the remote observer's head or eyes. See Lewis, column 1,
Appeal No. 1999-1344
Application 08/364,718
8
lines 23-26. Lewis teaches a high resolution vision system in
which remotely located sensors controlled by head and eye
tracking means generate signals that are transmitted to signal
processing means on the helmet to produce a display image
having a wide field of view that is maintained on the
operator's line of sight. See Lewis, column 1, lines 10-13.
Beckman teaches a virtual reality flight control system having
six degrees of freedom of acceleration or velocity control.
Beckman, column 4, lines 30-35.
However, we find no objective teaching in either Lewis or
Beckman that would lead one of ordinary skill in the art to
combine the references. Lewis relates to the sensing of
images outside an actual aircraft and addresses the problem of
remotely sensing and displaying images within a pilot's focus.
Consequently, Lewis' reference system merely involves the
pilot's line-of-sight (LOS). Beckman involves a virtual
reality flight control system and addresses the problem of
flight simulation in outer space. Therefore, Beckman uses six
degrees of freedom in a more complicated reference coordinate
system that permits greater combinations of translations and
rotations. Beckman and Lewis are directed to disparate
Appeal No. 1999-1344
Application 08/364,718
9
teachings which address different problems and we find no
reason or suggestion in either prior art reference to enable
their combination in this obviousness analysis. We conclude
therefore that the Examiner has failed to establish a prima
facie case of obviousness.
When an obviousness determination is based on multiple
prior art references, there must be a showing of some
"teaching, suggestion, or reason" to combine the references.
Winner Int'l Royalty Corp. v. Wang, 202 F.3d 1340, 1348, 53
USPQ2d 1580, 1586 (Fed. Cir.) cert. denied, 530 U.S. 1238
(2000). The Federal Circuit further instructs that "[t]he
mere fact that the prior art may be modified in the manner
suggested by the Examiner does not make the modification
obvious unless the prior art suggested the desirability of the
modification." In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1266 n.14, 23
USPQ2d 1780, 1783-84 n.14 (Fed. Cir. 1992), citing In re
Gordon, 733 F.2d 900, 902, 221 USPQ 1125, 1127 (Fed. Cir.
1984). It is further established that "such a suggestion may
come from the nature of the problem to be solved, leading
inventors to look to references relating to possible solutions
Appeal No. 1999-1344
Application 08/364,718
10
to that problem." Pro-Mold & Tool Co. v. Great Lakes
Plastics, Inc., 75 F.3d 1568, 1573, 37 USPQ2d 1626, 1630 (Fed.
Cir. 1996), citing In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 1054, 189
USPQ 143, 149 (CCPA 1976) (considering the problem to be
solved in a determination of obviousness). The Federal
Circuit reasons in Para-Ordnance Mfg. Inc. v. SGS Importers
Int’l Inc., 73 F.3d 1085, 1088-89, 37 USPQ2d 1237, 1239-40
(Fed. Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 822 (1996) that for
the determination of obviousness, the court must answer
whether one of ordinary skill in the art who sets out to solve
the problem and who had before him in his workshop the prior
art, would have been reasonably expected to use the solution
that is claimed by the Appellant. However, "[o]bviousness may
not be established using hindsight or in view of the teachings
or suggestions of the invention."
Para-Ordnance, 73 F.3d at 1087, 37 USPQ2d at 1239, citing W.L.
Gore & Assocs., Inc. v. Garlock Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1548,
220 USPQ 303, 309 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 851
(1984). In addition, our reviewing court requires the Patent
and Trademark Office to make specific findings on a suggestion
Appeal No. 1999-1344
Application 08/364,718
11
to combine prior art references. In re Dembiczak, 175 F.3d
994, 1000-01, 50 USPQ2d 1614, 1617-19 (Fed. Cir. 1999). "The
combination of elements from non-analogous sources, in a
manner that reconstructs the applicant's invention only with
the benefit of hindsight, is insufficient to present a prima
facie case of obviousness." Oetiker, 977 F.2d at 1445, 24
USPQ2d at 1446.
Based on the evidence and arguments presented, and the
pertinent law in this matter, we find that the Examiner has
failed to establish a prima facie case of unpatentability with
respect to claims 1-8. Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner's
rejections of claims 1-8 as unpatentable over Lewis and
Beckman.
REVERSED
MICHAEL R. FLEMING )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
KENNETH W. HAIRSTON ) APPEALS AND
Administrative Patent Judge ) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
Appeal No. 1999-1344
Application 08/364,718
12
ANITA PELLMAN GROSS )
MRF:lbg Administrative Patent Judge )
FRANCIS J. MAGUIRE
WARE FRESSOLA VAN DER SLUYS & ADOLPHSON
755 MAIN STREET
MONROE, CT 06468