Ex Parte Martin

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 31, 2018

13325358 (P.T.A.B. May. 31, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/325,358 12/14/2011
42532 7590 06/04/2018
PROSKAUER ROSE LLP
ONE INTERNATIONAL PLACE
BOSTON, MA 02110
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
David Martin
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.
FID-227 6557
EXAMINER
HOANG, PETER
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2616
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/04/2018 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):
DocketingPatentBoston @proskauer.com
oandrews@proskauer.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DAVID MAR TIN
Appeal2016-008309
Application 13/325,358
Technology Center 2600
Before JUSTIN BUSCH, JOHN D. HAMANN, and JOYCE CRAIG,
Administrative Patent Judges.
BUSCH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant appeals from the
Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-22, which constitute all the claims
pending in this application. We have jurisdiction over the pending claims
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We reverse.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellant's invention generally relates to systems and methods that
use a person's physical movements to navigate a representation of that
person through a virtual world presentation of customized private
information. Spec. 1-2. Claim 13 is illustrative and reproduced on the
following page.
Appeal2016-008309
Application 13/325,358
13. A method comprising:
retrieving by one or more computer systems information
from a computer database;
analyzing the retrieved information by the one or more
computer systems to generate private information of a user
pertaining to a customizable presentation that has plural fields
for inserting private information;
adding by the one or more computers the generated private
information into the fields of the customizable presentation
according to tags associated with the fields in the customizable
presentation to produce a customized presentation;
generating by the one or more computer systems an
ordered collection of images of the customized presentation, at
least some of the images including the generated private
information of the user;
causing a display device to render a selected one or ones
of the generated images of the customized presentation in a
virtual world, by:
receiving by the one or more computer systems
signals that correspond to ambulatory movements of the
user in the physical world;
processing by the one or more computer systems the
signals that correspond to the ambulatory movements of
the user the physical world to cause a corresponding
ambulatory movement of the user through the virtual
world, with the ambulatory movement used to determine
at least in part the selected one or more of the ordered
generated images corresponding to the user's ambulatory
movements in the physical world.
REJECTION
Claims 1-22 stand rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as obvious
in view of Marshall (US 6,073,115; June 6, 2000) and Van Doom (US
2010/0164990 Al; July 1, 2010). Final Act. 2-11.
2
Appeal2016-008309
Application 13/325,358
ANALYSIS
The Examiner rejects claims 1-22 as obvious in view of the combined
teachings of Marshall and Van Doom. Final Act. 2-11. Of particular note,
the Examiner finds Marshall teaches the ordered collection of images but
acknowledges Marshall fails to teach or suggest processing received signals
corresponding to real-world ambulatory movements to cause ambulatory
movements of a virtual representation of the user. Final Act. 4. The
Examiner finds Van Doom teaches the processing step (i.e., "process[ing]
the signals that correspond to the ambulatory movements of the user in the
physical world to cause a corresponding ambulatory movement of a virtual
representation of the user ... used to determine at least in part the selected
one or more of the ordered generated images"), emphasizing the ambulatory
movements of the recited processing step. Id. at 4--5 (citing Van Doom
,r,r 30-31). We, therefore, understand the Examiner's rejection as
concluding that it would have been obvious to combine Van Doom's
disclosed method of navigating its augmented reality (AR) environment with
Marshall's ordered collection of images to arrive at Appellant's
claimed processing step. The Examiner further finds Van Doom "explicitly
us[ es] ambulatory movements in the physical world to navigate a virtual
world." Ans. 18-19 (citing Van Doom ,r,r 30-31).
Among other arguments, Appellant contends Van Doom does not
teach or suggest the processing step, which is recited in independent claims
1, 13, and 18. See App. Br. 16-18; Reply Br. 11-12. In particular,
Appellant asserts Van Doom's disclosure of an Ambient Intelligence
environment that includes a user's location triggering a media presentation
( e.g., displaying text when a museum patron walks up to a painting) does not
3
Appeal2016-008309
Application 13/325,358
teach the processing step, which recites traversing images according to a
user's ambulatory movements in the physical world that are processed to
cause corresponding ambulatory movements of a virtual representation of
the user in the virtual world. App. Br. 16-18; Reply Br. 11-12. Appellant
further argues the Examiner has not provided a sufficient explanation of how
Van Doom's augmented reality navigation would have been combined with
Marshall's teachings to arrive at the recited processing step. App. Br. 18-
19; Reply Br. 11-12.
Van Doom is directed to systems and methods involving augmented
reality glasses that allow an end-user to program an "Ambient Intelligence
environment having a physical dimension such that virtual interaction
mechanisms/patterns of the Ambient Intelligence environment are
superimposed over real locations, surfaces, objects and devices." Van
Doom, Abstract. Van Doom explains that traditional end-user programming
techniques (i.e., on a computer screen) do not work well for programming
Ambient Intelligence environments, because such environments include a
physical dimension. Van Doom's proposed solution uses augmented reality
glasses to view and program the Ambient Intelligence environment instead
of using "[e]xisting end-user programming techniques" such as visual
programming languages, which may include graphical user interfaces
(GUis). Id. ,T,T 3--4.
Van Doom describes an exemplary scenario of programming an
Ambient Intelligence environment in an art museum. Van Doom iTiT 28-31,
Figs. IA, 11. With respect to its art museum example, Van Doom discloses
the ability of a curator to add virtual elements to the Ambient Intelligence
environment via menus presented in the curator's field of view when using
4
Appeal2016-008309
Application 13/325,358
augmented reality glasses. Id. ,r 31. One example disclosed involves the
curator setting an area that triggers a media object by walking around the
physical, real-world area. Id. Van Doom further discloses a museum patron
walking through the museum programmed as an Ambient Intelligence
environment and, as she walks up to a painting, "text appears in a display
next to the painting that shows many details of the painting." Id. ,r 30,
Fig. 1. Accordingly, Van Doom's virtual environment is disclosed as being
part of the programming mode. Id. ,r 6 ("when the end-user programmer is
not wearing the augmented reality (AR) glasses 131, like all other end-users
of an Ambient Intelligence environment, the end-user is said to be in the
'read' mode because the relationships are no longer 'visible' and only their
effects can be experienced"); see id. ,r,r 5, 28-31.
When the end-user programmer wears the augmented reality glasses,
the user is in a "write" mode or programming mode, in which the end-user
programmer can alter the ambient narrative by changing ways that users will
trigger aspects of the Ambient Intelligence environment. See Van Doom
,r,r 8-11, 34--35, 55, 57----62. When editing the elements of the ambient
narrative, Van Doom discloses GUis that may be displayed in the field of
view of the end-user programmer wearing the augmented reality glasses. Id.
,r 56. Van Doom further discloses that a user may navigate these GUis
using "gestures, head nods, and other body movements as directions to scroll
the display in the field-of-view 132 of the AR glasses 131 a user is wearing."
Id.
Van Doom is directed to a new method for programming Ambient
Intelligence environments. The disclosed Ambient Intelligence environment
is a physical, real-world environment that includes triggers based on certain
5
Appeal2016-008309
Application 13/325,358
user actions with physical space. Van Doom's "write," or programming,
mode is directed to an augmented reality (AR) system, wherein a user
wearing AR glasses may alter features of the Ambient Intelligence
environment. Van Doom discloses using ambulatory movements (e.g.,
"gestures, head nods, and other body movements," Van Doom ,r 56) to
maneuver through virtual menus.
However, even to the extent we correctly understand the Examiner's
proposed rationale to be simply substituting Van Doom's known navigation
method for Marshall's navigation method to yield predictable results, Van
Doom does not teach or suggest "signals that correspond to ambulatory
movements of the user in the physical world ... cause a corresponding
ambulatory movement of a virtual representation of the user," as recited in
Appellant's claims. Because Van Doom is directed to an augmented reality
system, which is a combination of the real-world and virtual elements, rather
than an entirely virtual reality system, Van Doom uses a different navigation
technique than what is recited in Appellant's claims. Specifically, Van
Doom fails to disclose, teach, or suggest a virtual representation of the user
in the virtual world. Accordingly, even in Van Doom's programming mode,
the user moves around the physical, real-world environment, and the user's
"ambulatory movements" do not correspond to any movements of a virtual
representation of the user in the virtual world. Therefore, Van Doom fails to
teach or suggest processing ambulatory movement signals from a user in the
physical world to cause corresponding ambulatory movement of a virtual
representation of a user in the virtual world, as recited in the processing step
of Appellant's claims.
6
Appeal2016-008309
Application 13/325,358
Constrained by this record and for the reasons discussed above, we are
persuaded the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Marshall and
Van Doom teaches or suggests the processing step, as recited in independent
claims 1, 13, and 18. Because our determination is dispositive of this
appeal, we do not address Appellant's other arguments. Accordingly, we do
not sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent claims 1, 13, and 18.
For similar reasons, we also do not sustain the Examiner's rejections of
claims 2-12, 14--17, and 19-22, which depend from claims 1, 13, and 18,
respectively.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-22 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
REVERSED
7