Ex Parte Murphy et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 13, 2017

12780913 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 13, 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.
12/780,913 05/16/2010 David Joseph Murphy P4250US00 1747
11764 7590
Ditthavong & Steiner, P.C.
44 Canal Center Plaza
Suite 322
Alexandria, VA 22314
02/15/2017 EXAMINER
MCCULLEY, RYAN D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2611
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/15/2017 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):
docket@dcpatent.com
Nokia. IPR @ nokia. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DAVID JOSEPH MURPHY and BRENDA CASTRO
Appeal 2016-002639
Application 12/780,913
Technology Center 2600
Before JEFFREY S. SMITH, SHARON FENICK, and
MICHAEL M. BARRY, Administrative Patent Judges.
BARRY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1, 2, 4, 7, 10, 11, 13, 16, 17, 19, 21, and 22, which constitute all of
the pending claims. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Nokia Technologies OY.
App. Br. 1.
Appeal 2016-002639
Application 12/780,913
Introduction
Appellants describe their disclosure as providing an approach “for
enabling a pleasing lightweight transition between two more complete
renderings of content associated with a location based service.” Abstract.
Claim 1 is representative:
1. A method comprising:
receiving a request, at a device, to render a user interface
of a location-based service, the request including location
information;
determining context information associated with the
device, a user of the device, or a combination thereof;
causing, at least in part, presentation of a first rendering
in the user interface of two or more objects as object models
based, at least in part, on a three-dimensional model
corresponding to the location information;
causing, at least in part, presentation of a second
rendering in the user interface of one of the two or more objects
based, at least in part, on the context information and image
data associated with the one of the two or more objects, and if
the image data does not correspond to the context information,
then causing, at least in part, rendering an element of the
context information over the image data; and
continuing causing presentation of the first rendering in
the user interface of objects other than the one of the two or
more objects as the object models based, at least in part, on the
three-dimensional model throughout presentation of the second
rendering in the user interface of the one of the two or more
objects based, at least in part, on the image data.
App. Br. 17 (Claims App’x) (disputed limitation emphasized).
References and Rejection
Claims 1, 2, 4, 7, 10, 11, 13, 16, 17, 19, 21, and 22 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Schmidt et al. (US 2004/
2
Appeal 2016-002639
Application 12/780,913
0128070 Al; July 1, 2004) (“Schmidt”), Schmalstieg et al., Demand-Driven
Geometry Transmission for Distributed Virtual Environments, Computer
Graphics Forum 15, Issue 3, pp. 421—32 (Aug. 1996) (“Schmalstieg”), and
Yu et al. (US 2010/0066750 Al; Mar. 18, 2010) (“Yu”). Final Act. 2-8.
ISSUE
Based on Appellants’ arguments, the issue before us is whether the
Examiner errs in finding Yu teaches or suggests the disputed limitation of “if
the image data does not correspond to the context information, then causing,
at least in part, rendering an element of the context information over the
image data,” as recited in claim l.2 App. Br. 10-15.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
contentions of reversible error. We disagree with Appellants’ conclusions.
We adopt the Examiner’s findings and reasons as set forth in the Final
Rejection from which this appeal is taken and as set forth in the Answer.
We provide the following discussion for emphasis.
In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner finds Schmidt and Schmalstieg
teach all requirements of claim 1 except for the disputed limitation. Final
Act. 3—5. The Examiner then finds “Yu disclose[s] an augmented-reality
system for rendering context-aware imagery onto virtual objects” that
teaches the disputed limitation. Id. at 5—6 (citing Yu 15, 44). The
2 We note the disputed limitation is a conditional limitation. In the event of
further prosecution, the Examiner should consider whether it may
unnecessary to perform such a limitation in order to perform the claimed
method. See, e.g., In re Johnston, 435 F.3d 1381, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2006)
(“As a matter of linguistic precision, optional elements do not narrow the
claim because they can always be omitted.”).
3
Appeal 2016-002639
Application 12/780,913
Examiner explains that Yu’s teaching of displaying “virtual graffiti” and a
corresponding virtual shadow over a real-world object, with the virtual
shadow based on real-world ambient light conditions (see Yu Fig. 3),
teaches “if the image data does not correspond to the context information,
then causing, at least in part, rendering an element of the context information
over the image data,” as recited. Id. (also explaining Yu 144 further teaches
displaying “any combination of shadow, brightness, contrast, color, specular
highlights, or texture maps in response to the ambient light”).
Appellants argue the Examiner errs because Yu simply does not teach
or suggest the disputed limitation, though Appellants concede that Yu’s
virtual shadow is “based on the context information.” App. Br. 13; see also
id. at 10-15. The Examiner answers by finding “Yu teaches if the image
data (the virtual graffiti) does not correspond to the context information
(the amount of ambient light or time of day), then causing, at least in part,
rendering an element of the context information (a specular highlight
simulating bright sun) over the image data.” Ans. 3^4 (citing Yu 1 68, Fig.
3). Appellants reply that a specular highlight “is merely the reflection of
light” and “is not an element of context information.” Reply Br. 4.3
Appellants do not persuade us. We agree with the Examiner that Yu’s
disclosure of rendering shadows or specular highlights over an image to
provide contextual details based on real-world ambient light conditions that
3 We note Appellants contrast Yu with their Specification’s teaching that
“context information can be used to select the most representative images.”
Reply Br. 2. Using context information to select representative images is
not a claim limitation. Related to this, we also note Appellants do not
dispute the finding that Schmidt teaches claim 1 ’s requirement of “causing
. . . presentation of a second rendering . . . based, at least in part, on the
context information . . . .” (see Final Act. 3^4 (citing Schmidt ]f]f 28, 69)).
4
Appeal 2016-002639
Application 12/780,913
pertain to the current environment teaches “rendering an element of the
context information over the image data,” as recited. This is consistent with
the use of “context information” in Appellants’ Specification, which
explains that context information “provides] contextual details pertaining to
the current environment” and “may include details such as current weather
conditions, time of day, traffic conditions, etc.” Spec. 117. Appellants’
Specification gives an example of the context being that the current weather
is snowy, and accordingly rendering snowflakes over an image, see Figs
4D-E, Spec. 50, 61, which is consistent with the Examiner’s findings
regarding Yu. In other words, rendering snowflakes that correspond to
snowy weather as in Appellants’ Specification is consistent with rendering
sunlight reflections that correspond to sunny weather as in Yu. We also note
that Yu’s teaching of a rendering a virtual shadow, which Appellants
acknowledge is based on context information, also teaches or suggests
“rendering an element of the context information over the image data,” as
recited.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 1. We also sustain the
rejection of claims 2,4,7, 10, 11, 13, 16, 17, 19, 21, and 22, for which
Appellants offer no substantive arguments separate from those for claim 1.
DECISION
For the above reasons, we affirm the rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 7, 10,
11, 13, 16, 17, 19, 21, and 22. 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
5