Ex Parte Narita

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 8, 2016

13197481 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 8, 2016)

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.
1946-0040 5859
EXAMINER
KWAN, MATTHEW K
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2482
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
13/197,481 08/03/2011
60803 7590 12/09/2016
Paratus Law Group, PLLC
1765 Greensboro Station Place
Suite 320
Tysons Corner, VA 22102
Tomoya NARITA
12/09/2016 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte TOMOYA NARITA
Appeal 2016-000484
Application 13/197,481
Technology Center 2400
Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, THU A. DANG and
JOHN P. PINKERTON, Administrative Patent Judges.
NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the rejection
of claims 1, 4, 6, 8 through 10, 13 through 23, 25, and 26.
We reverse.
INVENTION
Appellant’s invention relates to a method for use with a stereoscopic
display which prevents interference between a real world object and the
stereoscopic image. Paragraphs 3—7 of Appellant’s Specification 2—3.
Claim 1 is illustrative of the invention and reproduced below:
A method for displaying content to a user, comprising:
displaying a content object at a first outward 3D position at a
first distance from a device;
Appeal 2016-000484
Application 13/197,481
detecting a second outward 3D position of an operating member
in relation to the device and determining a second distance between
the operating member and the device; and
altering display of the content object, if the second distance is
less than or equal to the first distance, wherein the altering display of
the content object substantially prevents interference between the
content object and the operating member at the first outward 3D
position.
REJECTIONS AT ISSUE
The Examiner has rejected claims 1, 4, 6, 16 through 18, 25, and 26
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Boillot (US 2010/0126696
Al; June 7, 2007), Kim (US 2010/0095206 Al; Apr. 15, 2010) and
Kocienda et al. (US 2010/0192086 Al; July 29, 2010) (“Kocienda”). Ans.
2-8.1
The Examiner has rejected claims 8 through 10, 13 through 15, and 19
through 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Boillot, Kim,
Kocienda and Herz et al. (US 20090/0192086 Al; Mar. 5, 2009) (“Herz”).
Ans. 8—12.
ISSUE
Appellant argues, on pages 11 through 13 of the Appeal Brief and
pages 4 through 7 of the Reply Brief, that the Examiner’s rejection of
independent claims 1,16 and 17 is in error. The dispositive issue presented
by these arguments is whether the Examiner erred in finding the
combination of Boillot, Kim, and Kocienda teaches displaying a content
1 Throughout this opinion we refer to the Appeal Brief filed Apr. 27, 2015,
Reply Brief filed Oct. 9, 2015, and the Examiner’s Answer mailed on Sep.
11,2015.
2
Appeal 2016-000484
Application 13/197,481
object at a first outward 3D positon and altering display of the content object
to substantially prevent interference between the content object and an
operating member as recited in each of the independent claims.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s
contentions that the Examiner has erred. Further, we have reviewed the
Examiner’s response to Appellant’s arguments. We agree with Appellant’s
contention that the Examiner erred in rejecting independent clams 1, 4, 6, 8
through 10, 13 through 23, 25, and 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
The Examiner, in response to Appellant’s arguments, states that the
broadest reasonable interpretation of the “substantial prevention of
interference” limitation is met as long as a large part of the content object is
not affected by the operating member (i.e. finger). The Examiner finds that
this limitation is taught as, Boillot teaches a 3D object which can be
controlled, Kim teaches altering 3D objects, and Kocienda teaches, in
paragraph 15, preventing of interference by correcting parallax errors. Ans.
12. Further, the Examiner states “Boillot fig. 1 can be interpreted as
substantially preventing interference because the entire virtual interface is
not altered when a user interacts with the controls.” Ans. 12. We disagree
with the Examiner. We concur with Appellant’s assertion that Kocienda’s
teaching in paragraph 150 is directed to correcting errors in user input
caused by the position of the user with respect to the input, and does not
discuss altering display of the content object displayed at an outward 3D
position. Reply Br. 5—6. Further, as argued by Appellant, on page 6 of the
Reply Brief, the Examiner’s finding that Boillot teaches the preventing
interference limitation is in error as the Examiner has not shown that Boillot
3
Appeal 2016-000484
Application 13/197,481
teaches altering the display as claimed. Thus, we are persuaded of error, and
do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 1, 16, 17 and
dependent claims 4, 6, 18, 25, and 26 similarly rejected.
The Examiner has not shown that the additional teachings of Herz
makeup the deficiency in the rejection of the independent claims. Thus, we
do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 8 through 10, 13 through
15, and 19 through 23.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s rejections of 1, 4, 6, 8 through 10, 13
through 23, 25, and 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
REVERSED
4