Ex Parte NARITADownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 8, 201613197481 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 8, 2016) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation