Ex Parte SandbergDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 19, 201612888926 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 19, 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. 12/888,926 09/23/2010 Jesper Sandberg 042933/395391 5376 10949 7590 12/21/2016 Nokia Corporation and Alston & Bird LLP c/o Alston & Bird LLP Bank of America Plaza, 101 South Tryon Street Suite 4000 Charlotte, NC 28280-4000 EXAMINER MEROUAN, ABDERRAHIM ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2619 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/21/2016 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): u sptomail @ alston .com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte JESPER SANDBERG Appeal 2015-006199 Application 12/888,926 Technology Center 2600 Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, JOHNNY A. KUMAR, and TERRENCE W. McMILLIN, Administrative Patent Judges. JEFFERY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 2, 4—6, 9, 10, 12—14, 17, 18, 20-22, and 24—26. Claims 3, 8, 11, 16, and 19 were cancelled, and claims 7, 15, and 23 have been indicated as containing allowable subject matter. Ans. 2.1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. 1 Throughout this opinion, we refer to (1) the Appeal Brief filed December 16, 2014 (“App. Br.”); (2) the Examiner’s Answer mailed April 8, 2015 (“Ans.”); and (3) the Reply Brief filed June 8, 2015 (“Reply Br.”). Appeal 2015-006199 Application 12/888,926 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant’s invention groups content in an augmented reality environment by, among other things, (1) determining whether real world objects are located along a line of direction, and (2) determining corresponding virtual objects responsive to determining that the real world objects are located within a predetermined threshold of the line. An item of visible indicia signifying the group is displayed that corresponds to the real world objects located along the line. See generally Abstract; Spec, 13— 20. Claim 1 is illustrative with our emphasis: 1. A method comprising: receiving a detection of real world objects, of a current location, that are currently being displayed; determining whether one or more of the real world objects are located along a line of direction', determining virtual objects that correspond to the real world objects that are located along the line in response to determining that the real world objects are located within a predetermined threshold of the line', enabling, via a processor, provision of display of an item of visible indicia signifying a group, associated with the virtual objects, that is positioned so as to correspond to at least one of the real world objects located along the line; and enabling provision of display of the virtual objects in response to opening the group, each of the virtual objects are accessible and displayed without blocking, hiding or overlapping each other wherein the virtual objects correspond to respective real world objects located along the line at respective distances from an apparatus. 2 Appeal 2015-006199 Application 12/888,926 THE REJECTIONS The Examiner rejected claims 1, 2, 6, 9, 10, 14, 17, 18, 22, and 24—262 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Miyaki (US 2002/0130906 Al; Sept. 19, 2002). Ans. 2-6. The Examiner rejected claims 4, 12, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Miyaki and Johnson (US 5,553,209; Sept. 3, 1996). Ans. 7—9. The Examiner rejected claims 5, 13, and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Miyaki and Hamynen (US 2007/0162942 Al; July 12, 2007). Ans. 9-10. THE ANTICIPATION REJECTION The Examiner finds that Miyaki discloses every recited element of independent claim 1 including, among other things, (1) determining whether one or more “real world objects,” namely points of interest (POIs), are located along a line of direction associated with a road, and (2) determining corresponding “virtual objects,” namely icons marking the POIs’ positions, 2 Although the Examiner includes omits claim 22 and includes claim 23 in this rejection, the Examiner nevertheless discusses claim 22 in the corresponding discussion, and indicates that claim 23 contains allowable subject matter. See Ans. 2, 5. Accordingly, we include claim 22 and omit claim 23 here for clarity, and deem the Examiner’s error in this regard harmless. 3 Appeal 2015-006199 Application 12/888,926 responsive to determining that the real world objects are located within a predetermined threshold of the road-based line. Ans. 2-4. Appellant argues, among other things, that Miyaki does not determine virtual objects corresponding to real world objects located along a line of direction responsive to determining that the real world objects are located within a predetermined threshold of the line, as claimed. App. Br. 6—18; Reply Br. 2—10. According to Appellant, Miyaki’s POI icons represented by a multiple-icon icon 41 are not determined to be within a predetermined threshold of a line of direction, but merely shows POIs along the same street. App. Br. 15; Reply Br. 9. Appellant adds that Miyaki does not enable the recited provision of display of the virtual objects that correspond to respective real world objects located along the line at respective distances from an apparatus. App. Br. 7—8; Reply Br. 9-10. ISSUE Under § 102, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 by finding that Miyaki determines virtual objects responsive to determining that corresponding real world objects are located within a predetermined threshold of a line of direction? ANALYSIS A key aspect of claim 1 is determining whether one or more real world objects are located along a line of direction—a term that means either (1) on the line, or (2) near or approximately on the line, such as within a threshold (e.g., measured in angles, linear distance, etc.) from the line. Spec. 138. See also id. H 37, 71 (noting that POIs associated with real world 4 Appeal 2015-006199 Application 12/888,926 objects may be considered to be arranged along a line where the objects are within a predetermined threshold (e.g., ±5 degrees) of a line). Our emphasis underscores that the recited line is one of direction—a linear direction that the Examiner finds is represented by roads or streets shown in Miyaki’s Figures 5(b) and 8. Ans. 3,11. On this record, we see no error in this finding. First, many streets shown in Miyaki’s Figures 5(b) and 8 are shown as substantially straight lines that have an associated line of direction extending substantially horizontally or vertically. Second, as is known in the art, a line is “a continuous extent of length without thickness or depth, either straight or curved.” Academic Press Dictionary of Science and Technology 1242 (1992) (emphasis added). Therefore, real world objects, namely POIs, in Miyaki located along a street in Figures 5(b), 8, and 9A would be within a predetermined threshold of the dimensionless line of direction, namely the street associated with that line of direction. See Miyaki 148. Appellant’s contention that Miyaki does not determine that real world objects are located within any predetermined threshold off any street (Reply Br. 9) is unavailing, for the claim recites no such threshold and, in any event, erroneously equates the dimensionless line of direction with the street associated with that line. Nor does the claim require any particular measurement to determine whether the real world objects are within the recited threshold, let alone the measured angles or linear distance that the Specification cites as exemplary metrics in determining the extent of this threshold. See Spec. ]Hf 37—38, 71. So to the extent that Appellant contends that such quantitative aspects define the recited threshold, such arguments are not commensurate with the scope 5 Appeal 2015-006199 Application 12/888,926 of the claim which does not preclude a qualitative street-based threshold of the associated line of direction, such as that used in Miyaki’s icon-based virtual object determination in Figures 8 and 9A. Lastly, we see no error in the Examiner’s finding (Ans. 4) that Miyaki enables the recited provision of display of the virtual objects that correspond to respective real world objects located along the line at respective distances from an apparatus—an apparatus that claim 1 does not specify. Nor does Appellant persuasively rebut the Examiner’s finding that there would be an apparatus located at respective distances from the real world objects in light of the point of view associated with Miyaki’s displayed icons. Ans. 4. Appellant’s arguments regarding Miyaki’s alleged shortcomings in this regard (Reply Br. 9—10) are unavailing and not commensurate with the scope of the claim. Therefore, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1, and claims 2, 6, 9, 10, 14, 17, 18, 22, and 24—26 not argued separately with particularity. THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTIONS We also sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejections of claims 4, 5, 12, 13, 20, and 21. Ans. 7—10. Despite nominally arguing these claims separately, Appellant reiterates similar arguments made in connection with claim 1, and alleges that the additional cited references fail to cure those purported deficiencies. App. Br. 19-20; Reply Br. 11—12. We are not persuaded by these arguments for the reasons previously discussed. 6 Appeal 2015-006199 Application 12/888,926 CONCLUSION The Examiner did not err in rejecting (1) claims 1, 2, 6, 9, 10, 14, 17, 18, 22, and 24—26 under § 102, and (2) claims 4, 5, 12, 13, 20, and 21 under §103. DECISION The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 2, 4—6, 9, 10, 12—14, 17, 18, 20-22, and 24—26 is affirmed. 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 7 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation