Ex Parte Scott et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 21, 2017

12546266 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 21, 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.
12/546,266 08/24/2009 Katherine Scott CYB-11402/03 3081
131270 7590 06/22/2017
BELZER PC
ATTN: John G. Posa
2905 Bull Street
Savannah, GA 31405
EXAMINER
GOOD JOHNSON, MOTILEWA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2616
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/22/2017 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 KATHERINE SCOTT, DOUGLAS HAANPAA, and
CHARLES J. JACOBUS
____________________

Appeal 2015-006777
Application 12/546,2661
Technology Center 2600
____________________

Before JUSTIN BUSCH, JAMES W. DEJMEK, and
PHILLIP A. BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.

BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 1–20, which are all pending claims. Oral
Argument was heard by this panel on June 15, 2017. A copy of the Hearing
Transcript will be placed in the record in due course. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

1 Appellants’ Brief (“App. Br.”) identifies the real party in interest as
Cybernet Systems Corporation. App. Br. 1.
Appeal 2015-006777
Application 12/546,266

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
According to Appellants, the invention relates “generally to
augmented reality (AR) systems and, in particular, to pose determination
based upon natural and synthetic fiducials and directly measured location
and orientation information.” App. Br. 1. Claim 1, reproduced below, is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method of pose determination in an augmented
reality system, comprising the steps of:
placing at least one synthetic fiducial in a real environment
to be augmented, the environment including one or more natural
fiducials;
providing a camera;
providing apparatus rigidly mounted relative to the camera
for obtaining directly measured camera location and orientation
(DMLO) information;
acquiring an image of the environment with the camera;
detecting the natural and synthetic fiducials, if visible, in
the acquired image;
estimating the pose of the camera using the detected
fiducials;
estimating the pose of the camera using the DMLO
information; and
computing a final pose using the pose estimates based on
the detected fiducials and the DMLO information.
App. Br. 7 (Claims Appendix).

REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Leonard
Biocca
US 2007/0276590 A1
US 2008/0266323 A1
Nov. 29, 2007
Oct. 30, 2008
Appeal 2015-006777
Application 12/546,266

3
Ulrich Neumann & Suya You, Natural Feature Tracking for Augmented
Reality, IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON MULTIMEDIA, Vol. 1, No. 1, March 1999
(“Neumann”).

REJECTION
Claims 1–20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Neumann, Leonard, and Biocca. Final Act. 2.

ISSUES
First Issue: Has the Examiner erred in finding Neumann is properly
combined with Leonard and Biocca?
Second Issue: Has the Examiner erred in finding the cited
combination teaches or suggests the use of “directly measured camera
location and orientation (DLMO) information,” as recited in claim 1?

First Issue
A reference may be said to teach away when a person of ordinary
skill, upon reading the reference, would be discouraged from following the
path set out in the reference, or would be led in a direction divergent from
the path that was taken by the applicant. Depuy Spine, Inc. v. Medtronic
Sofamor Danek, Inc., 567 F.3d 1314, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2009). A reference
does not teach away, however, if it merely expresses a general preference for
an alternative invention but does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise
discourage investigation into the invention claimed. Id.
Appellants contend the Examiner erred in combining the prior art
because Neumann teaches away from the claimed invention in two respects.
First, Appellants argue Neumann teaches away from the use of artificial
Appeal 2015-006777
Application 12/546,266

4
fiducials. App. Br. 2–3; Reply Br. 1–3. Second, Appellants argue the
incorporation of artificial fiducials from Leonard or Biocca would change
Neumann’s principle of operation. App. Br. 5. We address each argument
in turn.
We are not persuaded that Neumann teaches away from the use of
artificial fiducials. Appellants contend that Neumann discounts artificial
fiducials and DMLO approaches to location tracking as unreliable, and
therefore teaches away from their use. At most, Neumann teaches away
from relying exclusively on “artificial landmarks (fiducials) or a priori
known natural landmarks.” Neumann p. 61. In fact, Neumann expressly
contemplates their appropriate use “in situations where known and
recognizable features are always in view.” Neumann p. 61. To that end,
Neumann teaches that his approach is useful in extending conventional
approaches:
Initially, the camera pose is based on the known fiducials, and
our method automatically selects and tracks natural features. As
the camera moves and its pose is tracked over multiple frames,
the recursive filter EKF automatically estimates the 3-D
positions of the tracked natural features. Once the 3-D positions
of the natural features are known within an accuracy threshold,
these features facilitate continued camera pose computation in
the absence of visible fiducials. This approach allows a system
to automatically extend it AR’s tracking range during the course
of its use. In principle, an AR system may increase its robustness
as it is used.
Neumann p. 61–62. Thus, although Neumann teaches an approach in which
natural fiducials can be used to determine pose of a camera in the absence of
known fiducials, it plainly does not disparage the use of other techniques,
such as artificial fiducials, for pose determination. Rather than criticizing,
Appeal 2015-006777
Application 12/546,266

5
discrediting, or otherwise discouraging the use of artificial fiducials together
with natural fiducials, Neumann encourages the use of artificial fiducials
where available, and advocates using his approach to “automatically extend
it AR’s tracking range during the course of its use.” Id. at 62. Accordingly
we are not persuaded that Neumann teaches away from the use of artificial
fiducials.
As noted briefly above, Appellants’ also argue incorporating artificial
fiducials from Leonard or Biocca would change Neumann’s principle of
operation. App. Br. 5. We disagree. As discussed above, Neumann
advocates an approach in which the use of artificial fiducials is enhanced by
selecting and tracking natural features, and that “an AR system may increase
its robustness as it is used.” Neumann p. 61–62. Neumann’s operating
principle is to utilize a priori known landmarks and fiducials, and
supplement them using his natural features tracking approach. As such,
incorporating the use of artificial fiducials is entirely consistent with
Neumann’s approach, and the Examiner’s proposed combination does not
change Neumann’s principle of operation.

Second Issue
In rejecting independent claims 1 and 142, the Examiner finds the
combined teachings of Leonard and Biocca teach “providing apparatus
rigidly mounted relative to the camera for obtaining directly measured
camera location and orientation (DMLO) information.” More specifically,

2 At Oral Argument, Appellants indicated this argument does not support
patentability of independent claim 10, because claim 10 does not require the
use of DMLO information. We agree, and we appreciate Appellants’ candor
on this point.
Appeal 2015-006777
Application 12/546,266

6
the Examiner finds Leonard teaches obtaining DMLO information (Final
Act. 3–4 (citing Leonard ¶ 22)), and relies on Biocca for the disclosure of an
“apparatus rigidly mounted relative to the camera.” Final Act. 4–5 (citing
Biocca ¶ 26); Ans. 15–17.
Appellants contend “Leonard does not teach obtaining directly
measured camera location and orientation (DMLO) information, regardless
of whether the apparatus for doing so is rigidly mounted to the camera or
not.” App. Br. 4. Appellants specifically point to Leonard’s disclosure that
his GPS receiver and inertial sensors provide position and orientation of a
soldier, and not of a mounted camera. App. Br. 4–5. Appellants further
contend Biocca is also deficient because it “does not provide apparatus
rigidly mounted relative to the camera for obtaining directly measured
camera location and orientation (DMLO) information.” App. Br. 5.
According to Appellants, “although Biocca teaches a camera to find
fiducials, there is no disclosure regarding directly measured camera location
and orientation (DMLO) information.” App. Br. 5.
We agree with the Examiner that the combined teachings of Leonard
and Biocca render obvious “providing apparatus rigidly mounted relative to
the camera for obtaining directly measured camera location and orientation
(DMLO) information.” Appellants’ arguments attack each reference in
isolation, but do not address their combined teachings. For example,
Appellants attack Biocca as not teaching “obtaining directly measured
camera location and orientation (DMLO) information.” App. Br. 5.
However, the Examiner relies on Leonard, and not Biocca, for obtaining the
DMLO information. Final Act. 3–4.
Appeal 2015-006777
Application 12/546,266

7
More specifically, the Examiner finds that Leonard teaches the use of
DMLO information in a wearable tracking system (18) that is used to
determine the location of a pose object using GPS receiver (38) and inertial
sensors (64). Final Act. 3–4; Ans. 15–16. We agree with this finding. We
additionally note that Leonard teaches the GPS receiver (38) and inertial
sensors (64) are incorporated into the wearable tracking system (18). See
Leonard Fig. 3. Additionally, the tracking system includes imaging sensor
(62) (see Leonard Fig. 3), which can be an infrared camera, a thermal
camera, or a visible light detector. Leonard ¶ 25. The imaging sensor (62)
provides images of the field of view (FOV) of a soldier wearing the
wearable tracker. Leonard ¶ 25. Although Leonard indicates the pose object
is a soldier wearing the wearable tracking system (18), it is clear from
Leonard’s description that the GPS receiver and the inertial sensors actually
determine the position and orientation of the tracking system (18) itself,
which concomitantly gives the location of the soldier wearing the wearable
tracking system—a tracking system which includes a camera. Leonard ¶ 25.
Leonard does not expressly state the GPS receiver (38) and the inertial
sensors (64) are “rigidly mounted relative to the camera,” nor does he state
the DMLO information obtained by the wearable tracker via the GPS
receiver and inertial sensors is DMLO information specific to the location
and orientation of the imaging sensor (i.e., the camera). The Examiner finds
that Biocca cures this deficiency, and we agree. Biocca teaches an
augmented reality system having a headset worn by a user that includes a
camera (306) with a tracker (304) rigidly mounted directly below it.
Ans. 16–17 (citing Biocca ¶ 26 (“the present invention can be worn by the
user”); Fig. 3).
Appeal 2015-006777
Application 12/546,266

8
Thus, Biocca demonstrates that it was known in the art to rigidly
attach trackers to a camera in a wearable augmented reality device. Leonard
demonstrates that it was known to obtain DMLO information using a
wearable tracking system. With this knowledge, a person of ordinary skill in
the art would have sought to improve Leonard by incorporating the GPS
receiver and the inertial sensors into a tracker rigidly mounted to the camera
as taught by Biocca. As stated by the Examiner, this modification would
“provide an anchor for the visual augmentation,” (Ans. 7), and ensure the
position and location determinations made by the various modalities would
be consistent with each other. Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner that
the cited references teach or suggest “providing apparatus rigidly mounted
relative to the camera for obtaining directly measured camera location and
orientation (DMLO) information.”
Summary
We are not persuaded Neumann teaches away from the invention as
recited in independent claims. Nor are we persuaded the cited references fail
to teach or suggest “providing apparatus rigidly mounted relative to the
camera for obtaining directly measured camera location and orientation
(DMLO) information,” as recited in independent claim 1 and recited
similarly in independent claim 14. Appellants present no separate arguments
for patentability of any dependent claims, so the dependent claims fall
together with their respective independent claims. Accordingly, we sustain
the rejection of claims 1–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–20.
Appeal 2015-006777
Application 12/546,266

9
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED