Ex Parte Tison et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jun 26, 2019

14304176 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jun. 26, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO.
14/304,176
32915 7590
PANDUIT CORP.
FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
06/13/2014 Jack D. Tison
06/28/2019
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
LCB740-CON-l 8731
EXAMINER
18900 Panduit Drive w ANG, YI
Tinley Park, IL 60487
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2611
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/28/2019 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):
patents@panduit.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JACK D. TISON, ZACHARY J. SMOLINSKI,
JOHN 0. O'DONNELL, and BRENDAN F. DOORHY
Appeal2017-009179
Application 14/304, 176
Technology Center 2600
Before JEREMY J. CURCURI, JUSTIN BUSCH, and
PHILLIP A. BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.
BUSCH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellants appeal from the
Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-11, which constitute all the claims
pending in this application. Oral arguments were heard on May 14, 2019.
We have jurisdiction over the pending claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellants' invention relates to a portable device that visually
displays both information and an actual datacenter environment using
augmented reality (AR) so installers or technicians may "view instructions
Appeal2017-009179
Application 14/304, 176
or other data that are visually correlated to the environment in which they
are working." Spec. Abstract; see Spec. ,r 5. Claim 1 is reproduced below:
1. A method for installing equipment at a destination
location, said method comprising the steps of:
(a) providing a portable device to a technician, said
portable device including a display and a camera, and being
configured to display an augmented reality view which provides
a real-time visual depiction of a view of said camera combined
with at least some computer-generated data;
(b) receiving on said portable device a notification, said
notification notifying said technician of a pending work order;
( c) determining said technician's starting location;
( d) guiding said technician from said starting location to
an equipment location by providing a first map view displaying
a first path for said technician to take to reach said equipment
location and said augmented reality view, said first map view and
said augmented reality view being provided simultaneously on
said display;
( e) upon said technician reaching said equipment location
and having said equipment be in view of said camera, providing,
as said computer-generated data on said augmented reality view,
a first visual indicator identifying said equipment;
(f) collecting said equipment;
(g) guiding said technician from said equipment location
to said destination location by providing a second map view
displaying a second path for said technician to take to reach said
destination location and said augmented reality view, said second
map view and said augmented reality view being provided
simultaneously on said display;
(h) upon said technician reaching said destination location
and having an installation location be in view of said camera,
providing, as said computer-generated data on said augmented
reality view, a second visual indicator identifying said
installation location; and
(i) installing said equipment in said installation location,
wherein said augmented reality view provided during both
of said steps ( d) and (g) includes one or more guidance markers
as said computer-generated data.
2
Appeal2017-009179
Application 14/304, 176
REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 4, and 5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious in
view of "BMW augmented reality" video, available at
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P9KPJ1A5yds ("BMW"), Sayers (US
2007/0005382 Al; Jan. 4, 2007), and Gerhard Reitmayr & Dieter
Schmalsteig, "Location based Applications for Mobile Augmented Reality,"
Fourth Australasian User Interface Conference (Australian Comp. Soc., Inc.,
2003) ("Reitmayr"). Final Act. 5-10.
Claims 2 and 3 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious in
view of BMW, Sayers, Reitmayr, and Melby (US 2005/0131729 Al; June
16, 2005). Final Act. 11-12.
Claim 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious in view of
BMW, Sayers, Reitmayr, and Dugger (US 2013/0080081 Al; Mar. 28,
2013). Final Act. 12-13.
Claims 7-9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious in view
of BMW, Sayers, Reitmayr, and Steven J. Henderson & Steven Feiner,
"Evaluating the Benefits of Augmented Reality for Task Localization in
Maintenance of an Armored Personnel Carrier Turret," IEEE Int'l
Symposium on Mixed and Augmented Reality 2009 Sci. & Tech.
Proceedings (Oct. 22, 2009) ("Henderson"). Final Act. 13-15.
Claim 10 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious in view of
BMW, Sayers, Reitmayr, Henderson, and Dugger. Final Act. 15-16.
Claim 11 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious in view of
BMW, Sayers, Reitmayr, Henderson, and Melby. Final Act. 16-17.
3
Appeal2017-009179
Application 14/304, 176
ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds the combination of BMW, Sayers, and Reitmayr
teaches or suggests every limitation recited in claims 1, 4, and 5 and the
same combination, further in view of some combination of Melby, Dugger,
and Henderson, teaches or suggests the additional limitations recited in
claims 2, 3, and 6-11. Final Act. 5-17. Of particular relevance to
Appellants' argument, the Examiner finds BMW and Sayers fail to teach or
suggest the determining a starting location step and the two guiding steps
recited in claim 1. Final Act. 7-8. The Examiner finds Reitmayr' s
augmented reality application, which identifies a user location and directs
the user to a destination room while simultaneously displaying a "world in
miniature model (WIM)," teaches or suggests these three steps. Final
Act. 8-9.
The Examiner concludes it would have been obvious to modify the
BMW-Sayers system to use Reitmayr' s "navigation applications to guide a
user from current position to a destination using an AR view and a map view
simultaneously on the display" because Reitmayr discloses that visitors have
a hard time finding their way through an office building. Final Act. 9-10.
The Examiner finds Reitmayr teaches or suggests a location and guiding
application in an AR system and, similar to BMW, Reitmayr uses AR to aid
a person in performing a job or task. Ans. 17-18. The Examiner reasons
that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have combined
Reitmayr' s location and guiding features with BMW's AR automotive repair
teachings so that a person performing repairs could find a part from another
location within the building in which they are performing the repairs.
Ans. 18.
4
Appeal2017-009179
Application 14/304, 176
Appellants argue the Examiner has not provided a sufficient reason
for combining Reitmayr's teachings with BMW's teachings. Br. 7-10. In
particular, Appellants contend the Examiner's rationale for combining the
cited teachings (i.e., "to solve the problem that ' [ m Jany visitors to our
institute have a hard time to find their way through the complicated and
poorly labelled corridors of our office building," Final Act. 10) "does not
make sense when it is applied to the teachings of BMW, as modified by
Sayers." Br. 7. More specifically, Appellants argue a mechanic using
BMW's teachings would work in a small space in which all tools and parts
are "within an arm's reach" and, therefore, would have no use for
Reitmayr' s guidance application. Br. 8. Appellants further assert the
proffered rationale for guiding visitors through an office building with
complicated and poorly labelled corridors is insufficient because a mechanic
applying BMW's teachings in a car repair facility is unrelated to guiding
visitors through an office building. Br. 8-9.
Appellants did not file a Reply Brief to respond to the Examiner's
Answer that further explains the rationale for combining Reitmayr with the
BMW-Sayer system. However, at oral argument Appellants asserted a
person of ordinary skill in the art would not have added Reitmayr' s guidance
application teachings to the proposed BMW-Sayer system because
dealerships separate their service and parts departments so mechanics do not
need to leave their repair bay to find replacement parts. Tr. 6-10.
The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is
likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable
results. KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,416 (2007). A prima
facie conclusion of obviousness may be supported by a showing that the
5
Appeal2017-009179
Application 14/304, 176
claims are directed to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of
matter already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution
of one element for another known in the field, and such modification yields
a predictable result. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 416 (citing U.S. v. Adams, 383
U.S. 39, 40 (1966)). The Court further stated that:
[I]f a technique has been used to improve one device, and a
person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would
improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is
obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill.
KSR, 550 U.S. at 417. Thus, when considering whether the combination of
known elements would have been obvious, the operative question is
"whether the improvement is more than the predictable use of prior-art
elements according to their established functions." KSR, 550 U.S. at 417.
At oral argument, Appellants stated the person of ordinary skill in the
art would be a person working in a datacenter who needs to find and replace
equipment in a datacenter. Tr. 12-14. Appellants identify no evidence
supporting this position. The Examiner made no findings regarding the level
of ordinary skill in the art. The Specification describes the invention as an
augmented reality (AR) system that simultaneously presents a visual
depiction of datacenter hardware in a network datacenter with information
about equipment in the network datacenter. Spec. ,r 5. Appellants' claims
are broader and recite a "method for installing equipment at a destination
location." Br. 11-12 (Claim 1). The principal steps claim 1 recites in
support of this method are displaying an augmented reality view, receiving a
notification of a work order, determining a technician's location, guiding the
technician from a starting location to an equipment location, identifying
equipment at the equipment location, guiding the technician to a destination
6
Appeal2017-009179
Application 14/304, 176
location, and identifying the installation location. Br. 11-12 ( Claim 1 ). 1
Thus, other than basic human actions recited at a high level of generality
(i.e., providing an AR device and locating and installing equipment), the
claims require only the ability to provide work order and navigational
information in an AR system.
Although the claims do not require any AR features that appear to be
complex or novel, the Specification does not provide any details regarding
how to program an AR system to perform the recited steps. The
Specification merely describes what information may be displayed in the AR
system, what the information will look like when displayed in the AR
system, and exemplary data center systems that may be connected to the AR
system in order to provide such information. See, e.g., Spec. ,r,r 21-3 7,
Figs. 2, 4.
Thus, in order to be capable of making Appellants' invention (i.e., an
AR system that provides the claimed functions of identifying a location,
guiding a user, and identifying equipment or locations), we determine a
person of ordinary skill in the art would be a person having basic familiarity
and experience in programming AR systems. Assuming AR systems at the
time of Appellants' invention included a graphical user interface and already
included the necessary navigational and information-display features and a
method for an end-user to select such features, a person of ordinary skill in
1 The majority of claim 1 recites steps performed at or by the "portable
device" that includes a camera and a display that is configured to display the
augmented reality view. Claim 1 also recites three steps that appear to be
steps performed by a person ( or automaton), namely "providing a portable
device to a technician," "collecting said equipment," and "installing said
equipment in said location."
7
Appeal2017-009179
Application 14/304, 176
the art would at least have basic experience programming or setting up
customizable electronics having similar user interfaces for such set-up or
customization. Although the claims do not require the technician to be a
network datacenter technician, it is at least possible, then, that a network
datacenter technician, or other person having similar technological
experience, would have the requisite knowledge and experience to program
the claimed AR system. On this record, we determine a network datacenter
technician, or equivalent, is the minimum level of skill of an ordinarily
skilled artisan. However, for our purposes, we need not determine the exact
level of ordinary skill in the art and, therefore, we accept Appellants'
assertion that a network datacenter technician is a person of ordinary skill in
the art.
At oral argument, Appellants contended they argued Reitmayr and
BMW were not analogous art in the Appeal Brief. Tr. 17-19. Appellants'
statements in the Appeal Brief do not provide sufficient basis to challenge
whether Reitmayr and BMW are analogous art to Appellants' invention.
Appellants' arguments simply present the differences between Reitmayr and
BMW and are presented in the context of Appellants' argument against the
Examiner's rationale for combining BMW and Reitmayr. See Br. 8-9; Final
Act. 3, 9-10; accord Tr. 18-19 ("So we don't say it. We don't call it out
specifically, but ... we're addressing [the Examiner's] arguments and
they're analogous. It's not ... as clear as I've just related now, but that's
why we're here today."). A proper analogous art argument must at least
allege that the prior art reference is from a different field of endeavor than
Appellants' invention, and not reasonably pertinent to the problems faced by
the inventor. See In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656, 658 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
8
Appeal2017-009179
Application 14/304, 176
Appellants' argument does not do that. Specifically, neither
Appellants' Brief nor their oral argument identifies which of the three prior
art references allegedly are not analogous art to Appellants' invention.
Instead, Appellants simply assert "it would be unreasonable to equate
[BMW's] automotive mechanic working in a car repair facility with
[Reitmayr' s] visitor to an office building full of complicated and poorly
labelled corridors." Br. 8-9. To the extent Appellants' assertions raise a
non-analogous art argument with respect to BMW, Reitmayr, or both, we are
not persuaded.
Appellants' claims are directed to a method of installing equipment
(notably not limited to a datacenter) using augmented reality to aid the
technician replacing the equipment by providing navigation instructions and
indicators identifying equipment. As discussed above, the invention uses
augmented reality to simultaneously present a visual depiction of datacenter
hardware in a network datacenter with information about equipment in the
network datacenter. Spec. ,r 5. The invention allegedly provides a solution
for presenting combined relevant information to a technician in a useful
format. Spec. ,r,r 4--5. On this record, then, we determine the field of
endeavor is using augmented reality to simultaneously display a physical
environment with relevant equipment information and navigational
instructions to aid a technician in replacing equipment.
BMW discloses overlaying instructions and indicators that identify
equipment in augmented reality to assist an automotive technician in
replacing automotive equipment. BMW, therefore, is in the same field of
endeavor as Appellants' invention. Reitmayr describes using augmented
reality to navigate complex or confusing and poorly labelled corridors.
9
Appeal2017-009179
Application 14/304, 176
Because Appellants' claims recite augmented reality navigation at a high
level, Reitmayr is arguably within the same field of endeavor. Regardless,
when seeking to integrate navigational instructions as relevant information
for simultaneous display to a user, Reitmayr is at least reasonably pertinent
to this aspect of the problem the inventor was attempting to solve.
Therefore, we also determine Reitmayr is analogous art to Appellants'
invention.
For these reasons, we agree with the Examiner that claim 1 would
have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art seeking to
"combine[] up-to-date system information with the ability to present this
information to key technical personnel in a highly useful format" while
installing or relocating hardware, Spec. ,r,r 4--5, if that person were presented
with BMW, Sayers, and Reitmayr at the time of Appellants' invention.
Specifically, the Examiner finds, and Appellants do not contest, BMW
teaches or suggests an AR system for a technician to replace or repair
equipment, Sayers teaches or suggests using a graphical user interface to
locate an asset in a data center, and Reitmayr teaches or suggests AR real-
time navigation systems to help a person identify a desired location. Given
these teachings, and the desire to design a system that presented up-to-date
system information in a useful format to a technician relocating hardware,
we are not persuaded the Examiner's rationale is insufficient.
Appellants' assertion that automotive technicians never need to leave
their immediate surroundings to obtain a replacement part, Br. 8; Tr. 6-9, is
unpersuasive in light of our interpretation of the evidence. In particular,
BMW at 1 :43 shows the removed part and a replacement part taking up the
entire surface of the technician's workspace. No other replacement parts are
10
Appeal2017-009179
Application 14/304, 176
shown in the technician's workspace in the video. Moreover, it seems
unlikely that the particular part the technician needed to replace (in this case,
the fan cowl) would always be at the technician's workspace. Thus, it
appears from BMW, that the technician or someone else retrieved the
replacement fan cowl from somewhere else in the facility at some point in
time.
We are not persuaded by Appellants' argument that, in all cases, a
mechanic would put an order in for parts and the part would be delivered to
the mechanic without the mechanic needing to leave the workspace. Tr. 6-
9. Even assuming Appellants' attorney argument that dealerships always
separate their parts and service departments so a mechanic never leaves their
station to find a part is correct, not all mechanics work at dealerships. Some
auto repair shops may not separate their parts and service departments and,
therefore, we see no error in the Examiner's reasoning. We agree with the
Examiner that the video at least suggests a technician may need to obtain a
part from another location within the repair facility such that adding
Reitmayr's guiding features to BMW would have been an obvious
improvement. Thus, we find the Examiner's reasoning is rational and
supported by evidence drawn from the record. Ans. 18; see BMW at 1 :43.
Furthermore, even accepting Appellants' argument, the person of
ordinary skill in the art considering BMW, Sayers, and Reitmayr would not
have been attempting to modify BMW to include guidance features within
an auto repair shop. Rather, the person of ordinary skill in the art in this
case would have been evaluating methods to display useful information
while relocating hardware in, for example, a datacenter. Given this purpose,
the level of ordinary skill in the art, and the undisputed teachings of the cited
11
Appeal2017-009179
Application 14/304, 176
prior art, we agree with the Examiner that the proposed combination would
have been obvious.
Finally, "[ t ]he combination of familiar elements according to known
methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable
results." KSR, 550 U.S. at 416. Here, the Examiner's proposed combination
merely requires adding Reitmayr's AR navigation features to BMW's AR
equipment replacement system, which would yield the predictable result of
an AR system that provides useful information for both navigation and
equipment replacement. Appellants' argument that adding navigational
information to BMW's system would simply provide unnecessary
information and obstruct a user's view, Br. 9, is not persuasive. A person of
ordinary skill in the art would not display useless navigational information
when providing AR-aided replacement instructions. "[A] person of ordinary
skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton." KSR, 550
U.S. at 421. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have
understood the benefit of designing a system that provided navigational
instructions only when necessary and replacement instructions when
necessary, without providing information during a time at which that
information is not helpful, let alone at a time at which the information is
distracting.
For these reasons, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in
rejecting claim 1 as obvious in view of BMW, Sayers, and Reitmayr.
Although claims 2, 3, and 5-11 include additional references, Appellants do
not argue any of claims 2-11 separately with particularity, relying only on
the argument that the Examiner's rationale for combining Reitmayr with
BMW and Sayers is insufficient. See Br. 10. Accordingly, for the same
12
Appeal2017-009179
Application 14/304, 176
reasons discussed above, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in
rejection dependent claims 2-11 as obvious.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-11 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious.
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).
AFFIRMED
13