GOOGLE INC.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Feb 1, 2021

2019005247 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 1, 2021)

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.
15/018,366 02/08/2016 Evan Hardesty PARKER 0059-253001 1001
79318 7590 02/01/2021
BRAKE HUGHES BELLERMANN LLP
P.O. Box 1077
Middletown, MD 21769
EXAMINER
BRIER, JEFFERY A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2613
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/01/2021 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):
docketing@brakehughes.com
uspto@brakehughes.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte EVAN HARDESTY PARKER,
DOMINIK PHILEMON KAESER, ALEKSANDR PALATNIK, and
ADAM GLAZIER
___________

Appeal 2019-005247
Application 15/018,366
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, JEAN R. HOMERE, and
JAMES B. ARPIN, Administrative Patent Judges.

ARPIN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
decision rejecting claims 1–4, 6–8, and 10–20, all of the pending claims.
Final Act. 1.2 Claims 5 and 9 are cancelled. Appeal Br. 25 (Claims App.).

1 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42.
Appellant identifies the real party-in-interest as Google LLC. Appeal Br. 1.
2 In this Decision, we refer to Appellant’s Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.,” filed
February 28, 2019) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed June 27, 2019); the
Final Office Action (“Final Act.,” mailed August 28, 2018) and the
Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed May 2, 2019); and the Specification
(“Spec.,” filed February 8, 2016). Rather than repeat the Examiner’s
findings and Appellant’s contentions in their entirety, we refer to these
documents.
Appeal 2019-005247
Application 15/018,366

2

We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The claimed methods and systems “relate[], generally, to field of view
in a virtual reality environment, and in particular, field of view during
transport in virtual reality.” Spec. ¶ 1. These systems and methods may be
better understood by considering Appellant’s Figures 4B and 4C.
Appellant’s Figure 4B is reproduced below.

Figure 4B depicts “transport between a first virtual location and a second
virtual location in a virtual reality environment, in accordance with
embodiments as described [in the Specification].” Id. ¶ 10. In particular,
Figure 4B depicts first virtual location 410 and menu 430 including
Appeal 2019-005247
Application 15/018,366

3

selectable menu items 430A–C representing second virtual locations. Id.
¶ 23.
Figure 4C is reproduced below.

Like Figure 4B, Figure 4C depicts “transport between a first virtual location
and a second virtual location in a virtual reality environment, in accordance
with embodiments as described [in the Specification].” Id. ¶ 10. In
particular, when a user selects menu item 430C of Figure 4B, the user
transports to second virtual location 420 of Figure 4C. Id. ¶ 23. Figure 4C
depicts second virtual location 420 within portal 440 defined by a closed
curve. Id. ¶ 24; see id. ¶ 30 ([T]he portal 440 is substantially round, simply
for ease of discussion and illustration. However, the portal may have
various other shapes, such as, for example, oval, square, rectangular, or other
closed curve shape.”). Fixed feature 450, such as a grid, may be displayed
in peripheral area 460 surrounding portal 440. Id. ¶ 24.
Appeal 2019-005247
Application 15/018,366

4

Further, the Specification explains:
As the dynamic virtual animation is displayed within the
confines of the portal 440, corresponding to the a relatively
rapidly changing animation of the user’s journey from the first
virtual location 410 to the second virtual location 420, the fixed
feature 450 surrounding the portal 440 remains stationary (e.g.,
fixed) and/or unchanged. The fixed feature 450 may anchor the
user’s perspective while viewing the dynamic animation through
the portal 440, to provide a consistent and stationary frame of
reference in the user’s peripheral vision. This stationary frame
of reference surrounding the rapidly changing dynamic
animation displayed in the portal 440 may prevent motion
sickness, disorientation and the like which may otherwise be
experienced by the user as the user views this type of rapid
dynamic animation, without also experiencing physical motion
corresponding to the rapid dynamic animation.
Id.; see id. ¶ 25.
As noted above, claims 1–4, 6–8, and 10–20 are pending. Claims 1,
11, and 13 are independent. Appeal Br. 24 (claim 1), 26 (claim 11), 27
(claim 13) (Claims App.). Claims 2–4, 6–8, and 10 depend directly or
indirectly from claim 1; claim 12 depends directly from claim 11; and
claims 14–20 depend directly or indirectly from claim 13. Id. at 24–28.
Claims 1 and 11, reproduced below with disputed limitations
emphasized, are illustrative.
1. A method, comprising:
displaying, on a head mounted display device, a first
virtual scene corresponding to a first virtual location;
detecting a command to move from the first virtual
location to a second virtual location; and
moving from the first virtual location to the second virtual
location in response to the command, including:
displaying a fixed portal within a user field of view, the
portal being defined by a closed curve;
Appeal 2019-005247
Application 15/018,366

5

displaying a fixed feature surrounding the portal, the fixed
feature including a plurality of fixed geometric features
displayed in fixed positions in an area surrounding the portal; and
displaying a dynamic animation of movement from the
first virtual location to the second virtual location only within the
closed curve defining the portal, including:
maintaining a position and a contour of the fixed portal,
and a position and an arrangement of the geometric features of
the fixed feature surrounding the fixed portal, fixed in the user
field of view;
detecting a movement of the head mounted display device
while the dynamic animation is displayed within the portal; and
shifting a perspective view of the dynamic animation
displayed within the portal in response to the detected movement
of the head mounted display device.
Id. at 24 (emphases added).
11.3 A method, including:
displaying an immersive virtual environment on a head
mounted display device;
detecting a command to move from a first virtual location
to a second virtual location in the virtual environment;
in response to detecting the command:
displaying a fixed portal in a first portion of a user field of
view and a fixed feature in a second portion of the user field of
view, the fixed feature surrounding the portal, the fixed feature
including a plurality of fixed geometric elements displayed in
fixed positions in the second portion of the user field of view;
displaying a dynamic animation of travel from the first
virtual location to the second virtual location only within the

3 The Examiner explains, “[independent m]ethod claim 11 is a combination
of method claims 1, 2, and 3 and is rejected for the reasons given above for
method claims 1, 2, and 3. However, this claim does not claim the ‘closed
curve’ claimed in claim 1.” Final Act. 25.
Appeal 2019-005247
Application 15/018,366

6

portal, a position and a contour of the portal, and a position and
an arrangement of the geometric features of the fixed feature,
remaining fixed while the dynamic animation is displayed within
the portal;
detecting a movement of the head mounted display device
while the dynamic animation is displayed within the portal;
shifting a perspective view of the dynamic animation
displayed within the portal in response to the detected movement
of the head mounted display device; and
replacing the display of the portal and the fixed feature
with a scene corresponding to the second virtual location in
response to detecting arrival at the second virtual location.
Id. at 26 (emphasis added).
REFERENCES AND REJECTIONS
The Examiner relies upon the following references:
Name4 Reference Published Filed
Fedorovskaya US 2012/0105483 A1 May 3, 2012 Oct. 28, 2010
Bolas US 2014/0268356 A1 Sept. 18, 2014 Mar. 17, 2014
Hasegawa CA 2 928 248 A1 July 23, 2015 Dec. 11, 2014
Yavrucuk A Low Cost Flight
Simulator Using
Virtual Reality Tools,
IEEE A&E SYS.
MAGAZINE, Apr. 2011
Mar. 5, 2009 Sept. 2, 2008
The Examiner rejects:
1. claims 1, 2, 4, 6–8, 10, 13–18, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
obvious over the combined teachings of Fedorovskaya, Bolas, and
Yavrucuk (Final Act. 7–23); and

4 All reference citations are to the first named inventor or author only.
Appeal 2019-005247
Application 15/018,366

7

2. claims 3, 11, 12, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over the
combined teachings of Fedorovskaya, Bolas, Yavrucuk, and
Hasegawa (id. at 23–26).
We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues
identified by Appellant, and in light of the contentions and evidence
produced thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010)
(precedential). The Examiner and Appellant focus their findings and
contentions on claims 1 and 11; so do we. See Appeal Br. 8, 17–22;
Ans. 23–29; Reply Br. 2–9. Arguments not made are forfeited.5 Unless
otherwise indicated, we adopt the Examiner’s findings in the Final Office
Action and the Answer as our own and add any additional findings of fact
for emphasis. We address the rejections below.
ANALYSIS
A. Claim Interpretation
The Examiner interprets terms of claims 1–4, 6–8, 10, and 13–20.
Final Act. 3–6. The Examiner and this Board have an independent
obligation to determine the meaning of an application’s claims,
notwithstanding any views asserted by Appellant. See, e.g., Exxon Chem.
Patents, Inc. v. Lubrizol Corp., 64 F.3d 1553, 1555 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (“[T]he
trial judge has an independent obligation to determine the meaning of the

5 See In re Google Tech. Holdings LLC, 980 F.3d 858, 863 (Fed. Cir. 2020)
(“We interpret the Patent Office to be arguing that Google’s failure to raise
its lexicography arguments, inadvertent or not, compels a finding of
forfeiture.”); 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (“Except as provided for in
§§ 41.41, 41.47 and 41.52, any arguments or authorities not included in the
appeal brief will be refused consideration by the Board for purposes of the
present appeal.”).
Appeal 2019-005247
Application 15/018,366

8

claims, notwithstanding the views asserted by the adversary parties.”), cert.
denied, 518 U.S. 1020 (1996). Claim construction is a question of law, and
we review the Examiner’s interpretations de novo.
1. Interpreting “a computing device” and “a processor” as nonce
words
With respect to claims 13–20, the Examiner finds:
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do
not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted
under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) . . ., because the claim limitation(s) uses
a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language
without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited
function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a
structural modifier.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“a computing device configured to generate an immersive
virtual environment” and “a processor configured to execute the
instructions to cause the computing device to” present in claim
13; and
“wherein processor is further configured to execute the
instructions to cause the computing device to” present in claims
18-20.
Final Act 5. For three reasons, we conclude that the Examiner’s reasoning
alone is not sufficient to show these are “means” limitations. See Zeroclick,
LLC v. Apple Inc., 891 F.3d 1003, 1008–09 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
First, the Examiner makes no findings regarding the meaning of the
term “computing device” or “processor,” but, instead, relies on the presence
of functional language in the claims to find that these terms are nonce words.
Final Act. 5. “[T]he mere fact that the disputed limitations incorporate
functional language does not automatically convert the words into means for
performing such functions.” Zeroclick, 891 F.3d. at 1008.
Appeal 2019-005247
Application 15/018,366

9

Second, the Examiner’s analysis removed the terms from their context
in the claims and Specification, which otherwise strongly suggests the plain
and ordinary meaning of the terms. See Final Act. 5. For example, claim 13
recites that the processor executes instructions causing the computing device
to perform actions, such as “display[ing] the virtual environment on a
display device of the computing device” and “detect[ing] a command to
move from a first virtual location to a second virtual location in the virtual
environment.” Appeal Br. 27 (Claims app.). Further, the Specification
discloses that “a computing device” may
represent various forms of digital computers, such as laptops,
desktops, tablets, workstations, personal digital assistants,
televisions, servers, blade servers, mainframes, and other
appropriate computing devices [or] various forms of mobile
devices, such as personal digital assistants, cellular telephones,
smart phones, and other similar computing devices[;]
and the “processor” may be “a semiconductor-based processor.” Spec. ¶¶ 37
(describing “computing device”), 38 (describing “processor”); see id. ¶¶ 15
(describing “handheld electronic device 102” in Fig. 1), 19 (describing “a
second electronic device 302 (such as, for example, a handheld electronic
device as described above with respect to FIG. 1)” in Fig. 3), Figs. 1, 3.
These are not nonce words, e.g., “generic placeholders,” but, instead, are
terms with structural meanings evident from their use in context in the
claims and the Specification.
Third, the Examiner made no pertinent finding that compels the
conclusion that “a computing device” or “a processor” “is used in common
parlance as substitute for ‘means.’” Zeroclick, 891 F.3d. at 1009 (citing
Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339, 1350–51 (Fed. Cir. 2015)
(en banc) (affirming the district court’s finding that “‘module’ is simply a
Appeal 2019-005247
Application 15/018,366

10

generic description for software or hardware that performs a specified
function” based on, among other things, the patent owner acknowledging
so)).
For the foregoing reasons, we conclude there is insufficient reasoning
supporting the Examiner’s interpretation of these terms under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112(f). Nevertheless, Appellant does not contest the Examiner’s
interpretations nor challenge the Examiner’s rejections based on these
interpretations. Amendment and Response under 37 C.F.R. § 1.116, 9 (filed
Oct. 17, 2018) (“The Applicant takes no position as to how the Office
chooses to interpret the recitation of these features.”). Therefore, our
concern with the Examiner’s interpretations is not dispositive. See supra
note 5.
2. “closed curve”
With respect to claims 1, 7, 8, 15, and 16, the Examiner finds the
claim limitation “closed curve” portal may be substantially round, as
depicted in Appellant’s Figures 4A–E, or “may have various other shapes,
such as, for example, oval, square, rectangular, or other closed curve shape.”
Final Act. 6 (quoting Spec. ¶ 30); see Spec., Fig. 4C (reproduced above).
Appellant also does not dispute this interpretation, and we agree with the
Examiner.
B. Obviousness of Claim 1 Over Fedorovskaya, Bolas, and Yavrucuk
As noted above, the Examiner rejects independent claim 1 as obvious
over the combined teachings of Fedorovskaya, Bolas, and Yavrucuk. Final
Act. 7–18. Appellant contests the rejection of claim 1 separately. Appeal
Appeal 2019-005247
Application 15/018,366

11

Br. 11–16, 18–22. For the reasons given below, we are not persuaded the
Examiner errs, and we sustain this rejection.
1. “detecting a command” step
With respect to claim 1, the Examiner finds that combined disclosures
of Fedorovskaya, Bolas, and Yavrucuk teach or suggest all of the limitations
recited in claim 1 and that a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art would
have had reason to combine the references’ teachings to achieve the recited
methods of claim 1. Final Act. 10–18. In particular, the Examiner finds
Fedorovskaya and Yavrucuk teach or suggest, “detecting a command to
move from a first virtual location to a second virtual location.” Id. at 11; see
Appeal Br. 24 (Claims App.). Specifically, Fedorovskaya discloses,
a flight simulation detects a first command to move from the
currently displayed first virtual location to a second virtual
location; and a movie of travel simulation detects a first
command to move from the currently displayed first virtual
location to a second virtual location such as via the play movie
button.
Final Act. 11; see Fedorovskaya ¶¶ 10, 11, 14 (describing flight simulators);
Yavrucuk, Abstract, 10 (col. 2):22–25, 12 (col. 1):1–3, 12 (col. 2):5–18
(describing flight simulators). Thus, the Examiner finds a flight simulator
program detects a command to move from one virtual location to another.
See Yavrucuk, 13 (col. 1):7–9 (“The pilot can also reach the cockpit panel,
press a button, and hence interact with the virtual environment (Figure 5).”);
see also Final Act. 11; Ans. 23 (referencing Fedorovskaya and Yavrucuk).
Appellant contends:
Fedorovskaya is silent to, and does not disclose or suggest
“detecting a command to move from the first virtual location to
a second virtual location,” as recited in the independent claims.
Appeal 2019-005247
Application 15/018,366

12

Absent such a command, Fedorovskaya thus necessarily neither
discloses nor suggests “moving from the first virtual location to
the second virtual location in response to the command,” as
recited in the independent claims, nor that moving in response to
such a command could or should include “displaying a dynamic
animation of movement from the first virtual location to the
second virtual location only within the closed curve defining the
portal,” as recited in the independent claims.
Appeal Br. 13; see Reply Br. 2–3. We disagree.
The Examiner relies on combined disclosures of Fedorovskaya and
Yavrucuk, not Fedorovskaya’s teachings alone, to teach or suggest this
disputed limitation. Final Act. 11; Ans. 23. Further, we are persuaded that a
flight simulator would detect commands to present different locations to a
user. See Fedorovskaya ¶ 4 (“In the present application, immersive displays
are considered to be those displays that are intended to obscure a user’s view
of the real world to present information to the user from the display.”);
Yavrucuk, Abstract (“The simulator uses FlightGear as its simulation
environment and an in-house developed UH-1H helicopter flight dynamics
model. Running several clone simulations on different computers allowed
stereo imaging on the [head mounted display] and instructor station
applications. Data Gloves with trackers enabled interaction with the virtual
cockpit.”). Thus, combined disclosures of these references teach or suggest
this limitation. One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references
individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references.
See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800
F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Appellant further contends that
Bolas does not disclose or render obvious “detecting a
command to move from the first virtual location to a second
Appeal 2019-005247
Application 15/018,366

13

virtual location,” as recited in the independent claims, nor
“moving from the first virtual location to the second virtual
location in response to the command,” as recited in the
independent claims.
Appeal Br. 14 (boldface omitted). As noted above, however, the Examiner
relies on the combined teachings of Fedorovskaya and Yavrucuk, not
Bolas’s teachings, to teach or suggest this limitation. Final Act. 11; Ans. 23.
Thus, we find these contentions regarding Bolas’s teachings are not
responsive to the Examiner’s rejection and unpersuasive of error. See
Appeal Br. 14–15.
2. “detecting a movement of the head mounted display” and
“shifting a perspective view” steps
The Examiner finds Bolas and Yavrucuk teach or suggest, “detecting
a movement of the head mounted display device while the dynamic
animation is displayed within the portal.” Final Act. 14; see Appeal Br. 24
(Claims App.). In particular, Bolas discloses:
A head mounted display (HMD) includes a display that is seen
through optics. The optics focuses the display onto the user’s
eyes such that the field of view is mapped to the user’s natural
field of view. As the user moves, trackers in the HMD allow
detection of the yaw, pitch, and roll of the HMD, corresponding
to the user’s movements, to accordingly update the field of view
of the virtual environment.
Bolas ¶ 24 (emphasis added); see Ans. 25. Moreover, with respect to
Figure 3A, Bolas explains:
The HMD 310 includes trackers or other sensors (integrated with
the HMD 310 but not visible in FIG. 3A or 3B), such as
accelerometers and gyroscopes, which allows a display of the
HMD 310 to dynamically render scenes of a virtual environment
in response to the user’s head movements.
Appeal 2019-005247
Application 15/018,366

14

Bolas ¶ 43 (emphasis added); see Ans. 25. Similarly, Yavrucuk discloses,
“[a] motion tracker on the HMD calculates the angular position of the
display unit and feeds it back to the computers.” Yavrucuk, 12 (col. 1):1–3;
see Ans. 25. Thus, the Examiner finds that Bolas and Yavrucuk teach or
suggest this first disputed step as recited in claim 1.
In addition, the Examiner finds Bolas and Yavrucuk teach or suggest,
“shifting a perspective view of the dynamic animation displayed within the
portal in response to the detected movement of the head mounted display
device.” Final Act. 14; see Appeal Br. 24 (Claims App.). In particular, as
noted above, Bolas and Yavrucuk teach or suggest detecting movement and
altering dynamically displayed animation in response to that movement.
Bolas ¶¶ 24, 43; Yavrucuk, 12 (col. 1):1–3. Further, Yavrucuk discloses:
FlightGear allows the user to position a camera to any
desired point and angular position in the simulation. The camera
positions of Computer 1 and 2 are set with a slight off-set to each
other to create a stereo image on the HMD. The images
generated in each computer are projected onto the LCD screens
of the HMD. The camera positions are set a few inches apart
with a few degrees of angular off-set allowing the user to focus
into the cockpit and surroundings. This allows the user to
perceive the depth of objects in the simulation. The tracker signal
on the HMD is fed to Computer 2 and the camera angular
positions of the simulations running in Computer 1 and 2 are
updated accordingly. Hence, the user can view a 360º view by
rotating the HMD.
Yavrucuk 12 (col. 2):5–18 (emphases added). Thus, the Examiner finds,
“Bolas covers HMD system detects movement of HMD and shifts
perspective based on detected movement of HMD and these two claim
limitations as a whole are covered by Yavrucuk.” Ans. 25; see id. at 27
(“Thus, each of Bolas and Yavrucuk cover this argued claim limitation.”).
Appeal 2019-005247
Application 15/018,366

15

Appellant contends:
Fedorovskaya is silent with respect to, and does not disclose or
suggest any shifting of a perspective view of the image displayed
within the confines of the (inner) portion 15 of the dynamically
switchable viewing area 11, let alone in response to a detected
movement of the head mounted display device. Fedorovskaya
does not disclose or suggest “detecting a movement of the head
mounted display device while the dynamic animation is
displayed within the portal,” as recited in the independent claims,
and “shifting a perspective view of the dynamic animation
displayed within the portal in response to the detected movement
of the head mounted display device,” as recited in the
independent claims.
Appeal Br. 13. As noted above, however, the Examiner relies on combined
disclosures of Bolas and Yavrucuk, not Fedorovskaya, to teach or suggest
this limitation. Final Act. 14; Ans. 25. Thus, we find these contentions
regarding Fedorovskaya’s teachings are not responsive to the Examiner’s
rejection and unpersuasive of error. See Appeal Br. 13; Reply Br. 4.
Appellant also contends:
Like Fedorovskaya, Bolas does not disclose or suggest any
shifting of a perspective view of the image displayed within the
confines of the occluding plane 142 whatsoever, let alone in
response to a detected movement of the head mounted display
device 110. Like Fedorovskaya, Bolas does not disclose or
suggest “detecting a movement of the head mounted display
device while the dynamic animation is displayed within the
portal,” and “shifting a perspective view of the dynamic
animation displayed within the portal in response to the detected
movement of the head mounted display device,” as recited in the
independent claims.
Appeal Br. 16; see Reply Br. 4–5. In particular, Appellant contends that
Bolas detects head movement as an indication of motion sickness. See
Appeal Br. 15–16 (citing Bolas ¶¶ 42–44). However, Bolas is not limited to
Appeal 2019-005247
Application 15/018,366

16

movement detection for this purpose. See Ans. 25 (citing Bolas ¶¶ 24, 43);
see also Bolas ¶ 36 (“Similarly, if the tracking system that senses head
orientation and/or position becomes noisy, or inaccurate, then the [field of
view (FOV)] could be reduced, until better tracking data is available.”
(emphasis added)).
Appellant contends:
Yavrucuk does not disclose or suggest detecting a
movement of the head mounted display device while the
dynamic animation is displayed within any type of portal, nor
shifting a perspective view of the dynamic animation displayed
within such a portal in response to the detected movement of the
head mounted display device, as recited in independent claim 1
. . . . Yavrucuk does not disclose or suggest the use of a portal in
displaying any portion of the synthetic environment, nor that a
portal (such as that as allegedly disclosed by Fedorovskaya
and/or Bolas) could or should be incorporated into a system as
disclosed by Yavrucuk. In fact, as a “360° view” device,
Yavrucuk teaches away from such an implementation that would
restrict a view.
In the system proposed by Yavrucuk, the synthetic
environment, as well as the synthetic cockpit controls and
instrumentation, are visible to the user simply by glancing at a
corresponding portion of the display with in the HMD.
Yavrucuk does not disclose or suggest that a perspective of the
view presented to the user is shifted, or in any way altered, in
response to a detected head movement of the user.
Appeal Br. 19–20; see Reply Br. 5. Nevertheless, the Examiner relies on
Fedorovskaya and Bolas, not Yavrucuk, to teach or suggest the recited
“portal” of claim 1. See Final Act. 11–13. For the reasons given above, we
are persuaded the Examiner shows that in combination with Bolas,
Yavrucuk teaches or suggests a perspective of the view presented to the user
Appeal 2019-005247
Application 15/018,366

17

may change in response to a detected head movement. See Ans. 25–26
(citing Yavrucuk, 12 (col. 1):1–3, 12 (col. 2):5–18).
The Examiner relies on combined disclosures of Bolas and Yavrucuk,
rather than the teachings of Bolas or Yavrucuk alone, to teach or suggest
these limitations. Final Act. 14; Ans. 25. For the reasons given above, we
are persuaded the Examiner has shown that Bolas and Yavrucuk together
teach or suggest these disputed limitations. See Bolas ¶¶ 24, 43; Yavrucuk,
12 (col. 1):1–3, 12 (col. 2):5–18. As noted above, one cannot show
nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are
based on combinations of references. See Keller, 642 F.2d at 426; Merck,
800 F.2d at 1097.
3. Reasons to combine
Appellant contends the Examiner fails to show sufficient reasons for a
person of ordinary skill in the relevant art to have combined the teachings of
Fedorovskaya, Bolas, and Yavrucuk. Appeal Br. 20–22; Reply Br. 5–8.
First, Appellant contends the Examiner relies on impermissible hindsight in
combining the teachings of these references. Appeal Br. 20–21; Reply Br.
5–6. Second, Appellant contends that the references teach away from their
combination. Appeal Br. 21–22; Reply Br. 7–8. For the reasons given
below, we disagree.
First, Appellant contends, “[a] lack of adequate explanation as to what
specific understanding or technological principle within the knowledge of
one of ordinary skill in the art would have suggested the combination should
lead the Board to infer that the examiner selected the references with the
assistance of hindsight.” Appeal Br. 20–21 (citation omitted). Initially, we
note:
Appeal 2019-005247
Application 15/018,366

18

Any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a
reconstruction based on hindsight reasoning, but so long as it
takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of
ordinary skill [in the art] at the time the claimed invention was
made and does not include knowledge gleaned only from
applicant’s disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper.
In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 1395 (CCPA 1971). Here, the Examiner
finds that a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art would have had reason
to combine the teachings of Fedorovskaya and Bolas because both
references address the problem of reducing motion sickness for the users of
flight simulators. Fedorovskaya ¶¶ 10, 11, 14, 15 (discussing the problem of
motion sickness in flight simulators); Bolas, Abstract (“The field of view
can also be throttled in order to provide a better user experience even if the
user does not experience sickness.”); see Final Act. 15; Ans. 28; cf. Spec.
¶ 14 (“By adjusting and controlling the user’s primary field of view (in
which the movement from the first location to the second location may be
dynamically displayed) and peripheral field of view (which may remain
fixed), the user may visually experience the travel from the first location to
the second location . . . with little to none of the disorientation and/or motion
sickness sometimes associated with relatively rapid virtual movement.”).
Similarly, the Examiner finds that both Bolas and Yavrucuk teach or
suggest the advantages of detecting HMD movement and adjusting
displayed images based on head motion. Final Act. 18; Ans. 27; see Bolas
¶ 46 (“In these cases, the imagery could be based on the user’s head motion
or presented entirely independent of head motion.”); Yavrucuk, 12 (col.
2):14–18 (“This allows the user to perceive the depth of objects in the
simulation. . . . Hence, the user can view a 360º view by rotating the
Appeal 2019-005247
Application 15/018,366

19

HMD.”). Thus, Bolas and Yavrucuk also address a problem addressed by
the methods as recited in claim 1.
As the U.S. Supreme Court explained, “[u]nder the correct analysis,
any need or problem known in the field of endeavor at the time of invention
and addressed by the patent can provide a reason for combining the
elements in the manner claimed.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.
398, 420 (2007) (emphasis added). The Examiner finds the teachings of
Fedorovskaya, Bolas, and Yavrucuk provide reasons for their combination.
We agree.
Second, Appellant contends that Yavrucuk teaches away from its
combination with the teachings of Fedorovskaya and Bolas because
Yavrucuk teaches an expansive 360º view, but Fedorovskaya and Bolas
teach throttling displays to prevent motion sickness. Appeal Br. 21–22;
Reply Br. 7–8. Nevertheless, we agree with the Examiner that Appellant
misunderstands Yavrucuk’s teachings. Ans. 28. As noted above,
Yavrucuk’s system presents a field of view representing only a portion of a
360º view, but Yavrucuk explains that a 360º view may be obtained “by
rotating the HMD.” Id. (quoting Yavrucuk, 12 (col. 2):17–18). Appellant
fails to show that Fedorovskaya and/or Bolas could not obtain a similar 360º
view despite their throttled displays. See Fedorovskaya, Fig. 2A; Bolas ¶ 34
(“Over a period of time, the field of view is then gradually increased to the
full 90 degrees.”). Thus, we are not persuaded that the applied references
teach away from their combination.
We are not persuaded the Examiner errs in rejecting claim 1 as
obvious over the combined teachings of Fedorovskaya, Bolas, and
Yavrucuk; and we sustain that rejection. Further, Appellant does not
Appeal 2019-005247
Application 15/018,366

20

challenge the obviousness rejection of independent claim 13 or of dependent
claims 2, 4, 6–8, 10, 14–18, and 20, separately, from its challenge to their
base claims, independent claims 1 and 13; and, therefore, we sustain the
rejection of those claims. See Appeal Br. 22; Ans. 29.
C. Obviousness of Claim 11 Over Fedorovskaya, Bolas, Yavrucuk, and
Hasegawa
As noted above, the Examiner rejects claims 3, 11, 12, and 19 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over the combined teachings of Fedorovskaya,
Bolas, Yavrucuk, and Hasegawa. Final Act. 23–26. Independent claim 11
substantially recites the limitations of claim 1, but further recites the step of
“replacing the display of the portal and the fixed feature with a scene
corresponding to the second virtual location in response to detecting arrival
at the second virtual location.” Appeal Br. 26 (Claims App.).
The Examiner finds that Hasegawa teaches or suggests the additional
limitations of dependent claims 3 and 19 that depend from independent
claims 1 and 13, respectively, and of independent claim 11 and dependent
claim 12, which depends from claim 11. Final Act. 23–26. Hasegawa’s
Figure 8 is reproduced below.

Appeal 2019-005247
Application 15/018,366

21

Figure 8 depicts “the transmitted image 81 with field of view FOVT is
stretched out to the field of view FOVD indicated by the reference sign 82
and displayed on the display unit 309.” Hasegawa ¶ 73 (emphasis added);
see id. ¶ 102. Thus, Hasegawa discloses expanding an image to fill in the
peripheral space. In combination with the teachings of Fedorovskaya, Bolas,
and Yavrucuk, the Examiner finds that Hasegawa teaches or suggests
“replacing the display of the portal and the fixed feature with a scene
corresponding to the second virtual location in response to detecting arrival
at the second virtual location” and that a person of ordinary skill in the
relevant art would have had reason to make this combination.
Appellant contends, however, only that Hasegawa does not teach or
suggest the steps discussed above, which allegedly are not taught by the
combined teachings of Fedorovskaya, Bolas, and Yavrucuk. Appeal Br. 16.
Appellant does not contend that Hasegawa teaches or suggests the limitation
of independent claim 11, which the Examiner finds Hasegawa teaches or
suggests, or that a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art would have had
reason to combine the teachings of Fedorovskaya, Bolas, Yavrucuk, and
Hasegawa in the manner proposed. Id. at 16–17.
Because we are not persuaded the Examiner errs in combining the
teachings of Fedorovskaya, Bolas, and Yavrucuk to render claim 1 obvious
and because Appellant does not contend the Examiner errs in applying
Hasegawa’s teachings to the disputed limitation of independent claim 11, we
are not persuaded the Examiner errs in rejecting claim 11 as obvious over
the combined teachings of Fedorovskaya, Bolas, Yavrucuk, and Hasegawa.
Consequently, we sustain the rejection of claim 11. Further, Appellant does
not challenge the obviousness rejections of dependent claims 3, 12, or 19
Appeal 2019-005247
Application 15/018,366

22

separately from its challenge to their base claims; and, therefore, we sustain
the rejection of those claims. See Appeal Br. 22; Ans. 29.
DECISION
1. The Examiner does not err in rejecting:
a. claims 1, 2, 4, 6–8, 10, 13–18, and 20 as obvious over the
combined teachings of Fedorovskaya, Bolas, and Yavrucuk;
and
b. claims 3, 11, 12, and 19 as obvious over the combined
teachings of Fedorovskaya, Bolas, Yavrucuk, and Hasegawa.
2. Thus, on this record, claims 1–4, 6–8, and 10–20 are not patentable.
CONCLUSION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1–4, 6–8, and 10–20.
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35
U.S.C. §
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 2, 4, 6–8,
10, 13–18,
20
103(a) Fedorovskaya, Bolas,
Yavrucuk
1, 2, 4, 6–8,
10, 13–18,
20

3, 11, 12, 19 103(a) Fedorovskaya, Bolas,
Yavrucuk, Hasegawa
3, 11, 12, 19
Overall
Outcome
1–4, 6–8,
10–20

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