James Leighton. Athey et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Aug 19, 2019

14556593 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Aug. 19, 2019)

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.
14/556,593 12/01/2014 James Leighton Athey 12151.0014-00000 1006
22852 7590 08/19/2019
FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER
LLP
901 NEW YORK AVENUE, NW
WASHINGTON, DC 20001-4413
EXAMINER
TILLERY, RASHAWN N
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2174
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/19/2019 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):
regional-desk@finnegan.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte JAMES LEIGHTON ATHEY, TODD RICHARD REILY, and
MICHAEL ANTHONY SCISCENTI
____________________

Appeal 2018-009142
Application 14/556,5931
Technology Center 2100
____________________

Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, JOHN P. PINKERTON, and
MICHAEL T. CYGAN, Administrative Patent Judges.

CYGAN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF CASE
Introduction
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 1–19. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 According to Appellants, Upskill, Inc. is the real party in interest. App.
Br. 1.
Appeal 2018-009142
Application 14/556,593

2
Disclosed Invention and Exemplary Claim
The disclosed invention relates to representing and interacting with
content in an augmented reality device. Spec. ¶ 2. A wearable device
having a display may determine if a menu should be displayed and which
menu option should be selected by, for example, monitoring the orientation
of the head and the viewing direction. Id. ¶¶ 6–8.
Independent claim 1 below is exemplary of the disclosed invention,
and reads as follows:
A wearable device for controlling operation of an on-
board component, the wearable device comprising:
a display;
at least one sensor configured to provide an output
indicative of a viewing direction of a user; and at least one
processing device configured to:
cause at least one graphical icon associated with a
control of at least one aspect of the on-board component to
be shown on the display;
cause a reticle to be displayed on the display;
move, based on an output of the at least one sensor
indicating a change in the viewing direction of the user, the
reticle relative to the display in a first direction
corresponding to the change in the viewing direction of the
user;
move the at least one graphical icon in a second
direction toward the reticle as the reticle moves relative to
the display in the first direction, such that the reticle
intercepts a portion of the at least one graphical icon;
change, based on the reticle having intercepted the
portion of the at least one graphical icon, at least one aspect
of the reticle to provide a visual indication to the user that the
at least one graphical icon can be selected by looking in the
direction of the at least one graphical icon for a
predetermined period of time;
select the at least one graphical icon when it is
determined that the user has been looking in the direction of
Appeal 2018-009142
Application 14/556,593

3
the at least one graphical icon for the predetermined period
of time; and
cause the on-board component to capture an image of
a field of view of the user when the at least one graphical
icon is selected.

App. Br. 11–12 (Claims Appendix).
Independent claims 10 and 19 recite, respectively, a method and
a storage medium having limitations commensurate with the
limitations recited in claim 1. Dependent claims 2–9 and 11–18 each
incorporate the limitations of their respective independent claims.
Appellants do not argue any claims separately from claim 1. App. Br.
9.
Examiner’s Rejection
The Examiner rejects claims 1–19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
obvious over the combination of Raffle (US 8,854,452 B1; issued Oct. 7,
2014), Wheeler et al. (US 2016/0011724 A1; published Jan 14, 2016, filed
Mar. 2, 2012) (hereinafter “Wheeler”), and Mathis et al. (US 2002/0051008
A1; published May 2, 2002) (hereinafter “Mathis”).

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection (Final Act. 2–7) in light
of Appellants’ contentions that the Examiner has erred (App. Br. 6–9).
Further, we have reviewed the Examiner’s Answer to Appellants’
contentions (Ans. 3–4) and the Appellants’ Reply Brief. Appellants contend
that the claimed feature of a graphical icon moving in a second direction
towards a reticle as the reticle moves relative to a display in a first direction
is not taught or suggested by the combination of Raffle, Wheeler, and
Appeal 2018-009142
Application 14/556,593

4
Mathis as applied in the Examiner’s rejection. We are persuaded by
Appellants’ contentions of error in the Examiner’s rejection.
The Examiner relies upon the teachings or suggestions of Wheeler for
the contested limitation. Final Act. 3–4. The Examiner explains that in
Wheeler, the view region is moved upward and the menu is moved
downwards. Id. at 4. The Examiner further explains that in Wheeler, the
cursor may be locked in the center of the view region as the view region is
navigated over the static menu. Ans. 3. The Examiner equates the cursor to
the claimed reticle, the view region to the claimed display, and the menu to
the claimed graphical icon. Final Act. 4. The Examiner finds Wheeler to
thereby teach or suggest that the icon moves in a second direction towards
the reticle as the reticle moves relative to the display in the first direction.
Id. at 4, 7; Ans. 3.
Appellants argue that the Examiner’s explanation does not show the
icon moving in a second direction towards the reticle as the reticle moves
relative to the display in the first direction. App. Br. 6–9. Appellants argue
that, at best, Wheeler teaches two separate approaches of aligning the reticle,
display and icon. Id. at 7. In the first approach, the reticle (cursor) can
move relative to the display (view region), but the icon (menu) does not
move relative to the display. Id. In the second approach, the reticle is
locked in the center of the display, and the display and icon move relative to
each other. Id. Appellants argue that neither of these approaches meets the
claimed limitation of moving the icon relative to the reticle as the reticle
moves relative to the display. Id.
The Examiner replies to this argument by citing Wheeler’s second
approach, in which the reticle (cursor) is locked in the center of the display
Appeal 2018-009142
Application 14/556,593

5
(view region) as the display is navigated over the icon (menu). Ans. 3–4.
The Examiner further relies on Wheeler’s teaching or suggestion that both
the display and the icon may be moved. Id. at 4.
We are persuaded by Appellants’ argument that the Examiner has not
explained how Wheeler teaches or suggests moving the icon relative to the
reticle as the reticle moves relative to the display. To meet the limitation of
moving the icon towards the reticle, the Examiner relies on Wheeler’s
teaching of the menu (icon) and the view region (display) being moved in
concert to reach a desired orientation of the menu within the view region of
the device. Ans. 3–4. However, this requires the cursor (reticle) to remain
locked within the view region (display), and thus cannot meet the claimed
limitation of moving the reticle relative to the display. Ans. 3. Although the
Examiner cites Wheeler’s teaching of an alternative approach in which the
reticle moves relative to the display, the Examiner has not explained how
Wheeler teaches or suggests a combination of both approaches so as to meet
the claimed limitation of the icon moving towards the reticle as the reticle
moves relative to the display.
Accordingly, Appellants have shown that the Examiner erred in
rejecting claim 1. Since the Examiner relies on the identical argument for
finding the contested limitation obvious in claims 2–19 (Final Act. 5–7),
Appellants have shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting those claims as
well.
CONCLUSION
We conclude that Appellants have shown the Examiner erred in
rejecting claims 1–19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over the
combination of Raffle, Wheeler, and Mathis.
Appeal 2018-009142
Application 14/556,593

6
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–19 under
35 U.S.C. § 103.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

REVERSED