MEP TECH, INC.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardAug 2, 20212020002142 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 2, 2021) 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. 13/968,232 08/15/2013 Donald Roy Mealing 48375-3002US01 8237 128128 7590 08/02/2021 Dentons Durham Jones Pinegar 3301 N. Thanksgiving Way, Suite 400 Lehi, UT 84043 EXAMINER BADER, ROBERT N. ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2619 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/02/2021 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): djp.ipmail@dentons.com stacia.boren@dentons.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte DONALD ROY MEALING, MARK L. DAVIS, ROGER H. HOOLE, MATTHEW L. STOKER, W. LORENZO SWANK, and MICHAEL J. BRADSHAW Appeal 2020-002142 Application 13/968,232 Technology Center 2600 Before JEAN R. HOMERE, JASON V. MORGAN, and ERIC B. CHEN, Administrative Patent Judges. HOMERE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE1 Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant2 appeals from the Examiner’s Final rejection of claims 1–9, 13–16, and 18–20, which 1 We refer to the Specification, filed Aug. 15, 2013 (“Spec.”); the Final Office Action, mailed Oct. 17, 2018 (“Final Act.”); the Appeal Brief, filed May 20, 2019 (“Appeal Br.”); the Examiner’s Answer, mailed Nov. 21, 2019 (“Ans.”), and the Reply Brief, filed Jan. 21, 2020 (“Reply Br.”). 2 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “Applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies MEP Tech, Inc. as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2020-002142 Application 13/968,232 2 constitute all of the claims pending. Appeal Br. 2. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. II. CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER According to Appellant, the claimed subject matter relates to a method and system for projecting two or more variations of an image on a moving object such that the moving object appear transparent from the perspectives of different viewers. Spec. ¶¶ 4, 48–51. Figure 1, reproduced below, is useful for understanding the claimed subject matter: Figure 1 above illustrates system (100) including projector (120) projecting onto a surface different versions (141–143) of an image for viewing from different perspectives (151, 152). Upon receiving from camera (130) Appeal 2020-002142 Application 13/968,232 3 detected movement of an object obscuring a portion of the projected image, controller (110) edits the source image to provide an edited image making the moving object appear transparent from the different perspectives thereby projecting an unobstructed image. Id. ¶¶ 23, 24, 48, and 49. Independent claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. An integrated, interactive, multi-perspective projector, comprising: a housing; a projector carried by the housing and capable of projecting onto a surface a plurality of versions of an image for viewing from a corresponding plurality of different perspectives; a camera carried by the housing and capable of detecting movement of objects over projected images; and a controller carried by the housing and in communication with the projector and the camera, the controller including a processing element and one or more computer-readable storage media having thereon computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the processing element, cause the processing element to: detect movement of an object over a projected image; edit a source image to provide a first edited image based on the effect of the movement of the object over the projected image and for viewing by a first individual from a first perspective, the first edited image including a portion corresponding to a portion of the source image obscured by the object capable of being projected onto the object in a manner capable of making the object appear transparent from the first perspective while the object moves; cause the projector to display the first edited image on the surf ace as a first edited projected image; edit the source image to provide a second edited image based on the effect of movement of the object over the projected image and for viewing by a second individual from a second perspective of the surface, the second edited image including a portion corresponding to a portion of the source Appeal 2020-002142 Application 13/968,232 4 image obscured by the object capable of being projected onto the object in a manner capable of making the object appear transparent from the second perspective while the object moves, the second perspective being different from the first perspective; and cause the projector to display the second edited image for viewing by the second individual from the second perspective while the first individual views the first edited image from the first perspective, the camera capable of detecting movement of the object while the object appears transparent from the first perspective and from the second perspective, generating signals representative of movement of the object, and transmitting the signals to the processing element, the projector capable of displaying the source image on the surface, displaying the first edited image on the surface for viewing from the first perspective, and displaying the second edited image on the surface for viewing from the second perspective. Appeal Br. 14 (Claims App.) (emphasis added). III. REFERENCES The Examiner relies upon the following references.3 Name Reference Date Dunn et al. (“Dunn”) US 2009/0168027 A1 July 2, 2009 Linder et al. (“Linder”) US 2011/0288964 A1 Nov. 24, 2011 Raskar et al. (“Raskar”) The Office of the Future: A Unified Approach to image-Based Modeling and Spatially Immersive Displays, NSF Science and Technology Center for Computer Graphics 1998 3 All reference citations are to the first named inventor only. Appeal 2020-002142 Application 13/968,232 5 and Scientific Visualization, Computer Graphics Proceedings Annual Conference Series, SIGGRAPH 98, 1–10, http://www.cs.unc.edu, last visited May 2021 Raskar et al., (“Van Baar”) iLamps: Geometrically Aware and Self- Configuring Projectors, ASCM SIGGRAPH 2003 Conference Proceedings, Mitsubishi Electric Research Labs, 1–10 http://www.merl.com/projects/Projector/ last visited May 2021 2003 Wilson (“Wilson2”) PlayAnywhere: A Compact Interactive Tabletop Projection-Vision System, Microsoft Research, UIST ’05, 83–92 2005 Fröhlich et al. (“Fröhlich”) Implementing Multi-Viewer Stereo Displays, WSCG 2005 conference proceedings, Science Press, 139–146 2005 Kulik et al. (“Kulik”) C1x6: A Stereoscopic Six-User Display for Co-located Collaboration in Shared Virtual Environments, ACM Transaction on Graphics, Vol. 30, No. 6, Article 188, 1–11 2011 Harrison et al. (“Harrison”) OmniTouch: Wearable Multitouch Interaction Everywhere, Microsoft Research, UIST ‘11, Paper Session: Mobile, 441–450 Oct. 2011 Wilson et al. (“Wilson”) Combining Multiple Depth Cameras and Projectors for Interactions On, Above, and Between Surfaces, Microsoft Research, UIST ’10, 279–281, http://www.nvidia.com/object/physx new.html, last visted May 2021 Oct. 2010 Appeal 2020-002142 Application 13/968,232 6 IV. REJECTIONS The Examiner rejects claims 1–9, 13–16, and 18–20 as follows: Claims 1, 4, 6–9, and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatenable over the combined teachings of Raskar, Wilson2, Fröhlich, and Kulik. Final Act. 2–18. Claims 2 and 3 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatenable over the combined teachings of Raskar, Wilson2, Fröhlich, Kulik, and Van Baar. Final Act. 18–20. Claim 5 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the combined teachings of Raskar, Wilson2, Fröhlich, Kulik, and Dunn. Final Act. 20–23. Claim 14 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the combined teachings of Raskar, Wilson2, Fröhlich, Kulik, and Harrison. Final Act. 23–25. Claim 15 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the combined teachings of Raskar, Wilson2, Fröhlich, Kulik, and Linder. Final Act. 25–26. Claims 16, 18–20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the combined teachings of Raskar, Wilson2, Fröhlich, Kulik, Linder, and Wilson. Final Act. 27–30. V. ANALYSIS We consider Appellant’s arguments seriatim, as they are presented in the Appeal Brief, pages 8–12 and the Reply Brief, pages 2–4.4 We are 4 We have considered in this Decision only those arguments Appellant actually raised in the Briefs. Arguments not made are forfeited. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2019). Appeal 2020-002142 Application 13/968,232 7 unpersuaded by Appellant’s contentions. Except as otherwise indicated herein below, we adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth in the Final Action, and the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellant’s Appeal Brief.5 Final Act. 2–33; Ans. 3–10. However, we highlight and address specific arguments and findings for emphasis as follows. Appellant argues that the Examiner erred in finding that the combination of Raskar, Wilson2, Fröhlich, and Kulik teaches or suggests “projecting two or more variations of an image on a moving object in a manner that can make the moving object appear to be transparent from at least two different perspectives,” as recited in independent claim 1. Appeal Br. 8. In particular, Appellant argues that although Raskar discloses projecting the image of a teapot onto two differently-oriented objects to prevent skewing of the teapot from the perspective of a single viewer, it does not teach or suggest the image of the teapot is projected to make the panel appear transparent. Id. (citing Raskar 6 (section 3.4, Fig. 7)); Reply Br. 2. Accordingly, Appellant submits that Raskar falls short of teaching the disputed limitations. Id. Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive of reversible Examiner error. As a preliminary matter, we note that the claim requires projecting 5 See Icon Health and Fitness, Inc. v. Strava, Inc., 849 F.3d 1034, 1042 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“As an initial matter, the PTAB was authorized to incorporate the Examiner’s findings.”); see also In re Brana, 51 F.3d 1560, 1564 n.13 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (upholding the PTAB’s findings, although it “did not expressly make any independent factual determinations or legal conclusions,” because it had expressly adopted the examiner’s findings). Appeal 2020-002142 Application 13/968,232 8 variations of an image onto a moving object (obstructing a portion of the image) in a manner that can make the moving object appear to be transparent from two different perspectives. Appellant’s Specification indicates that the appearance of transparency is achieved by “modifying the image during pre-editing such that the detected object has displayed thereon image data that is obscured by the detected object from the particular perspective.” Spec. ¶ 48. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation,6 we construe the disputed limitation as editing the source image around the obstructing object to thereby project different versions of the image that appears unobstructed from different perspectives. Raskar is concerned with projecting onto various surfaces different versions of an image. Raskar, Abstract. In particular, Raskar discloses a two- pass projective texture scheme that dynamically adjusts the intensity or resolution variations resulting from irregular or changing display surfaces such that when projected onto surfaces, the image appears correct to a moving head-tracker observer. Id. To ensure complete coverage, Raskar recommends that the projector must be able to image a surface visible from each given viewpoint, and neither the projector overlap nor self-occlusions of display surfaces from the observer’s viewpoint need hinder the effective image from the user’s viewpoint. Id. at 6 (section 3.4). We agree with the 6 During prosecution, claims must be given their broadest reasonable interpretation when reading claim language in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004); see also In re Smith Int'l, Inc., 871 F.3d 1375, 1382–83 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (Noting that such interpretation is one “that corresponds with what and how the inventor describes his invention in the specification, i.e., an interpretation that is ‘consistent with the [S]pecification.’”). Appeal 2020-002142 Application 13/968,232 9 Examiner that Raskar’s disclosure of editing the source image around an obstructed object to capture all angles of the image and to subsequently project the image in its entirety (unobstructed) teaches making the obstructing object appear to be transparent. Final Act. 7–11, Ans. 4–6 (citing Raskar 6 (section 3.4); Spec. ¶ 48.). As correctly noted by the Examiner, by editing the image of the teapot such that it is projected onto the panel in a manner that makes it visible in its entirety from various perspectives, Raskar teaches that such projection of the teapot makes the panel appear to be transparent from various perspectives consistent with our claim interpretation above. Id. Contrary to Appellant’s arguments, the Examiner identifies teachings in Raskar to support that the rendering of the teapot cup in Figure 7 makes the panel appear transparent. Reply Br. 2–3. As noted above, the Examiner relies upon various portions of Raskar to support the finding that editing the source image around the obstructing object to project different unobstructed versions of the image that can be seen from different perspectives teaches the disputed limitations. Id. Consequently, we are satisfied that, on this record, the Examiner has established that the combination of Raskar, Wilson2, Fröhlich, and Kulik teaches or suggests the disputed claim limitations. Because we are not persuaded of Examiner error, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1, as unpatentable over the combination of Raskar, Wilson2, Fröhlich, and Kulik. Regarding the rejections of claims 2–9, 13–16, and 18–20, because Appellant does not present separate patentability arguments or reiterates substantially the same arguments as those previously discussed for the patentability of claim 1 above, claims 2–9, 13–16, and 18–20 fall therewith. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). Appeal 2020-002142 Application 13/968,232 10 VI. CONCLUSION We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–9, 13–16, and 18–20. VII. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 4, 6–9, 13 103 Raskar, Wilson2, Fröhlich, Kulik 1, 4, 6–9, 13 2, 3 103 Raskar, Wilson2, Fröhlich, Kulik, Van Baar 2, 3 5 103 Raskar, Wilson2, Fröhlich, Kulik, Dunn 5 14 103 Raskar, Wilson2, Fröhlich, Kulik, Harrison 14 15 103 Raskar, Wilson2, Fröhlich, Kulik, Linder 15 16, 18–20 103 Raskar, Wilson2, Fröhlich, Kulik, Linder, Wilson 16, 18–20 Overall Outcome 1–9, 13–16, 18–20 No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation