MEP TECH, INC.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Aug 2, 2021

2020002142 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 2, 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.
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