THOMSON LICENSING

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Oct 7, 2021

2020004621 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 7, 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.
15/318,997 12/15/2016 Sylvain THIEBAUD 2014P00057WOUS 1864
14868 7590 10/07/2021
Patent Docketing
200 Bellevue Parkway, Suite 300
Attention: Docketing
Wilmington, DE 19809
EXAMINER
SHIN, ANDREW
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2612
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/07/2021 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@interdigital.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SYLVAIN THIEBAUD, LAURENT BLONDE,
THIERRY TAPIE, and VALTER DRAZIC
Appeal 2020-004621
Application 15/318,997
Technology Center 2600

Before JASON V. MORGAN, AMBER L. HAGY, and
DAVID J. CUTITTA II, Administrative Patent Judges.

HAGY, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 3–7, and 9–14, which are all of the
pending claims. See Final Act. 1–2; Brief 16. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

1 “Appellant” herein refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Interdigital CE
Patent Holdings. Brief 3.
Appeal 2020-004621
Application 15/318,997

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The subject matter of the present application pertains to a “display
device with pixel repartition optimization. The display device may be a user
wearable display device such as a head mounted display (HMD) device, but
not be limited to such kind of display device.” Spec. 1:5–7. By way of
background, Appellant’s Specification discusses use of HMD devices, such
as an Oculus Rift, to provide video content to a user, in which “the video
content provided to the user through the display can depend” on the
orientation of the user’s head. Id. at 1:17–20, 4:24. Appellant’s
Specification also describes enhancing a user’s feeling of immersion in the
content by having the visual display mimic “characteristics of the Human
Visual System.” Id. at 3:14. In particular, the Specification describes the
human visual characteristic of “fovea centralis,” in which visual acuity is
perceived as greatest in the center of a human’s vision, and perceived as
decreasing toward the periphery of vision. See id. at 3:16–22. Appellant’s
application purports to describe and claim a method for mimicking that
human visual characteristic on a display device, in which the pixel density is
greater in one area of the display (such as the center), and decreases in the
visual periphery. See id. at 4:11–18.
Claims 1 and 7 are independent. Claim 1, reproduced below, is
representative:
1. A method for presenting an image on a display
device including:
modifying the image by applying a geometric
transformation to at least one area of the image using an optical
lens with an even aspheric surface; and
presenting the image to which the geometric
transformation has been applied on the display device, wherein
Appeal 2020-004621
Application 15/318,997

3
the at least one area of the image presented on the display device
is viewed by a viewer through an optical component applying an
inverse transformation corresponding to the geometric
transformation that has been applied to the image so that the at
least one area of the image to which the geometric transformation
was applied is perceived by the viewer as having a higher density
of pixels than areas to which the geometric transformation was
not applied.
Brief 17 (Claims App.).
REFERENCES
The Examiner relies on the following references:
Name2 Reference Date
Shabtay US 2012/0320463 A1 Dec. 20, 2012
Saeedie US 2013/0016413 A1 Jan. 17, 2013
Wheeler US 2013/0246967 A1 Sept. 19, 2013
Hong Hua and Chunyu Gao, A compact eyetracked optical see-through
head-mounted display, Proc. SPIE 8288, Stereoscopic Displays and
Applications XXIII, 82881F (2012) (“Hua”).
Johannes Vockeroth et al., The Combination of a Mobile Gaze-Driven and a
Head-Mounted Camera in a Hybrid Perspective Setup, 2007 IEEE Int’l
Conf. on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, 2576–81 (2007) (“Vockeroth”).
eVRyday VR, How barrel distortion works on the Oculus Rift, YouTube
(Jan. 19, 2014), https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B7qrgrrHry0
(“eVRyday VR”).
REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 4, 5, 7, 12, and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
obvious over the combined teachings of Hua, Vockeroth, eVRydayVR, and
Shabtay. Final Act. 4–8.

2 All references are cited using the first-named inventor.
Appeal 2020-004621
Application 15/318,997

4
Claims 3 and 9–11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious
over the combined teachings of Hua, Vockeroth, eVRydayVR, Shabtay, and
Saeedie. Final Act. 9–12.
Claims 6 and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over
the combined teachings of Hua, Vockeroth, eVRydayVR, Shabtay, and
Wheeler. Final Act. 13–14.
OPINION
We have considered Appellant’s arguments (Brief 7–15) in light of
the Examiner’s findings and explanations (Final Act. 2–14; Ans. 3–5). For
the reasons set forth below, we are not persuaded of Examiner error in the
rejections of the pending claims, and we, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s
rejections.
Appellant argues only claim 1 with particularity, and argues the
remaining claims are patentable essentially for the reasons stated for claim 1.
See Brief 12–15. Therefore, based on Appellant’s arguments, we decide the
appeal of claims 1, 3–7, and 9–14 based on claim 1 alone. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(iv)(2019).
The Examiner relies on a combination of Hua, Vockeroth,
eVRydayVR, and Shabtay as teaching or suggesting the subject matter of
claim 1. Final Act. 4–7. Appellant argues the Examiner’s findings are in
error because the cited combination fails to teach or suggest “modifying the
image by applying a geometric transformation to at least one area of the
image using an optical lens with an even aspheric surface” and
wherein the at least one area of the image presented on the
display device is viewed by a viewer through an optical
component applying an inverse transformation corresponding to
the geometric transformation that has been applied to the image
Appeal 2020-004621
Application 15/318,997

5
so that the at least one area of the image to which the geometric
transformation was applied is perceived by the viewer as having
a higher density of pixels than areas to which the geometric
transformation was not applied.
Brief 11. Appellant’s arguments are limited to Shabtay, which the Examiner
cites as teaching an optical lens with an even aspheric surface. See Final
Act. 7 (citing Shabtay Fig. 3, ¶ 57). In particular, Appellant argues Shabtay
teaches away from the proposed combination:
[T]he mention and use of an optical lens with an even aspheric
surface in Shabtay, is to solve a completely different problem and
actually teaches away from the present claimed invention. That
is, in the present claimed invention, use of an optical lens with
an even aspheric surface is to provide an imaging system such
that an area of the image on the display device is perceived by
the viewer with higher density of pixels than that in the rest of
the image.
On the contrary, the use of an optical lens with an even
aspheric surface in Shabtay is to create an imaging system to
prevent the above perceived non-uniform density disparity from
happening. Non-uniformity (in sharpness) is actually considered
to be an image distortion in Shabtay. That is, Shabtay is using
an optical lens with an even aspheric surface to correct field
curvatures due to the different focal distances and curvatures of
the lens system.
Brief 8–9.
The Examiner responds by stating that Shabtay does not solve a
different problem or teach away from Appellant’s claimed invention.
Ans. 4. Rather, the Examiner finds the ordinarily skilled artisan would have
been motivated to apply Shabtay’s teaching of an even aspheric surface,
which “provides a field curvature correction to the image that results in a
high quality image,” to Vockeroth’s gaze-driven camera, which “provides an
area of interest with a higher resolution than the lower resolution image
Appeal 2020-004621
Application 15/318,997

6
provided by the head-mounted camera.” Id. at 3–4 (citing Shabtay Fig. 3,
¶ 57; Vockeroth Section II Part C, Section 1 Parts D–E, Section II Part A).
The Examiner reasons that Vockeroth illustrates the gaze spot of the gaze-
driven camera “being displayed at a higher density of pixels than the rest of
the image” provided by the head-mounted camera. Id. The Examiner
further explains that
it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to
have modified Vockeroth’s gaze-driven camera with Shabtay’s
optical lens with an even aspheric surface because Shabtay
provides a field curvature correction to the image that results in
a high quality image . . . . Accordingly, Shabtay’s optical
components (i.e. optical lens) can be selected according to a
desired image resolution . . . . The desired image resolution
would correspond to Vockeroth’s higher resolution image. In
other words, the field curvature correction would only apply to
Vockeroth’s gaze spot without affecting the rest of the image
because Vockeroth’s head mounted camera was not modified by
Shabtay’s optical lens. Accordingly, the field curvature
correction does not affect the pixel density of the image.
Therefore, the combination of Hua, Vockeroth, eVRydayVR,
and Shabtay does not solve a different problem and teach away
from the present claimed invention.
Id. at 4 (citing Shabtay, Abs., ¶ 56).
Appellant’s arguments are unavailing of demonstrating Examiner
error in the rejection. In particular, Appellant does not persuade us that
Shabtay teaches away from the claimed invention. A reference may be said
to “teach away” from the claimed invention when “a person of ordinary
skill, upon reading the reference, would be discouraged from following the
path set out in the reference, or would be led in a direction divergent from
the path that was taken by the applicant.” In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 553
(Fed. Cir. 1994) (emphasis added). Appellant posits that Shabtay teaches
Appeal 2020-004621
Application 15/318,997

7
away from the claimed invention because Shabtay teaches using an “optical
lens with an even aspheric surface to provide uniformity (in sharpness) to
the whole image, whereas the present invention aims to provide higher
perceived density of pixels for a certain area of an image than in the rest of
the image.” Brief 10–11. But, as the Examiner points out, the cited
combination
combines only one camera (i.e.[,] gaze-driven camera) with
Shabtay’s optical lens with an even aspheric surface. As a result,
the field curvature correction would only apply to Vockeroth’s
gaze spot without affecting the rest of the image because
Vockeroth’s head mounted camera was not modified by
Shabtay’s optical lens. In addition, the field curvature correction
does not affect the pixel density of the image.
Ans. 5. Appellant does not persuasively show error in the Examiner’s
reasoning. In particular, Appellant does not explain how Shabtay’s
disclosure of correcting for field curvature teaches away from an image
having higher pixel density in one region. As stated above, the Examiner
finds “the field curvature correction” of Shabtay “does not affect the pixel
density of the image.” Id. Appellant does not present any argument or
evidence contrary to that finding. Nor does Appellant address the
Examiner’s findings regarding the combination of Shabtay with Vockeroth.
It is well established that 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, 425 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck &
Co., 800 F.2d 1091 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
For the foregoing reasons, we are not persuaded of Examiner error in
the rejection of claim 1, and we, therefore, sustain that rejection, along with
the rejection of independent claim 7, and all of the dependent claims, which
Appeal 2020-004621
Application 15/318,997

8
are all argued as patentable for essentially the reasons stated for claim 1.
See Brief 12–15.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s obviousness rejections of claims 1, 3–7, and 9–14 are
sustained.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 4, 5, 7,
12, 13
103 Hua, Vockeroth,
eVRydayVR, Shabtay
1, 4, 5, 7,
12, 13

3, 9–11 103 Hua, Vockeroth,
eVRydayVR, Shabtay,
Saeedie
3, 9–11
6, 14 103 Hua, Vockeroth,
eVRydayVR, Shabtay,
Wheeler
6, 14
Overall
Outcome:
1, 3–7, 9–14

TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE

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