Ex Parte RavivDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJul 21, 201612693463 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 21, 2016) 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. 12/693,463 01/26/2010 Roni Raviv 1964RON-US 4140 7590 07/22/2016 David Klein DEKEL PATENT LTD. Beit HaRof'im 18 Menuha VeNahala Street, Room 27 REHOVOT, ISRAEL EXAMINER ELNAFIA, SAIFELDIN E ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2625 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 07/22/2016 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte RONI RAVIV ____________ Appeal 2015-001236 Application 12/693,463 Technology Center 2600 ____________ Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., and ADAM J. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judges. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of claims 1–19. See App. Br. 2.1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 On Aug. 5, 2014, the Office incorrectly mailed Appellant a notice stating the appeal was dismissed for failure to pay an appeal forwarding fee. See MPEP § 1208.01. As the appeal has not been dismissed, we treat the Appeal as properly pending and before us. Appeal 2015-001236 Application 12/693,463 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction2 Appellant’s disclosure relates to “[a]n augmented reality (AR) system including a head mounted display (HMD).” Abstract. Claims 1 and 17 are independent. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative (with emphasis added): 1. An augmented reality (AR) system comprising: a head mounted display (HMD), said HMD comprising an optics module for generating an image and projecting a beam of said image on a display substrate; an object comprising a signal source for transmitting an activation signal related to said object; and a receiver/processor operative to receive said activation signal only when said receiver/processor is sufficiently aligned with said signal source so that said receiver/processor is capable of receiving said activation signal, and wherein said receiver/processor is operative to process said activation signal, in an absence of tracking or inertial orientation information of said object, to cause said optics module to generate virtual images related to said object in accordance with said activation signal. The Examiner’s Rejections Claims 1 and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. Final Act. 2. 2 The Appeal Brief as originally filed on January 14, 2013, included a claims listing incorporating an after-final claim amendment which was not entered by the Examiner. See Advisory Action mailed October 2, 2012; Notice of Non-Compliant Appeal Brief mailed March 7, 2014. Appellant submitted a corrected claims listing on May 5, 2014 (the “Corrected Claims”), which does not incorporate the un-entered amendment. Our Decision is with respect to the claims within the Corrected Claims. Appeal 2015-001236 Application 12/693,463 3 Claims 1, 10, and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), as being anticipated by Triebfuerst (US 2004/0046711 A1; Mar. 11, 2004). Final Act. 3. Claims 2, 3, 5, 7–9, 18, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Triebfuerst and Baillot (US 2007/0273610 A1; Nov. 29, 2007). Final Act. 4. Claims 4 and 11–16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Triebfuerst and Ichikawa (US 2007/0195012 A1; Aug. 23, 2007). Final Act. 5. Claim 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Triebfuerst and Foxlin (US 2006/0284792 A1; Dec. 21, 2006). Final Act. 6.3 ANALYSIS We have reviewed Appellant’s arguments that the Examiner has erred. We adopt the conclusions and findings of fact made by the Examiner in the Final Office Action and Examiner’s Answer4 as our own, and we highlight the following points for emphasis. 3 Although the statement of the rejection of claim 6 in the Final Rejection refers to Baillot, the body of the rejection clearly refers to Triebfuerst rather than Baillot. See Final Act. 6–7. Accordingly, we find this typographical error harmless; additionally, the Examiner corrected this error in the statement of the rejection appearing in the Answer. See Ans. 8, 10. 4 All references herein to the Answer (“Ans.”) are made with respect to Answer mailed on July 15, 2014. Appeal 2015-001236 Application 12/693,463 4 A. Written Description Rejection Appellant argues the 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph rejection has been “overcome by appropriate amendment of the claim language.” App. Br. 7. Appellant’s argument, however, is premised on amended claims that are not before us. See Corrected Claims 11–12. Appellant does not otherwise argue this rejection. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph rejection, pro forma. See Ans. 3. B. Anticipation and Obviousness Rejections Appellant argues the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claims 1 and 17, because Triebfuerst fails to teach or suggest the claimed “object . . . comprising a signal source for transmitting an activation signal related to said object.” App. Br. 7. Particularly, Appellant contends that “[o]bject 9 has no signal source for transmitting an activation signal” (id.) and “[t]here is merely a completely passive marker 6 placed on the object (tool) near the defective component 15.” App. Br. 8. We are not persuaded the Examiner erred. The Examiner reasonably finds that “information captured by the camera 7, in other words the light reflected from the augmented reality information [object] to the camera 7 is considered as transmitting [an] activation signal” and the “claim language did not exclude the activation signal to be a passive signal source.” Ans. 9. The Examiner additionally finds, and we agree, that “Appellant’s own specification contemplates barcodes,” (Ans. 9, citing Spec. 3:14–15) and thus, the claimed “activation signal” encompasses passive sources such as shown in Triebfuerst. Accordingly, we do not find the Examiner erred in Appeal 2015-001236 Application 12/693,463 5 finding Triebfuerst discloses the limitations of independent claims 1 and 17. See App. Br. 8. Appellant additionally argues the Examiner erred in rejecting dependent claim 6 as obvious in view of Baillot and Foxlin, because “there is a fundamental difference between Baillot and the instant invention.” App. Br. 9. The Examiner, however, rejected claim 6 by citing to Triebfuerst and Foxlin; Baillot is not cited in the rejection of claim 6. See Ans. 9–10. Thus, we not persuaded the Examiner erred in the finding the combination of Triebfuerst and Foxlin teaches or suggests the limitation of claim 6. Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 6, and 17, and claims 2–5, 7–16, 18, and 19 not separately argued with particularity. See App. Br. 8. DECISION We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–19. 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). AFFIRMED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation