Ex Parte Raviv

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 21, 2016

12693463 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 21, 2016)

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