Metaio GmbH

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Nov 16, 2020

2019005872 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 16, 2020)

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.
15/316,103 12/02/2016 Daniel Kurz P28520US1
(119-1134US1)
1072
61947 7590 11/16/2020
Apple - Blank Rome
c/o Blank Rome LLP
717 Texas Avenue, Suite 1400
Houston, TX 77002
EXAMINER
HOANG, PETER
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2616
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/16/2020 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):
houstonpatents@blankrome.com
mbrininger@blankrome.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte DANIEL KURZ and ANTON FEDOSOV
________________

Appeal 2019-005872
Application 15/316,103
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, and
MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges.

McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 30‒35, 37‒42, 44‒48, and 50‒52, which are all the
claims pending in this application. Claims 36, 43, and 49 have been
canceled. See Appeal Br. 11, 13, 15. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We affirm in part.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Apple Inc.
Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2019-005872
Application 15/316,103

2

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellant’s application relates to augmented reality devices with
multiple operating modes. Spec. 1:6‒21. Claim 30 is illustrative of the
appealed subject matter and reads as follows:
30. A method of presenting digital information related to a
real object, comprising:
determining a spatial relationship between a camera and
a real object for which digital information is to be presented;
selecting a presentation mode from a plurality of
presentation modes according to the spatial relationship,
wherein the plurality of presentation modes comprises at least
an augmented reality mode, and at least one alternative mode;
and
presenting at least one representation of the digital
information using the selected presentation mode.

The Examiner’s Rejections
Claims 30, 33‒35, 37, 40‒42, 44, 46‒48, and 50‒52 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Alessandro et al., Zooming
Interfaces for Augmented Reality Browsers, MobileHCI 2010
(“Alessandro”) and Benton (US 2003/0210832 A1; Nov. 13, 2003). See
Final Act. 3‒9.
Claims 31, 32, 38, 39, and 45 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Alessandro, Benton, and Lehtinlemi (US 2013/0263016
A1; Oct. 3, 2013). See Final Act. 9‒13.
Appeal 2019-005872
Application 15/316,103

3

ANALYSIS
Claims 30, 33, 35, 37, 40, 42, 44, 46, and 48
Appellant argues the Examiner errs in rejecting claim 30 because
Alessandro does not teach or suggest “determining a spatial relationship
between a camera and a real object for which digital information is to be
presented” and “selecting a presentation mode from a plurality of
presentation modes according to the spatial relationship.” See Appeal Br. 5‒
6; Reply Br. 1‒2. In particular, Appellant argues Alessandro teaches tracking
changes in camera pose that result from tilting or panning the camera and
these changes are independent of any spatial relationship between the
camera and any particular object. Id.
Appellant has not persuaded us of Examiner error. Claim 30 recites
“determining a spatial relationship between a camera and a real object.”
Claim 30 does not further limit the “spatial relationship.” Appellant argues
that this spatial relationship does not include the camera’s pose, or its
orientation relative to the ground or gravity. This argument is unpersuasive
because it is not commensurate with the scope of the claim. Indeed,
Appellant’s Specification explicitly confirms that “[a] spatial relationship
between a camera and a real object may include physical distances or
angles.” Spec. 12:15‒16. The Specification also confirms that “[t]he spatial
relationship may further be indicative of an orientation.” Id. at 12:30‒31.
The Specification clarifies that “if the real object is the environment (e.g. a
city, buildings, plants, or a land), at least part of the spatial relationship
between a camera and the real object may comprise the orientation of the
camera with respect to gravity.” Id. at 12:34‒37. In other words, Appellant’s
Specification directly contradicts the narrow interpretation on which
Appeal 2019-005872
Application 15/316,103

4

Appellant relies for the claimed “spatial relationship.” We, therefore, agree
with the Examiner that Alessandro’s teachings regarding changes in the
camera’s orientation teach or suggest the claimed “spatial relationship.”
For these reasons, we sustain the obviousness rejection of claim 30.
We also sustain the obviousness rejection of independent claims 37 and 44,
which Appellant argues are patentable for the same reasons. See Appeal
Br. 5‒6. We also sustain the rejection of dependent claims 33, 35, 40, 42, 46,
and 48, for which Appellant relies on the same arguments. See id. at 5‒8.
Claims 34, 41, and 47
Claim 34 recites:
The method of claim 30, wherein selecting a presentation
mode from the plurality of presentation modes according to the
spatial relationship comprises:
determining whether the spatial relationship indicates that
a distance between the camera and the real object is below a
threshold, and
in response to determining that the spatial relationship
indicates that the distance between the camera and the real object
is below the threshold, selecting the augmented reality mode as
the presentation mode.
Appellant argues the Examiner errs in rejecting claim 34 because
Alessandro does not teach or suggest “determining whether the spatial
relationship indicates that a distance between the camera and the real object
is below a threshold.” See Appeal Br. 6‒7. In particular, Appellant argues
Alessandro teaches changing the orientation of the camera, but is silent
regarding any distance measurement or any threshold. See id.
As discussed above with respect to claim 30, the Examiner finds
Alessandro teaches rotations of the camera that are measured as changes in
angular distance, which the Examiner finds teaches the claimed “spatial
Appeal 2019-005872
Application 15/316,103

5

relationship.” We agree with Appellant that claim 34—unlike claim 30—
requires that the “spatial relationship” be a distance from the camera to a real
object because claim 34 specifies that the “spatial relationship indicates that
a distance between the camera and the real object is below a threshold.”
(Emphasis added).
The Examiner has failed to establish that Alessandro teaches a spatial
relationship that indicates a distance between the camera and the real object
because the cited portions of Alessandro teach changes in the angular
orientation of the camera without any consideration of distances to the real
object. The Examiner cites Alessandro’s teaching of “angular distances” for
this limitation (see Ans. 14 (citing Alessandro p. 5, right column, ¶ 4)), but
this reference to “angular distances” merely indicates that changes in the
camera’s orientation are measured as changes in angular distance, not as
changes in distance to any real object. We also agree that the Examiner has
not sufficiently established or explained how Alessandro teaches the claimed
determination using a “threshold.”
We, therefore, do not sustain the rejection of claim 34. We also do not
sustain the rejection of claims 41 and 47, which recite commensurate subject
matter and for which Appellant relies on the same arguments. See Appeal
Br. 6‒7.
Claims 50‒52
Claim 50 recites:
The method of claim 30, further comprising:
determining an updated spatial relationship between the
camera and the real object;
selecting a second presentation mode from the plurality of
presentation modes according to the updated spatial relationship;
and
Appeal 2019-005872
Application 15/316,103

6

presenting a second representation of the digital
information using the selected second presentation mode.
Appellant argues the Examiner errs in rejecting claim 50 because
Alessandro does not teach “determining an updated spatial relationship
between the camera and the real object.” See Appeal Br. 7‒8. In particular,
Appellant argues that although the spatial relationship may change, the
reference does not determine an updated spatial relationship or select a
presentation mode according to any updated spatial relationship. Id.
Appellant has not persuaded us of Examiner error. The Examiner
finds, and we agree, Alessandro teaches a user turns a camera between
various orientations, causing different view presentations to be displayed to
the user. Ans. 16 (citing Alessandro, Figs. 1 and 2). The Examiner finds, and
we agree, the spatial relationship between the camera and the real object is
constantly updated based on user interaction. Id. Appellant responds that the
only changes being determined are changes in the camera’s pose, not
changes in a spatial relationship, repeating substantially the same argument
Appellant presented for claim 30. For the reasons discussed above, this
argument is unpersuasive of error. Thus, Appellant has not persuasively
identified error in the Examiner’s findings regarding claim 50. We,
therefore, sustain the rejection of claim 50. We also sustain the rejection of
claims 51 and 52, for which Appellant relies on the same arguments. See
Appeal Br. 8.

Appeal 2019-005872
Application 15/316,103

7

DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
30, 33‒35,
37, 40‒42,
44, 46‒48,
50‒52
103 Alessandro, Benton 30, 33, 35,
37, 40, 42,
44, 46, 48,
50‒52
34, 41,
47
31, 32, 38,
39, 45
103 Alessandro,
Benton, Lehtinlemi
31, 32, 38,
39, 45

Overall
Outcome
30‒33, 35,
37‒40, 42,
44‒46, 48,
50‒52
34, 41,
47

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.
§ 41.50(f).

AFFIRMED IN PART