The Boeing Company

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Oct 28, 2020

2019004122 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 28, 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.
14/533,749 11/05/2014 Daniel Eric Hulsey 14-1594-US 4773
121171 7590 10/28/2020
McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP/BOEING
300 South Wacker Drive,
Suite 3100
Chicago, IL 60606
EXAMINER
CHANG, DANIEL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2487
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/28/2020 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 DANIEL ERIC HULSEYand PAUL ANWAY
____________

Appeal 2019-004122
Application 14/533,749
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before MARC S. HOFF, CATHERINE SHIANG, and
MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges.

SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1, 3–11, and 13–22, which are all the claims pending and
rejected in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

1 We use “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42.
Appellant identifies The Boeing Company as the real party in interest.
Appeal Br. 1.

Appeal 2019-004122
Application 14/533,749

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
The present invention relates to “a head-up display, and examples of
such displays that project relevant information into a line of sight of an
observer. In further examples, methods and systems enabling simulation
and evaluation of performance of head-up displays are provided.” Spec. ¶ 1.
In one example, a method is provided comprising receiving an
image of symbology for display by a head-up display, and
generating, by one or more processors, distortions to the image
as perceived from a plurality of observer locations through the
head-up display. The distortions are based on design
characteristics of an optical component of the head-up display
with respect to a model of a projection of the image. The
method also includes applying, by the one or more processors,
the distortions to the image to generate an array of modified
images, and the modified images represent a view of the head-
up display corresponding to respective observer locations. The
method also includes providing, for stereoscopic display, the
modified images overlaying onto a background image.

Spec. ¶ 5.
Claim 1 is exemplary:
1. A method comprising:
receiving an image of symbology for display by a head-up display;

receiving ray trace data of an optical model of an optical component
of the head-up display;

comparing ideal ray angles of a projection of images with the ray trace
data of the optical model of the optical component of the head-up display to
determine ray angle errors over a plurality of observer locations through the
head-up display;

Appeal 2019-004122
Application 14/533,749

3
generating, by one or more processors, distortions to the image as
perceived from the plurality of observer locations through the head-up
display using the ray angle errors;

generating an array of modified images by applying the distortions to
the image, wherein the array of modified images includes pixel locations
shifted by the ray angle errors, wherein the modified images represent a
view of the head-up display corresponding to respective observer
locations; and

displaying the modified images overlaid onto a background image to
simulate performance of displaying the image of symbology by the head-up
display using distortions of the optical component so as to display distorted
views of the image of symbology.

References and Rejections2
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § References
1, 3–5, 11, 13,
14, 21
103 Warren Robinett, Jannick P. Rolland, A
Computational Model for the Stereoscopic Optics
of a Head-Mounted Display, Presence:
Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, v.1 n.1, p.
45–62, Winter 1992 (“Robinett”)
Turner1 (US 2003/0076280 A1; published Apr. 24,
2003)
6, 9, 15 103 Robinett, Turner1, Kim (US 2013/0162630 A1;
published June 27, 2013)
7, 8, 22 103 Robinett, Turner1, Hall (US 2006/0250322 A1;
published Nov. 9, 2006)
10 103 Robinett, Turner1, Turner 2 (US 2011/0183301
A1; published July 28, 2011)
16, 18, 19 103 Robinett, Turner1, Hess (US 2011/0286614 A1;
published Nov. 24, 2011), Maximus (US

2 Throughout this opinion, we refer to the (1) Final Office Action dated
August 2, 2018 (“Final Act.”); (2) Appeal Brief dated December 13, 2018
(“Appeal Br.”); (3) Examiner’s Answer dated March 13, 2019 (“Ans.”); and
(4) Reply Brief dated May 6, 2019 (“Reply Br.”).
Appeal 2019-004122
Application 14/533,749

4
2007/0127121 A1; published June 7, 2007).
17, 20 103 Robinett, Turner1, Hess, Kim, Maximus

ANALYSIS3
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection in light of Appellant’s
contentions and the evidence of record. We concur with Appellant’s
contentions that the Examiner erred in finding the cited portions of Robinett
teach
generating . . . distortions to the image as perceived from the
plurality of observer locations through the head-up display
using the ray angle errors;
. . .
displaying the modified images overlaid onto a background
image to simulate performance of displaying the image of
symbology by the head-up display using distortions of the
optical component so as to display distorted views of the image
of symbology,

as recited in independent claim 1 (emphases added). See Appeal Br. 6–10;
Reply Br. 1–4.
The Examiner initially cites Robinett’s sections 4.1–4.3 for teaching
the italicized claim limitation. See Final Act. 7–8. In response to
Appellant’s arguments, the Examiner further cites Robinett’s sections 3 and
3.1. See Final Act. 30–31. The Examiner finds:
In the left column of page 52 under the title of Section 3.1,
Robinett states that, “the nonlinear optical distortion must be
corrected by remapping all the pixels on the screen with a
predistortion function,” and that, “the predistortion function is
the inverse of the field distortion function for the optics.” The
remapping of all the pixels on the screen creates modified

3 Appellant raises additional arguments. Because the identified issue is
dispositive of the appeal, we do not address the additional arguments.
Appeal 2019-004122
Application 14/533,749

5
images using the predistortion function, which is analogized as
distortions of the optical component because the predistortion
function is the inverse of the field distortion function for the
optics as Robinett states. Then, the act of displaying the
predistorted images, or modified images, onto a display screen
of a head mounted display as stated under Section 3 on page 51,
and on the left column of Section 3.1 on page 52, is the act of
simulating performance of displaying the predistorted image of
symbology that is a distorted view of the image of symbology.

Ans. 30.
We have reviewed the cited Robinett portions, and they do not discuss
“displaying the modified images overlaid onto a background image to
simulate performance of displaying the image of symbology by the head-up
display using distortions of the optical component so as to display distorted
views of the image of symbology,” as required by claim 1 (emphases added).
Contrary to the claim requirement, the cited portions of Robinett teach
correcting distortions, in order to display an undistorted image. See
Robinett 3.1.
Because the Examiner fails to provide sufficient evidence or
explanation to support the rejection, we are constrained by the record to
reverse the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1, and independent
claims 11 and 16 for similar reasons.
We also reverse the Examiner’s rejection of corresponding dependent
claims 3–10, 13–15, and 17–22. Although the Examiner cites additional
references for rejecting some dependent claims, the Examiner has not shown
the additional references overcome the deficiency discussed above in the
rejection of claim 1.
Appeal 2019-004122
Application 14/533,749

6
CONCLUSION
We reverse the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 3–11, and 13–
22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
In summary:

Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 3–5, 11,
13, 14, 21
103 Warren Robinett,
Jannick P.
Rolland, Turner1
1, 3–5, 11,
13, 14, 21
6, 9, 15 103 Robinett, Turner1,
Kim
6, 9, 15
7, 8, 22 103 Robinett, Turner1,
Hall
7, 8, 22
10 103 Robinett, Turner1,
Turner 2
10
16, 18, 19 103 Robinett, Turner1,
Hess, Maximus
16, 18, 19
17, 20 103 Robinett, Turner1,
Hess, Kim,
Maximus
17, 20
Overall
Outcome
1, 3–11, 13–
22

REVERSED