The Boeing CompanyDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardOct 28, 20202019004122 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 28, 2020) 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. 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation