ARRIS Enterprises LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 28, 2022

2021001063 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 28, 2022)

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. 15/677,520 08/15/2017 Narayanan Venkitaraman 0036278-000422 1055 168780 7590 03/28/2022 BUCHANAN, INGERSOLL & ROONEY PC CommScope 1737 King Street Suite 500 ALEXANDRIA, VA 22314-2727 EXAMINER GOOD JOHNSON, MOTILEWA ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2616 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/28/2022 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): ADIPDOC1@BIPC.COM PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte NARAYANAN VENKITARAMAN, SANTOSH S. BASAPUR, SHIRLEY A. CHAYSINH, YOUNG S. LEE, HIREN M. MANDALIA, and VAN M. VUONG Appeal 2021-001063 Application 15/677,520 Technology Center 2600 Before MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, HUNG H. BUI, and DAVID J. CUTITTA II, Administrative Patent Judges. STRAUSS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 3-7, 9, 10, 12-17, 19, 22, 23, and 25-27.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 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 ARRIS ENTERPRISES LLC. See Appeal Br. 1. 2 Claims 2, 8, 11, 18, 20, 21, and 24 are cancelled. See Preliminary Amendment filed August 15, 2017, 3-4, 7. Appeal 2021-001063 Application 15/677,520 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction Appellant’s invention is described as an augmented virtual reality system in which captured media (e.g., video images) and related context information are used to generate virtual objects that are incorporated into a user’s view of reality. Spec., Abstract.3 Illustrative Claim Claims 1 and 16 are independent claims. Independent claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed subject matter and is formatted and reproduced below with labels added and a disputed limitation at issue emphasized: 1. A computer-implemented method for augmented reality comprising a computer performing: [(i)] accessing first context information that is based on content in a delivered media stream that is being delivered to a receiving device; [(ii)] accessing second context information that is based on content in a captured media stream, the second context information representative of at least one of: a physical location of a user device, a physical object within a field of view of the user device, and a neighborhood associated with the user device; [(iii)] determining a first virtual object using at least the first context information, [(a)] wherein the first virtual object is based on the content in the delivered media stream, and [(b)] wherein the first context information comprises [(1)] a selection condition and [(2)] a placement condition; 3 Throughout this Decision, we refer to: (1) Appellant’s Specification filed August 15, 2017 (“Spec.”); (2) the Final Office Action (“Final Act.”) mailed June 24, 2019; (3) the Appeal Brief filed June 26, 2020 (“Appeal Br.”); (4) the Supplemental Appeal Brief filed August 7, 2020 (“Supp. Appeal Br.”); (5) the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.”) mailed September 29, 2020; and (6) the Reply Brief filed November 30, 2020 (“Reply Br.”). Appeal 2021-001063 Application 15/677,520 3 [(iv)] determining, using at least the second context information, and based at least on the content in the captured media stream, transformational information comprising at least one transformation to be performed on the first virtual object; and [(v)] providing, to the user device, information representative of the first virtual object and the transformational information, for enabling the user device to display an augmented field of view based on the field of view, wherein the field of view of the user device is augmented with one or more images of the first virtual object by rendering the one or more images of the first virtual object using the information representative of the first virtual object as transformed using the transformational information. Supp. Appeal Br. 2 (Claims App.). REFERENCE The Examiner relies upon the following prior art4 in rejecting the claims on appeal: Geisner US 2013/0083173 Al April 4, 2013 REJECTION Claims 1, 3-7, 9, 10, 12-17, 19, 22, 23, and 25-27 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Geisner. Final Act. 7- 17. DISCUSSION Issue: Whether the Examiner errs in finding Geisner discloses claim 1’s limitation (iii)(b) which, in context, reads as follows: “ determining a first virtual object using at least the first context information, [(a)] wherein the first virtual object is based on the content in the delivered media stream, 4 All citations to the references use the first-named inventor only. Appeal 2021-001063 Application 15/677,520 4 and [(b)] wherein the first context information comprises [(1)] a selection condition and [(2)] a placement condition.” ANALYSIS As noted above, the Examiner rejects independent claim 1 as anticipated by Geisner. Final Act. 7-10. “A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior art reference.” Verdegaal Bros., Inc. v. Union Oil Co., 814 F.2d 628, 631 (Fed. Cir. 1987). The elements must be arranged as required by the claim, but this is not an ipsissimis verbis test. See In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 832 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Nevertheless, unless a reference discloses within the four corners of the document not only all of the limitations claimed but also all of the limitations arranged or combined in the same way as recited in the claim, it cannot be said to prove prior invention of the thing claimed and, thus, cannot anticipate under 35 U.S.C. § 102. Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2008); accord In re Arkley, 455 F.2d 586 (CCPA 1972). For the reasons given below, we do not sustain the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of claim 1. The Examiner finds Geisner’s description of a near-eye augmented reality display discloses the entirety of the subject matter of claim 1 including limitation (iii)(b) at issue. See Final Act. 7-10 (citing Geisner ¶¶ 5, 6, 28, 29, 68, 85-86, 99-100, 102-104, 116). Specifically addressing disputed limitation (iii)(b), the Examiner finds the limitation disclosed by Geisner, as follows: [P]aragraph 0116 [of Geisner discloses] viewing position selection may be made from a menu of viewing position made available, a head and orientation and gaze direction is determined Appeal 2021-001063 Application 15/677,520 5 and the virtual spectator application selects 3D virtual data as current 3D virtual data for display, which [the] Examiner interprets as [the recited] placement condition. Final Act. 9. Appellant argues as follows: Geisner discloses that the user’s field of view is augmented with objects from a media stream based on the three-dimensional location of the personal [audiovisual (A/V)] apparatus, the orientation of the personal A/V apparatus, and optionally the gaze of the user (See ¶ 112). While Geisner discloses that the virtual objects can be manipulated for the user’s perspective on the personal A/V apparatus (¶ 113), Geisner does not disclose the use of first context information, which includes a selection condition and a placement condition, in determining a first virtual object for augmenting the user’s field of view. At best, Geisner discloses that virtual data such as virtual objects are displayed to a user via his personal A/V apparatus based on the user’s head position and orientation and optionally his gaze (See ¶ 113). Even, assuming arguendo, that the enhancements discussed by Geisner could be deemed virtual objects, these objects are generated based on a user profile (¶ 112) and not first context information as recited in Appellant’s claim. Appeal Br. 4-5. The Examiner responds, maintaining that the disputed limitation is disclosed as follows: Geisner discloses [at] paragraph 0092, the virtual apparatus selects which virtual data to display from this set based on current head position and orientation, the selection of virtual data for display may also be based on gaze direction detected; and paragraph 0095, an information display application like the virtual spectator application allows customization of both the type of display information to be provided to the user and the manner in which it is displayed; and further discloses information is provided to personal A/V apparatus so that Appeal 2021-001063 Application 15/677,520 6 personal A/V apparatus determines which information so to be displayed and where, within the display the information is to be located. Ans. 15. Appellant replies, arguing, in Geisner, “the head position of the user and orientation of the A/V apparatus are not first context information as recited in the claims as this information is not based on content [d]elivered to the A/V apparatus.” Reply Br. 2 (citing Geisner ¶ 107). That is, according to Appellant, “the alleged selection condition and placement condition disclosed in Geisner and relied upon by Office in finally rejecting the claims is provided by the A/V apparatus and not based on content delivered to the A/V apparatus as is the first context information defined in Appellant’s claims.” Id. at 3. Appellant’s argument is persuasive of reversible Examiner error. Geisner discloses: The local copy on the personal A/V apparatus 8 may send device data identifying a user position within the location or environment as well as image and depth data of its field of view and sensor data indicating head position and orientation and gaze direction. In some examples, the server executing version of the virtual spectator application sends a virtual data set of more data surrounding the field of view, and the copy of the virtual spectator apparatus selects which virtual data to display from this set based on current head position and orientation. The selection of virtual data for display may also be based on gaze direction detected. Geisner ¶ 92. Thus, the user’s head position is sent by Geisner’s A/V device, it is not delivered to the A/V device. In contrast, claim 1’s limitation (i) recites accessing first context information that is based on content in a delivered media stream that is being delivered to a receiving device. Appeal 2021-001063 Application 15/677,520 7 Therefore, the argued selection and placement conditions of limitation (iii)(b), which are components of the context information, also are delivered to the receiving device. However, the Examiner fails to provide sufficient evidence or technical reasoning explaining how or why Geisner’s system discloses the disputed context information including (1) selection condition (e.g., gaze direction) and (2) placement condition (e.g., where to display information) are based on contents in a delivered media stream that is delivered to a receiving device. Because we agree with at least one of the dispositive arguments advanced by Appellant for claim 1, we need not reach the merits of Appellant’s other arguments. Accordingly, based on the record before us, we do not sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 102 rejection of independent claim 1 or independent claim 165 which includes a corresponding limitation. For the same reasons, we do not sustain the rejection of dependent claims 3- 7, 9, 10, 12-15, 17, 19, 22, 23, and 25-27 which stand with their respective base claims. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 3-7, 9, 10, 12-17, 19, 22, 23, 25-27 102 Geisner 1, 3-7, 9, 10, 12-17, 5 In the Appeal Brief, Appellant mistakenly indicates claim 12 is the other independent claim instead of claim 16. See Appeal Br. 5-6. However, in the Reply Brief, Appellant correctly identifies claims 1 and 16 as the independent claims. Reply Br. 2. Appeal 2021-001063 Application 15/677,520 8 Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 19, 22, 23, 25-27 REVERSED