AURASMA LIMITED

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 1, 2020

2019003601 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 1, 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.
15/515,275 03/29/2017 Robert Paul Severn 84611545 1087
22879 7590 09/01/2020
HP Inc.
3390 E. Harmony Road
Mail Stop 35
Fort Collins, CO 80528-9544
EXAMINER
BEUTEL, WILLIAM A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2616
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/01/2020 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):
ipa.mail@hp.com
jessica.pazdan@hp.com
yvonne.bailey@hp.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ROBERT PAUL SEVERN, DAVID STONE, and
MATTHEW SULLIVAN

Appeal 2019-003601
Application 15/515,275
Technology Center 2600
BEFORE ALLEN R. MACDONALD, JEREMY J. CURCURI, and
MICHAEL M. BARRY, Administrative Patent Judges.

CURCURI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 3–6, and 8–15. 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(a). Appellant identifies Hewlett-Packard Development Company, LP
as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2019-003601
Application 15/515,275

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to “[a]ugmented reality consumption data
analysis. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A non-transitory computer-readable storage
medium storing instructions that, when executed by a
processor, cause the processor to:
analyze consumption data generated from an augmented
reality (AR) experience by determining which of a plurality of
AR overlay sets were consumed by a plurality of users of the
AR experience via a plurality of user devices that displayed the
AR experience, and by determining frequencies with which
users navigated to the AR overlay sets from other of the AR
overlay sets;
display on a display device a graphical representation of
the analyzed consumption data, including graphically
displaying visual indications of the determined frequencies; and
alter the AR overlay sets based on the displayed
graphical representation, the users subsequently consuming the
altered AR overlay sets via the user devices displaying the AR
experience.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:

Name Reference Date
Goldthwaite et al.
(“Goldthwaite”)
US 2003/01180087 A1 June 26, 2003
Flores et al. (“Flores ’045”) US 7,490,045 B1 Feb. 10, 2009
Flores et al. (“Flores ’879”) US 2010/0198879 A1 Aug. 5, 2010
Kumamoto US 2014/0282118 A1 Sept. 18, 2014
Poulos et al. (“Poulos”) US 2015/0007114 A1 Jan. 1, 2015

Appeal 2019-003601
Application 15/515,275

3
REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 4–6, and 8–15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
obvious over Kumamoto, Flores ’879 (incorporating Flores ’045 by
reference), and Poulos. Final Act. 15–41.
Claims 3–5, 8–10, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
obvious over Kumamoto, Flores ’879 (incorporating Flores ’045 by
reference), Poulos, and Goldthwaite. Final Act. 41–56.
OPINION
The Obviousness Rejection of Claims 1, 4–6, and 8–15 over Kumamoto,
Flores ’879 (incorporating Flores ’045 by reference), and Poulos
The Examiner finds Kumamoto, Flores ’879 (incorporating Flores
’045 by reference), and Poulos teach all limitations of claim 1. Final Act.
15–20. The Examiner finds Kumamoto’s browsing history chain as a
sequence of nodes discloses “determining user navigated to the sets from
other of the sets.” Final Act. 16 (citing Kumamoto ¶ 28, Fig. 1) (emphasis
omitted). The Examiner finds Kumamoto does not disclose “determining
frequencies with which users navigated to the AR overlay sets from other of
the AR overlay sets” as recited in claim 1. See Final Act. 16–17. The
Examiner finds Flores ’879’s tracking content usage discloses “determining
frequencies with which users [accessed sets].” Final Act. 17 (citing Flores
’879 ¶¶ 25–27) (emphasis omitted). Thus, the Examiner finds Kumamoto
and Flores ’879, when combined, teach “determining frequencies with which
users navigated to the . . . sets from other of the . . . sets” as recited in claim
1. See Final Act. 16–17; see also Ans. 46–48. The Examiner reasons:
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the
art at the time the invention was made, with reasonable
Appeal 2019-003601
Application 15/515,275

4
expectation of success, to modify the graphical user interface
system for displaying user interactivity with software elements
of Kumamoto by using the usage measurement and tracking
data for applications among multiple devices provided by
Flores, using known electronic interfacing and programming
techniques. The modification merely substitutes one form of
known type of usage data for another form of usage data within
a visualized chart of user interaction, resulting in predictable
results of displaying application data usage from multiple users
across devices rather than multiple usage data from a single
user within a displayed visualization of data. Furthermore, the
modification results in an improved chart for visualizing user
history by accounting for more than one user to allow a more
complete data representation of application usage, rather than
limiting the display to only a single user (Par. 9 of Flores:
allows developers and authors a good idea of how games or
documents are used).
Final Act. 18; see also Ans. 48.
Among other arguments, Appellant presents the following principal
argument:
[T]he final action states that the applied art teaches
“determining frequencies with which users navigated to the AR
overlay sets from other of the AR overlay sets” insofar as
Flores describes “determining frequencies with which users
[accessed sets]” (p. 17). However, even assuming arguendo
that Flores teaches determining frequencies with which users
accessed the AR overlay sets, this is not what is being claimed
in the claim language. Claim 1 recites the frequencies with
which users navigated to the AR overlay sets from other of the
AR overlay sets. For example, a user may first navigate to set A
all the time, and then navigate to B 60% of the and to C 40% of
the time. From both B and C, the user always navigates to D.
Therefore, the claim language would reflect that the user
navigates to B from A 60% of the time and to C from A 40% of
the time. By comparison, determining frequencies with which
users accessed sets, as Flores allegedly describes, would reflect
that the user frequents B 60% of the time and frequents C 40%
Appeal 2019-003601
Application 15/515,275

5
of the time, and would not indicate whether the user frequents
B/C from A or D.
Appeal Br. 11; see also Reply Br. 1–4 (“[M]odifying Kumamoto in view of
Flores leads one of ordinary skill within the art at most to determining the
frequency at which the web page (i.e., content set) of each node was
accessed.”).
Appellant persuades us that the Examiner erred in finding Kumamoto
and Flores ’879, when combined, teach the key limitation of “determining
frequencies with which users navigated to the . . . sets from other of the . . .
sets” as recited in claim 1.
The claim language requires “determining frequencies with which
users navigated to the . . . sets from other of the . . . sets.” Claim 1 (emphasis
added). Thus, a determined frequency, according to the plain language of the
claim, does not merely correspond to an overlay (set, or content item such as
described in Flores ’879); rather, a determined frequency corresponds to an
edge connecting two overlays. See Figures 6 (depicting edges connecting
overlays), 7 (depicting frequencies corresponding to edges), 8 (depicting
frequencies corresponding to edges); see also Appeal Br. 11 (“[T]he claim
language would reflect that the user navigates to B from A 60% of the time
and to C from A 40% of the time. By comparison, determining frequencies
with which users accessed sets, as Flores allegedly describes, would reflect
that the user frequents B 60% of the time and frequents C 40% of the time,
and would not indicate whether the user frequents B/C from A or D.”).
Given our interpretation of the claim language requiring a determined
frequency corresponds to an edge connecting two overlays, we agree with
Appellant that Kumamoto and Flores ’879, when combined, do not teach
“determining frequencies with which users navigated to the . . . sets from
Appeal 2019-003601
Application 15/515,275

6
other of the . . . sets” as recited in claim 1 because such combination would,
at best, result in a determined frequency corresponding to an overlay rather
than corresponding to an edge connecting two overlays.
We, therefore, do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1.
We also do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 4 and 5,
which depend from claim 1.
Independent claims 6 and 11 recite the same key limitation. We,
therefore, do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 6 and 11.
We also do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 8–10 and
12–15, which variously depend from claims 6 and 11.

The Obviousness Rejection of Claims 3–5, 8–10, and 14 over Kumamoto,
Flores ’879 (incorporating Flores ’045 by reference), Poulos,
and Goldthwaite
The Examiner does not find Goldthwaite cures the deficiency of
Kumamoto and Flores ’879 discussed above. See Final Act. 41–56.
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 3–5, 8–10,
and 14.
Appeal 2019-003601
Application 15/515,275

7
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 3–6, and 8–15 is reversed.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 4–6, 8–15 103 Kumamoto, Flores
’879 (incorporating
Flores ’045 by
reference), Poulos
1, 4–6, 8–15
3–5, 8–10,
14
103 Kumamoto, Flores
’879 (incorporating
Flores ’045 by
reference), Poulos,
Goldthwaite
3–5, 8–10,
14
Overall
Outcome
1, 3–6, 8–15
REVERSED