Davide Di Censo et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Oct 30, 2019

14319338 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Oct. 30, 2019)

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.
14/319,338 06/30/2014 Davide DI CENSO HRMN/0103US P13146US 7939
98031 7590 10/30/2019
Artegis Law Group, LLP - Harman
7710 Cherry Park Drive Suite T #104
Houston, TX 77095
EXAMINER
SHELDEN, BION A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3681
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/30/2019 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):
algdocketing@artegislaw.com
jmatthews@artegislaw.com
kcruz@artegislaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte DAVIDE DI CENSO, STEFAN MARTI,
and
AJAY JUNEJA
____________________

Appeal 2018-007468
Application 14/319,338
Technology Center 3600
____________________

Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, HUNG H. BUI, and JON M. JURGOVAN,
Administrative Patent Judges.

DIXON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1–21. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

The claims are directed to a controller and method “for detecting a
driver’s interest in a visual advertisement by tracking driver eye gaze
direction such that an audio advertisement that is generally associated with

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “Applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Harman
International Industries, Incorporated. (App. Br. 3.)
Appeal 2018-007468
Application 14/319,338

2
the visual advertisement is provided to the driver” in a vehicle. (Spec. ¶ 2;
Abstract.)
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A controller for providing audio information, the
controller comprising:
a first signal input configured to receive a first camera
signal that indicates a direction in which a user is looking
relative to a heading direction of a vehicle;
a second signal input configured to receive location
information of one or more visual information from a database;
a signal output configured to drive at least one acoustic
transducer; and
a computer processor that executes a set of instructions
to:
determine a location of the vehicle;
combine a heading angle associated with the
heading direction of the vehicle with an angle associated
with the direction in which the user is looking relative to
the heading direction of the vehicle to determine that a
vector projected from the location of the vehicle in the
direction in which the user is looking intersects the one
or more visual information based on the location
information of the one or more visual information; and
upon determining that the vector intersects the one
or more visual information:
determine content of the one or more visual
information via at least one of performing image
recognition on an image of the one or more visual
information, performing text recognition on the
image of the one or more visual information, and
retrieving information from the database; and
causing audio information related to the
content of the one or more visual information to be
output to the at least one acoustic transducer via
the signal output and presented to the user.

Appeal 2018-007468
Application 14/319,338

3
(App. Br. 21 (Claims Appendix).)

REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Matsuoka et al. US 2009/0022368 A1 Jan. 22, 2009
(“Matsuoka”)
Carlson et al. US 2011/0161160 A1 June 30, 2011
(“Carlson”)
Clavin et al. US 2012/0229909 A1 Sept. 13, 2012
(“Clavin”)
Osterhout et al. US 2011/0214082 A1 Sept. 1, 2011
(“Osterhout”)

REJECTIONS2
The Examiner made the following rejections:
Claims 1–9, 13–18, 20, and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Matsuoka in view of Carlson and Clavin.
Claims 10–12 and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Matsuoka in view of Carlson and Clavin, and further in
view of Osterhout.

ANALYSIS
With respect to claim 1, Appellant contends “Matsuoka does not
disclose anything related to determining whether the driver’s eye gaze vector

2 Claims 1–21 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed
invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural
phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. (Final Act. 2–
4.) However, this rejection was withdrawn in the Examiner’s Answer, and is
no longer pending on appeal. (Ans. 3.)
Appeal 2018-007468
Application 14/319,338

4
intersects a known location received from a database.” (App. Br. 18–19.)
Appellant additionally contends
neither reference discloses that, in response to determining that a
projected eye gaze vector intersects a particular piece of visual
information, that piece of visual information is analyzed [to
determine the content of the visual information], and audio
relevant to that piece of visual information is then presented to
the user, as claimed [(i.e., the claimed “upon determining that the
vector intersects the one or more visual information: determine
content of the one or more visual information via at least one of
performing image recognition on an image of the one or more
visual information, performing text recognition on the image of
the one or more visual information, and retrieving information
from the database; and causing audio information related to the
content of the one or more visual information to be output to the
at least one acoustic transducer via the signal output and
presented to the user”)].
(Reply Br. 3; see also App. Br. 18). Particularly, Appellant asserts that (1)
“Matsuoka does not disclose anything related to determining content of a
visual information or retrieving audio that is related to this determined
content,” (2) “Carlson discloses only determining that an eye gaze vector
intersects a sign. . . . [but] Carlson does not disclose that (i) the content of
the sign is determined or, (ii) that audio related to the sign is retrieved or
presented to a user,” and (3) “the Clavin reference is entirely silent regarding
the concept of an eye gaze vector” and does not “disclose or otherwise
suggest that the content of the image is determined, and the audio
information is retrieved, in response to any kind of determination about
whether an eye gaze vector projected in a particular direction intersects a
particular object or image.” (App. Br. 18–19; Reply Br. 4–5.) Appellant
submits that “only the present Application discloses any type of causal
relationship between the[] two concepts” of “(1) determining whether a
Appeal 2018-007468
Application 14/319,338

5
vector projected in the eye gaze direction of the user intersects a piece of
visual information, [and] (2) determining the content of visual information
and causing relevant audio information to be presented to the user.” (Reply
Br. 4.) We do not agree.
We agree with and adopt the Examiner’s findings as our own. (Final
Act. 5–9; Ans. 4–6.) Particularly, we agree with the Examiner that
Appellant is not arguing the references for the teachings relied on by the
Examiner. (Ans. 6.) That is, Appellant is addressing the references
separately rather than the combination of teachings proposed by the
Examiner. (Ans. 5–6.) Carlson, not Matsuoka as Appellant asserts (see
App. Br. 18–19), was cited for teaching the claimed “receiv[e] location
information of one or more visual information from a database.” (Final Act.
7–8 (citing Carlson ¶¶ 47, 50); Ans. 4–6.) Meanwhile, Matsuoka was cited
for teaching the claimed “second signal input configured to receive location
information of one or more visual information.” (Final Act. 5–6 (citing
Matsuoka ¶¶ 128–129, 145, 149, Fig. 7).) Where, as here, a rejection is
based on a combination of references, one cannot show non-obviousness by
attacking references individually. (See Ans. 6; In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413,
426 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir.
1986).) Appellant also has not addressed the Examiner’s rationale to
combine the teachings of Matsuoka and Carlson. Here, the Examiner has
found each of the elements of the claimed “second signal input configured to
receive location information of one or more visual information from a
database” and has provided an articulated reasoning to combine the prior art
teachings from the references and provided a rational underpinning to
support the legal conclusion of obviousness:
Appeal 2018-007468
Application 14/319,338

6
The prior art of Matsuoka contained a gaze detecting device
which determines what objects a driver is looking at, upon which,
the claimed invention’s further utilization of location
information to identify objects in a location database can be seen
as an improvement. However, as illustrated by Carlson, other
gaze detecting devices were known to use location information
to identify objects in a location database. One of ordinary skill
in the art would have recognized that applying the gaze detection
techniques of Carlson to the system of Matsuoka would have
predictably resulted in an improved system better able to
determine what objects a driver is looking at. As such, the
application of Carlson to the system of Matsuoka would have
been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention in view of the
disclosure of Matsuoka and the teaching of Carlson.
(Final Act. 9 (emphases added); see also Final Act. 5–8; Ans. 4–5.)
We find the Examiner has provided reasoned explanations that
Appellant has not specifically addressed. Merely alleging that the references
fail to support an obviousness rejection is insufficient to persuade us of
Examiner error. Attorney arguments and conclusory statements that are
unsupported by factual evidence are entitled to little probative value. In re
Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997); see also In re De Blauwe,
736 F.2d 699, 705 (Fed. Cir. 1984); and Ex parte Belinne, No. 2009-004693,
slip op. at 7–8 (BPAI Aug. 10, 2009) (informative), available at
https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/ip/boards/bpai/decisions/inform/fd0
9004693.pdf.
With respect to claim 1’s limitations of “upon determining that the
vector intersects the one or more visual information: determine content of
the one or more visual information . . . and causing audio information” to be
output, we are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that “only the present
Application discloses any type of causal relationship between” the concepts
Appeal 2018-007468
Application 14/319,338

7
of determining whether a vector projected in the eye gaze direction of the
user intersects a piece of visual information and determining the content of
visual information and causing relevant audio information to be presented.
(See Reply Br. 4.) Clavin also determines the content of visual information
and causes relevant audio to be presented to the user in response to
determining that the “line of gaze” (of the user’s eyes) intersects the visual
information. (See Clavin ¶¶ 36–39;3 Final Act. 8–9 (citing Clavin ¶¶ 37–39,
79); Ans. 5.) Particularly, Clavin discloses “the HMD [(head-mounted
display)] wearer’s focal point is determined. . . . using any of a variety of
techniques for eye and gaze tracking” such as by “track[ing] the HMD
wearer’s eyes to determine the line of gaze of the HMD wearer”; thereafter,
an “object being viewed by the HMD wearer’s focal point is determined”
and “object recognition is performed at block 210 [in Fig. 2] to identify the
object.” (See Clavin ¶¶ 36–37; see also Final Act. 8.) For example, “if
[Clavin’s] HMD wearer is viewing a car of a particular make and model, the
object recognition will determine that the object is a car of that make and
model” and “advertising information [(including audio to be played by the
HMD’s speakers)] is retrieved based on the identified object” and “presented
via the HMD.” (See Clavin ¶¶ 37–39; see also Final Act. 8–9; Ans. 5.)
As further noted by the Examiner, Appellant is not arguing the
references for the teachings relied on by the Examiner. (Ans. 5–6.) For

3 It appears the Examiner did not appreciate the totality of the teachings of
Clavin, including Clavin’s paragraph 36 description of tracking the user’s
eyes to determine when the user’s line of gaze intersects an object. The
Examiner did, however, cite the immediately succeeding paragraph of
Clavin (paragraph 37)—which describes the same figure (Figure 2) as
paragraph 36. (See Final Act. 8 and Ans. 5.)
Appeal 2018-007468
Application 14/319,338

8
example, Clavin, not Carlson or Matsuoka as Appellant asserts (see App. Br.
18–19), was cited for teaching determining content of visual information and
retrieving and presenting audio related to the content, as discussed supra.
(Final Act. 8–9.) Additionally, Appellant argues Clavin does not disclose a
vector (see Reply Br. 4), but Matsuoka and Carlson were cited for teaching a
vector projected from the location of a vehicle in the direction in which the
user is looking. (Final Act. 5–7 (citing Matsuoka ¶¶ 132, 249, 273, Figs. 8
and 21A–21B; Carlson ¶ 50); Ans. 4–5.) Appellant also has not addressed
the Examiner’s rationale to combine the teachings of Clavin with those of
Matsuoka and Carlson. (See Final Act. 9.)
As Appellant’s Briefs have not shown error in the Examiner’s
proffered prima facie case of obviousness under § 103, we sustain the
Examiner’s decision in rejecting independent claim 1, independent claims 8
and 14 argued for the same reasons as claim 1, and dependent claims 2–7, 9–
13, and 15–21, not separately argued, under 35 U.S.C. § 103. (App. Br. 19;
Reply Br. 5.)

CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1–21 based upon
obviousness.

For the above reasons, we AFFIRM the Examiner’s obviousness
rejections of claims 1–21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.

Appeal 2018-007468
Application 14/319,338

9
DECISION SUMMARY
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–9, 13–18, 20,
21
103 Matsuoka,
Carlson, Clavin
1–9, 13–
18, 20, 21

10–12, 19 Matsuoka,
Carlson, Clavin,
Osterhout
10–12, 19
Overall
outcome
1–21

No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2016).

AFFIRMED