Ex Parte Adhikari

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 31, 2016

12904326 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 31, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/904,326 10/14/2010 Suranjit Adhikari
36738 7590 09/02/2016
ROGITZ & AS SOCIA TES
750B STREET
SUITE 3120
SAN DIEGO, CA 92101
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
200902668.01 5695
EXAMINER
HE,WEIMING
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2612
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/02/2016 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):
Noelle@rogitz.com
eofficeaction@appcoll.com
J ohn@rogitz.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SURANJIT ADHIKARI
Appeal2015-001092
Application 12/904,326
Technology Center 2600
Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., KEVIN C. TROCK, and ADAM J.
PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final
Rejection of claims 1---6, 9-14, and 17-19, which are all pending claims. See
Final Act. 2. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellant's disclosure relates to "metadata sent with 3D signals from
an audio video display device" in which "3D glasses overlay graphical assets
onto the 3D visual plane." Abstract. Claims 1, 9, and 17 are independent.
Appeal2015-001092
Application 12/904,326
Claim 1 is reproduced below for reference (with emphasis added):
1. Three dimensional (3D) glasses comprising:
a user-wearable frame;
a processor supported on the frame;
left and right lenses supported by the frame for producing
a simulated 3D image of video content presented on an audio
video display device (AVDD) distanced from the lenses and
being viewed by a person wearing the glasses;
at least one out-of-band transceiver for receiving metadata
out of band from the video content and separate from the video
content, the transceiver configured for communicating the
metadata to the processor;
a computer memory storing instructions executable by the
processor to configure the processor for,
responsive to the metadata received from the out-of-band
transceiver substantially simultaneously with the video content,
overlaying onto simulated 3D images produced by the lenses at
least one graphical object, the graphical object being identified
by the metadata, wherein the instructions when executed by the
processor configure the processor to receive the metadata from
the A VDD via the out-of-band transceiver over a link that is out
of band \'l1ith visible presentation of the video content.
The Examiner's Rejections
Claims 1---6 and 17-19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Dougherty (US 2010/0257252 Al; Oct. 7, 2010)
and Riedl (US 2006/0218604 Al; Sept. 28, 2006). Final Act. 5.
Claims 9-14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Dougherty and Messmer (US 2012/0321273 Al; Dec. 20,
2012). Final Act. 11.
2
Appeal2015-001092
Application 12/904,326
ANALYSIS
Appellant argues the Examiner erred, because the cited references do
not teach or suggest "left and right lenses supported by the frame for
producing a simulated 3D image of video content presented on an audio
video display device (A VDD) distanced from the lenses and being viewed
by a person wearing the glasses," as recited in claim 1. See App. Br. 4--5.
Particularly, Appellant contends "nowhere does Dougherty state that when
its display is implemented by glasses, the glasses receive anything from
another display, as opposed to images direct from a camera." App. Br. 4;
see also Reply Br. 1-2.
We agree with Appellant. The embodiments of Dougherty do not
teach or suggest "video content presented on an audio video display device
(A VDD) distanced from the lenses" of 3D glasses, as claimed. Rather,
Dougherty teaches video content presented on a device (such as a mobile
phone, head mounted display, or eyewear), but does not disclose a separate
video display device. See, e.g., Dougherty Figs. 4, 6, i-fi-131-32. Further, we
agree with Appellant that the Examiner's assertion that "it is well known in
the art that stereoscopic eyewear includes the lens for displaying and
coupled computer device" (Ans. 3) does not provide a teaching for a
separate video display distanced from the lenses of the glasses, and, in any
event, "such an allegation is unsupported by any citation to evidence of
record and merits no weight" (Reply Br. 2).
Thus, we are persuaded Dougherty does not teach or suggest the
disputed limitation of claim 1, and the Examiner does not rely on the other
cited references for such teachings. See Final Act. 6-7. Accordingly, we are
persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claim 1, and
3
Appeal2015-001092
Application 12/904,326
independent claims 9 and 17 which recite similar limitations. Accordingly,
we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of these claims, and the claims
dependent thereon.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection of claims 1---6, 9-14, and 17-19 are
reversed.
REVERSED
4