Ex Parte Huston

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 29, 2018

13152476 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 29, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/152,476 06/03/2011
36275 7590 03/29/2018
Egan, Peterman, Enders & Huston LLP.
1101 S. Capital of Texas Highway
Bldg C, Suite 200
Austin, TX 78746
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Charles D. Huston
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.
5863-00900 6941
EXAMINER
LEE,KWANGB
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2617
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
03/29/2018 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 CHARLES D. HUSTON
Appeal 2016-008690
Application 13/152,476
Technology Center 2600
Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, ERIC B. CHEN, and
JEREMY J. CURCURI, Administrative Patent Judges.
CHEN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2016-008690
Application 13/152,476
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection of
claims 1-3, 5-13, 15-23, 26-30, 33, 36, and 37. Claims 4, 14, 24, 25, 31,
32, 34, and 35 have been cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ). We affirm.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant's invention relates to viewing artificial reality (AR)
messages, such as an event at a venue, in which the AR messages are geo-
referenced, contain artificial reality words or symbols, and enhanced for
greater comprehension or relevancy to the user. (Abstract.)
Claims 1 and 21 are exemplary, with disputed limitations in italics:
1. A method for presenting messages at an [sic] venue,
compnsmg:
determining a position of one or more participants at the venue;
transmitting said position of a participant;
communicating with a spectator with a computer having a
graphics display;
communicating said participant position to said spectator;
presenting for viewing on the graphics display from a spectator
view origin a first perspective view of said participant and a second
perspective view of said participant at the venue, wherein the
participant position changes or the spectator view origin changes, or
both, between said first perspective view and said second perspective
view;
inserting a geo-referenced artificial reality ("AR") message into
the first perspective view and the second perspective view;
presenting for viewing said geo-referenced AR message in each
of said first and second perspective views; and
enhancing said geo-referenced AR message when the first
perspective view changes to the second perspective view, wherein said
2
Appeal 2016-008690
Application 13/152,476
enhancing comprises a change of one or more of message perspective,
orientation, size, background, font, or lighting, and
wherein a change in message orientation comprises geo-
referencing said message proximate an object and changing the
message orientation relative said object.
21. A method for a spectator viewing a venue, comprising:
determining a view origin for said spectator at said venue;
receiving a position of a participant at said venue;
viewing on a spectator graphics display a first perspective view
from a spectator view origin to a participant position and a second
perspective view from a spectator view origin to a participant
position, wherein the spectator view origin or the participant position,
or both, changes between said first perspective view and said second
perspective view;
viewing in said first and second perspective views an artificial
reality ("AR") message geo-referenced proximate said participant at
said venue; and
viewing an enhanced geo-referenced AR message when said
view changes between said first perspective view and said second
perspective view, wherein an enhanced AR message includes a change
in the orientation of said AR message relative to said participant
between said first perspective view to said second perspective view,
and said change in orientation is changed relative to said view origin
and relative to said participant.
Claims 1-3, 5, 7-13, 15, 17-20, 29, and 30 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Beyer (US 7,031,728 B2; Apr. 18,
2006), Huston (US 2008/0259096 Al; Oct. 23, 2008) and Dengler
(US 7,116,342 B2; Oct. 3, 2006). 1
1 The Examiner has inadvertently grouped: (i) dependent claims 29 and 30
with the rejection of independent claim 21under35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
Beyer and Huston; and (ii) dependent claim 26 with the rejection of
3
Appeal 2016-008690
Application 13/152,476
Claims 21-23, 26-28, 33, 36, and 37 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Beyer and Huston.
Claims 6 and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Beyer, Huston, Dengler, and Rhoads (US 2011/0098029
Al; Apr. 28, 2011). 2
ANALYSIS
§ 103 Rejection-Beyer, Huston, and Dengler
We are unpersuaded by Appellant's arguments (App. Br. 11; see also
Reply Br. 2) that the combination of Beyer, Huston, and Dengler would not
have rendered obvious independent claim 1, which includes the limitation
"the first perspective view changes to the second perspective view, wherein
said enhancing comprises a change of one or more of message perspective,
orientation, size, background, font, or lighting."
The Examiner found that the portable viewing device of Huston,
which includes different views selected by the user, based on the user's GPS
position, corresponds to the limitation "the first perspective view changes to
the second perspective view." (Final Act. 4--5.) The Examiner further found
that the character generator of Dengler, which is used to generate real-time
graphic content for display, as illustrated in Figure 8 as a scene component
model (SCM) insert region, corresponds to the limitation "wherein said
enhancing comprises a change of one or more of message perspective,
independent claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Beyer, Huston, and
Dengler. We consider this harmless error.
2 Appellant does not present any arguments with respect to the rejection of
claims 6 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Thus, any such arguments are
deemed to be waived and we summarily sustain the Examiner's rejection.
4
Appeal 2016-008690
Application 13/152,476
orientation, size, background, font, or lighting." (Final Act. 6.) The
Examiner concluded that "it would be obvious ... to modify the method in
Beyer as modified by Huston to provide the view [of Dengler], wherein said
enhancing comprise a change of one or more of message perspective,
orientation, size, background, font, or lighting." (Id.) We agree with the
Examiner's findings and conclusions.
Huston relates to a GPS-based system that "utilizes a user's selected
source position to assist in displaying information about the target." (i-f 3.)
In particular, Huston explains that "[t]he user preferably has a portable
viewing device that accepts the user's GPS derived position and selectively
displays a view of the target from the user's perspective or location or
selectively from another location." (i-f 11.) Because the portable viewing
device of Huston selectively displays a view of the target from the user's
perspective or selectively from another location, Huston teaches the
limitations "first perspective view" and "second perspective view."
Dengler relates to "augmenting an image sequence with content, such
that the content appears to have been part of the original scene as displayed
by the image sequence." (Col. 1, 11. 7-9.) Dengler explains that a character
generator (CG) is "used to generate real-time graphic content for display
within the scene portrayed within a view" (col. 5, 11. 42--44) with "correct
size, orientation, perspective and occlusion within the scene" (col. 5, 11. 50-
52). In one embodiment, Figure 8 of Dengler illustrates the transformation
of a scene component model (SCM) into an input view. (Col. 19, 11. 56-60.)
In particular, Dengler explains that "the baseline embedded model 810 is
transformed into the correct location, orientation and size within the view of
the input image 802" (col. 19, 11. 64---67), such that the "transformed baseline
5
Appeal 2016-008690
Application 13/152,476
embedded model is called the 'input embedded model' 812." (Co 1. 19, 1. 6 7
to col. 20, 1. 1). Dengler further explains "[t]he SCM insert region 805
essentially defines the AR [augmented reality] insert location within the
view of the baseline image 804" (col. 20, 11. 8-9) and "[ d]igital rotation,
scaling, translation and perspective software tools allow the user to visually
'mold' the SCM into the baseline view" (col. 20, 11. 22-24). Because
Dengler explains that SCM insert region 805, which includes the augmented
reality insert, is subjected to rotation, scaling, and translation when
transformed into baseline embedded model 810, Dengler teaches the
limitation "wherein said enhancing comprises a change of one or more of
message perspective, orientation, size, background, font, or lighting."
A person having ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that
incorporating the character generator (CG) of Dengler for augmented reality
inserts, with the cellular PDA/GPS of Beyer, as modified by Huston, would
improve Beyer and Huston by providing the ability to rotate, scale, translate,
or add perspective to an augmented reality insert. See KSR Int 'l Co. v.
Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007) ("[I]f a technique has been used to
improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize
that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is
obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill."). Thus, we
agree with the Examiner (Final Act. 6) that modifying Beyer and Huston to
incorporate the character generator (CG) of Dengler for augmented reality
inserts would have been obvious.
Appellant argues that "Dengler is not from the same field of endeavor
and is not pertinent to the problems addressed by the present claims." (App.
Br. 11.) In particular, Appellant argues that "Dengler relates to a television
6
Appeal 2016-008690
Application 13/152,476
video editing system" and "[ t ]he 'view modeler' is not a spectator device at
a venue (e.g. claim 10) but, instead, involves the software and computer
system on the TV video editing truck 120 (Fig. 1) in order to provide the
data to the AR system." (Id. (citation omitted).) However, Appellant's
Specification discloses that "[ t ]his invention relates to a system and method
for inserting and enhancing artificial reality messages displayed to a user of
a graphics device, such as when viewing an event, such as a sporting event,
concert, rally, gathering, meeting, location preview, or the like, at a venue."
(i-f l (emphasis added).) Dengler explains that "[ t ]he present invention is
directed to a system and method for augmenting an image sequence with
content, such that the content appears to have been part of the original scene
as displayed by the image sequence." (Col. 1, 11. 6-9.) In particular,
Dengler explains that "there exist multiple examples of AR [augmented
reality] inserts within the domain of broadcast television" (col. 2, 11. 27-28)
including "an AR insert during a sports broadcast [that] is the placement of
virtual advertisements into the stadium or arena where the game is being
played" (col. 2, 11. 33-35 (emphasis added)). Thus, Dengler is from the
same field of endeavor as Appellant's claimed invention because both relate
to the insertion of AR images during sporting events. See In re Bigio, 3 81
F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
Appellant further argues that "the claim limitation requires specific
type of enhancement e.g. 'a change of one or more of message perspective,
orientation, size, background, font, or lighting' ... when the first perspective
view changes to the second perspective view," however, "Dengler does not
mention enhancing 'when the first perspective view changes to the second
perspective view."' (Reply Br. 2.) However, the Examiner cited to Huston,
7
Appeal 2016-008690
Application 13/152,476
rather than Dengler, for teaching the limitation "the first perspective view
changes to the second perspective view." (Final Act. 4--5.)
Thus, we agree with the Examiner that the combination of Beyer and
Huston would have rendered obvious independent claim 1, which includes
the limitation "the first perspective view changes to the second perspective
view, wherein said enhancing comprises a change of one or more of message
perspective, orientation, size, background, font, or lighting."
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of independent claim 1 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Claims 2, 3, 5, 7-9, 29, and 30 depend from claim 1,
and Appellant has not presented any additional substantive arguments with
respect to these claims. Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claims 2, 3, 5,
7-9, 29, and 30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), for the same reasons discussed
with respect to independent claim 1.
Independent claim 10 recites limitations similar to those discussed
with respect to independent claim 1, and Appellant has not presented any
additional substantive arguments with respect to this claim. We sustain the
rejection ofclaim 10, as well as dependent claims 11, 13, 15, 17-20, forthe
same reasons discussed with respect to claim 1.
§ 103 Rejection-Beyer and Huston
We are unpersuaded by Appellant's arguments (App. Br. 9-10) that
the combination of Beyer and Huston would not have rendered obvious
independent claim 21, which includes the limitation "viewing an enhanced
geo-referenced AR message when said view changes between said first
perspective view and said second perspective view, wherein an enhanced
AR message includes a change in the orientation of said AR message."
8
Appeal 2016-008690
Application 13/152,476
The Examiner found that the portable viewing device of Huston,
which includes different views selected by the user, based on the user's GPS
position, which can include a geo-referenced billboard, corresponds to the
limitation "enhanced geo-referenced AR message." (Final Act. 16.) We
agree with the Examiner's findings.
As discussed previously, Huston explains that "[t]he user preferably
has a portable viewing device that accepts the user's GPS derived position
and selectively displays a view of the target from the user's perspective or
location or selectively from another location." (i-f 11.) Huston explains that
"a georeferenced billboard is included on or near the target and conveys
information to the user ... such as advertisements or the name of the target
can be conveniently displayed on the billboard." (Id.) Figure 10 of Huston
illustrates a perspective view of a target area along a street (i-f 28), which
includes geo-referenced billboard area 208 on the face of building 206
(i-f 72). Because the portable viewing device of Huston selectively displays a
view of the target from the user's perspective or selectively from another
location, including geo-referenced billboard area 208, Huston teaches the
limitation "viewing an enhanced geo-referenced AR message when said
view changes between said first perspective view and said second
perspective view, wherein an enhanced AR message includes a change in the
orientation of said AR message."
Appellant argues that "[ t ]he Examiner cites conventional designations
such as 'pop-up balloons and banner ads' that are enhanced and 'includes a
change in the orientation"' (App. Br. 9--10), however "there is no evidence
of such a change in orientation, and indeed, conventional pop-up balloons
and banner ads are not reoriented to a viewer 'when said view changes
9
Appeal 2016-008690
Application 13/152,476
between said first perspective view and said second perspective view' as
required by claim 21" (id. at 10). However, the Examiner also cited to the
portable viewing device of Huston, which selectively displays a view of the
target from the user's perspective or selectively from another location.
(Final Act. 16.) Appellant has not provided any persuasive arguments or
evidence as to why the Examiner's findings with respect to the portable
viewing device of Huston are improper.
Thus, we agree with the Examiner that the combination of Beyer and
Huston would have rendered obvious independent claim 21, which includes
the limitation "viewing an enhanced geo-referenced AR message when said
view changes between said first perspective view and said second
perspective view, wherein an enhanced AR message includes a change in the
orientation of said AR message."
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of independent claim 21 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Claims 22, 23, and 26-28 depend from claim 21, and
Appellant has not presented any additional substantive arguments with
respect to these claims. Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claims 22, 23,
and 26-28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), for the same reasons discussed with
respect to independent claim 21.
Independent claim 33 recites limitations similar to those discussed
with respect to independent claim 21, and Appellant has not presented any
additional substantive arguments with respect to this claim. We sustain the
rejection of claim 33, as well as dependent claims 36 and 37 for the same
reasons discussed with respect to claim 21.
10
Appeal 2016-008690
Application 13/152,476
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-3, 5-13, 15-23, 26-30,
33, 36, and 37 is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
11