Ex Parte Huston

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 26, 2018

13605370 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 26, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/605,370 09/06/2012
36275 7590 03/27/2018
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.
5863-00902 5441
EXAMINER
LEE,KWANGB
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2617
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
03/27/2018 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 2016-003271
Application 13/605,370
Technology Center 2600
Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, ERIC B. CHEN, and
JEREMY J. CURCURI, Administrative Patent Judges.
CHEN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection of
claims 1-26, all the claimed pending in the application. 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 at an event at a venue, in which the messages are geo-
referenced, contain artificial reality words or symbols, and enhanced for
greater comprehension or relevancy to the user. (Abstract.)
Appeal 2016-003271
Application 13/605,370
Claims 1 and 2 are exemplary, with disputed limitations in italics:
1. A method for viewing artificial reality messages when
viewing an event at a venue, comprising:
determining a position of one or more participants at the venue;
transmitting said position of a participant;
equipping a spectator with a device having a graphics display;
communicating said participant position to said spectator;
viewing on the graphics display said participant position at the
venue in a perspective view; and
inserting a georeferenced artificial reality message as an overlay
into the perspective view of the venue, wherein the artificial reality
message content is based on context.
2. The method of claim 1, wherein the context of said
message is based on, at least in part, the demographics of likely
spectators viewing said event.
Claims 21-24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated
by Huston (US 2008/0259096 Al; Oct. 23, 2008).
Claims 1, 5, 6, 8-14, and 18-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Beyer (US 7,031,728 B2; Apr. 18, 2006) and
Huston.
Claims 2--4, 7, and 15-17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Beyer, Huston, and Rhoads (US 2011/0098029 Al;
Apr. 28, 2011).
2
Appeal 2016-003271
Application 13/605,370
Claims 25 and 26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as
unpatentable over Huston and Rhoads. 1
ANALYSIS
§ 102 Rejection-Huston
With respect to claims 21-24, Appellant merely reiterates arguments
presented infra with respect to the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a). That is, Appellant contends Huston does not disclose "artificial
reality ('AR') advertising message, wherein the AR advertising message
content is based on context," as claimed (emphasis added). (App. Br. 5.)
Thus, Huston does not "describe this limitation as presently defined." (Id.)
We sustain the rejection of claims 21-24 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Huston for the same reasons discussed below with respect to
Huston and the term "context" in the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a).
§ 103 Rejection-Beyer and Huston
We are unpersuaded by Appellant's arguments (App. Br. 4; see also
Reply Br. 2) that the combination of Beyer and Huston would not have
rendered obvious independent claim 1, which includes the limitation
"wherein the artificial reality message content is based on context."
1 Appellant does not present any arguments with respect to the rejection of
claims 3, 4, 7, 15-17, 25, and 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Thus, any such
arguments are deemed to be waived and we summarily sustain the
Examiner's rejections.
3
Appeal 2016-003271
Application 13/605,370
The Examiner finds that the GPS system of Huston, which provides
target area information relevant to the viewer's selected perspective,
including insertion of an artificial reality message (e.g., a billboard),
corresponds to the limitation "wherein the artificial reality message content
is based on context." (Final Act. 6; see also Ans. 3-5.) We agree with the
Examiner's findings.
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.) Huston further 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). For example, Huston explains that "the user has already designated
restaurant 202 as the target location; therefore, an advertisement for a dinner
special or a particular drink would be relevant." (i-f 73.) Because the
portable viewing device of Huston selectively displays a view of the target
from the user's perspective or selectively from another location, for
example, geo-referenced billboard area 208 that advertises a restaurant
designated by the user, Huston teaches the limitation "wherein the artificial
reality message content is based on context."
Appellant argues the following:
4
Appeal 2016-003271
Application 13/605,370
In the captioned application, the term "context" is defined as
follows:
In addition the content of the advertisement
messages can be changed based on context. Such
smart phones 10 have not only machine ID' s, but
also search history, location history, and even
personal information. Further, the user might be
identified based on social media participation - e.g.
Facebook or Twitter accounts. Such information is
considered "context" in the present application,
along with the typical demographics of an event and
"marketing factors" as previously discussed
(Specification - if 0073).
In the final Office Action, the plain and ordinary meaning of the
term "context," rather than the explicit definition provided in the
specification.
(App. Br. 4; see also Reply Br. 2.) Accordingly, Appellant argues,
"[ n ]owhere within Huston '096 is it taught that the content of an AR
message is based on context, as defined in the present specification" but
"[i]nstead, the content is based on the building function, in this example, a
restaurant." (Id. at 7.) Contrary to Appellant's arguments, paragraph 73 of
Appellant's Specification merely provides several examples or embodiments
of a "context," rather than a definition. Accordingly, the importation of a
narrow embodiment into the broader independent claim 1 is improper. See
SuperGuide Corp. v. DirecTV Enters., Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875 (Fed. Cir.
2004) ("For example, a particular embodiment appearing in the written
description may not be read into a claim when the claim language is broader
than the embodiment.") Even if Appellant's narrowed definition of
"context" is correct, the limitation "wherein the artificial reality message
content is based on context" is broad enough to encompass billboard 108 of
Huston, in which the user receives advertisements from a previously
5
Appeal 2016-003271
Application 13/605,370
designated restaurant 202. In particular, the disclosure of "advertisement
messages" or "search history" from paragraph 73 of Appellant's
Specification encompasses billboard 108 of Huston, and accordingly, is
"based on context" because the user receives advertisements from a
previously designated restaurant 202.
Thus, we agree with the Examiner that the combination of Beyer and
Huston would have rendered obvious independent claim 1, which includes
the limitation "wherein the artificial reality message content is based on
context."
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of independent claim 1 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Claims 5, 6, 8, and 9 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 5, 6, 8,
and 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), forthe 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 of claim 10, as well as dependent claims 11-14 and 18-20 for the
same reasons discussed with respect to claim 1.
§ 103 Rejection-Beyer and Huston
We are unpersuaded by Appellant's arguments (App. Br. 8; see also
Reply Br. 3--4) that the combination of Beyer, Huston, and Rhoads would
not have rendered obvious dependent claim 2, which includes the limitation
6
Appeal 2016-003271
Application 13/605,370
"wherein the context of said message is based on, at least in part, the
demographics of likely spectators."
The Examiner finds that the smart phone of Rhoads, having a context
engine, corresponds to the limitation "wherein the context of said message is
based on, at least in part, the demographics of likely spectators." (Final
Act. 11; see also Ans. 9--10.) We agree with the Examiner's findings.
Rhoads relates to smart phones which "respond to the user's
environment, e.g., by serving as intuitive hearing and seeing devices" (i-f 4),
for example, via a context engine (i-f 79; see also Fig. 1 ). In particular,
Rhoads explains that
If the smart phone knows from stored profile information that the
user is a 35 year old male, and knows from GPS data and
associated map information that the user is located in a Starbucks
in Portland, and knows from time and weather information that
it is a dark and snowy morning on a workday, and recalls from
device history that in several prior visits to this location the user
employed the phone's electronic wallet to buy coffee and a
newspaper, and used the phone's browser to view websites
reporting football results, then the smart phone's tasks are
simplified considerably.
(i-f 16.) Accordingly, Rhoads explains that "[b]ased on such collateral
information, the smart phone can load recognition software appropriate for
statistically likely stimuli, and can prepare to undertake actions that are
statistically relevant in response." (i-f 17.) Because Rhoads explains that the
smart phone can select appropriate recognition software for likely stimuli
based upon collateral information (e.g., age, gender, location, or
consumption habits), Rhoads teaches the limitation "wherein the context of
said message is based on, at least in part, the demographics of likely
spectators."
7
Appeal 2016-003271
Application 13/605,370
Appellant argues that "Rhoads does not teach or suggest this
limitation" and "Rhoads does not relate to or suggest changing message
content based on likely demographics of a spectator and, as noted by the
final Office Action" (App. Br. 8.) However, Appellant merely provides a
conclusory statement that Rhoads does not teach the limitation "wherein the
context of said message is based on, at least in part, the demographics of
likely spectators," without providing persuasive arguments or evidence as to
why the Examiner's findings with respect to Rhoads are improper.
Appellant also argues "Rhoads does not teach or suggest that AR
message content might be changed based on this 'context information"' and
"there is no mention of augmented reality messages, much less changing the
content of an AR message based on such 'context information."' (Reply
Br. 4.) However, the Examiner cited to Huston, rather than Rhoads, for
teaching the limitation "artificial reality message." (Final Act. 6.)
Appellant further argues that "Rhoads is not believed to be analogous
art or combinable with the primary Beyer and Huston '096 references for
any of the claims." (Reply Br. 4.) In particular, Appellant argues that
"[t]here is no reason why one of ordinary skill would consider using such
'context information' designed to fulfill or infer a user's desires, e.g. an
image processing task from a camera phone in a method of changing an AR
message content based on context" (id. at 4--5) and "[t]he references are not
in the same field of endeavor and do not address similar problems" (id. at 5).
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" and "the message enhancement
involves changing the content for context." (i-f 2.) Appellant's Specification
8
Appeal 2016-003271
Application 13/605,370
further discloses that "[p ]roducts or services that are tailored to the user are
prevalent, such as advertising models from Google based on search terms or
advertising based on personal information of a user" and "[ t Jo compute
marketing factors the Apple system captures not only the machine identity,
but search history, personal demographics, time of day, location, weather,
loyalty program membership, media library, user opinion or opinions of
friends and family, etc." (i-f 4.) Rhoads explains that "[a] smart phone
senses audio, imagery, and/or other stimulus from a user's environment, and
acts autonomously to fulfill inferred or anticipated user desires" and
"[ c ]ognition, and identification of appropriate device response( s ), can be
aided by collateral information, such as context." (Abstract.) Rhoads
provides an example of collateral information as a "35 year old, football-
interested, coffee-drinking user on his way to work in Portland." (i-f 16.)
Thus, Rhoads is from the same field of endeavor as Appellant's claimed
invention because both relate to the enhancing a user's experience on a
mobile device based on user demographics. See In re Bigio, 381F.3d1320,
1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
Therefore, we agree with the Examiner that the combination of Beyer,
Huston, and Rhoads would have rendered obvious dependent claim 2, which
includes the limitation "wherein the context of said message is based on, at
least in part, the demographics of likely spectators."
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of dependent claim 2 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-26 is affirmed.
9
Appeal 2016-003271
Application 13/605,370
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
10