Ex Parte Roberts et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 30, 2016

12823939 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 30, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/823,939 06/25/2010 Michael Roberts
35699 7590 09/01/2016
PVF--PARC
c/o PARK, VAUGHAN, FLEMING & DOWLER LLP
2820 FIFTH STREET
DAVIS, CA 95618-7759
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.
PARC-20091648-US-NP 8904
EXAMINER
SHIN, ANDREW
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2612
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/01/2016 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):
sy _incoming@parklegal.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MICHAEL ROBERTS, JAMES M.A. BEGOLE,
MAURICE K. CHU, and DORON KLETTER
Appeal2015-002236
Application 12/823,939
Technology Center 2600
Before CATHERINE SHIANG, MELISSA A. HAAPALA, and
MONICA S. ULLAGADDI, Administrative Patent Judges.
RAAP ALA, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection
of claims 1-21, which constitute all the claims pending in this application.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Appeal2015-002236
Application 12/823,939
REPRESENTATIVE CLAiivI
Claim 1 is representative of the subject matter on appeal:
1. A system, comprising:
a virtual reality system configured to display a virtual
object associated with a real-world object, based on a real-
world model which represents the state of the real-world object;
an augmented reality system configured to capture
images of the real-world object, and to display the virtual object
based on the real-world model for the real-world object; and
an object-state-maintaining mechanism configured to:
receive an updated image of the real-world object
from the augmented-reality system;
determine an updated state for the state of the
virtual object based on the updated image of the real-
world object; and
generate an updated real-world model to reflect the
updated state for the virtual object;
wherein while determining the updated state for the
virtual object, the object-state-maintaining mechanism is further
configured to:
select a computer-aided design (CAD) model of
the real-world object;
associate image features from the updated image
of the real-world object to features of the computer-aided
design (CAD) model of the real-world object; and
determine a state change of the real-world object
based on the image feature associations and constraint
information of the CAD model for the real-world object;
and
wherein in response to determining that the state of
the real-world model has changed, the object-state-
maintaining mechanism is further configured to
communicate the state change to the virtual reality
system and to the augmented reality system, which
2
Appeal2015-002236
Application 12/823,939
facilitates the virtual reality system and the augmented
reality system to update the virtual object to reflect the
state change.
REJECTION ON APPEAL
Claims 1-21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Pretlove (US 2004/0189675 Al; Sept.
30, 2004), Tateno (US 2010/0289797 Al; Nov. 18, 2010), and Zhou (US
2007 /0248261; Oct. 25, 2007).
ISSUE
Appellants' contentions present us with the following issue: Did the
Examiner err in finding the combination of Pretlove, Tateno, and Zhou
teaches or suggests associate image features from the updated image of the
real-world object to features of the computer-aided design (CAD) model of
the real-world object ("associate image features" limitation) and determine a
state change of the real-world object based on the image feature
associations and constraint information of the CAD model for the real-world
object ("determine state change" limitation), as recited in independent claim
l?
ANALYSIS
Appellants contend there is nothing in Pretlove, Tateno, and Zhou that
either expressly or inherently discloses the "associate image" and "determine
state change" limitations recited in claim 1. Br. 12-18. Appellants further
argue the proposed modification would change the principle of operation of
the prior art because "the Examiner has attributed principles of operation to
the Zhou cited art that are nowhere disclosed in either Pretlove, Tetano[sic],
3
Appeal2015-002236
Application 12/823,939
or Zhou" and "it is not possible to combine the system in Zhou with the
system in Pretlove." Br. 18-19. We are not persuaded by these arguments.
The Examiner finds Tateno teaches the "associate image" and
"determine state change" limitations. Ans. 22-23 (citing Tateno Fig. 3,
i-fi-132, 34, 41, 50, 53, 61, 63, 80, 86); see Non-Final Act. 6-7. Appellants'
arguments that Pretlove and Zhou do not disclose the disputed limitations
(Br. 16-17) are unpersuasive because the Examiner does not rely on either
of these references for these limitations. With regard to Tateno, Appellants'
merely contend that Tateno does not expressly or inherently disclose the
disputed limitations (Br. 12), but do not address the Examiner's detailed
findings and explain how the cited sections are different from the disputed
claims. Instead, Appellants simply allege that Tateno "is merely concerned
with updating surface information of a three dimensional model" and "does
not use an image of a real-world object to generate an updated real-world
model that reflects an updated state for the object." See Br. 14, 17.
However, the Examiner relies on Zhou, not Tateno, to teach generating an
updated real-world model. See Non-Final Act. 8. Thus, Appellants'
arguments that Tateno does not teach the disputed limitations essentially
amount to a mere assertion the cited prior art does not disclose the recited
limitations, which is not a substantive argument persuasive of Examiner
error. See In re Loving, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 201 l)("[W]e hold
that the Board reasonably interpreted Rule 41.37 to require more substantive
arguments in an appeal brief than a mere recitation of the claim elements and
a naked assertion that the corresponding elements were not found in the
prior art."); cf In re Baxter Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d 388, 391 (Fed. Cir.
1991) ("It is not the function of this court to examine the claims in greater
4
Appeal2015-002236
Application 12/823,939
detail than argued by an appellant, looking for nonobvious distinctions over
the prior art.").
We are also not persuaded by Appellants' arguments that the
combination would change the principle of operation of the prior art being
modified. We agree with the Examiner that Pretlove, Tateno, and Zhou are
all related to methods of tracking the position and orientation of real world
objects. Ans. 28. The combination modifies Pretlove and Tateno to include
Zhou's method of generating an updated real-world model for the
combination. Ans. 28-29. Appellants do not provide persuasive argument
or evidence that the proposed modification would improperly change the
principle of operation of any of the references or would be impossible.
For the reasons stated above, Appellants fail to persuade us of error in
the rejection of claim 1. Accordingly, we sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
rejection of claim 1 and claims 2-21, for which Appellants do not present
separate arguments for patentability.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision to reject claims 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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.50(±).
AFFIRMED
5