Ex Parte Toney et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 28, 2018

13077281 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 28, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/077,281 03/31/2011
10949 7590 03/30/2018
Nokia Corporation and Alston & Bird LLP
c/o Alston & Bird LLP
Bank of America Plaza, 101 South Tryon Street
Suite 4000
Charlotte, NC 28280-4000
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Aaron Toney
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.
042933/403932 5286
EXAMINER
LEE, BENJAMIN C
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2693
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/30/2018 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):
usptomail@alston.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte AARON TONEY, SEAN WHITE, and KENNETH McCLURE
Appeal2017-007160
Application 13/077,281 1
Technology Center 2600
Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, DENISE M. POTHIER, and SCOTT E. BAIN,
Administrative Patent Judges.
BAIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 1, 5-13, and 17-25, which constitute all claims
pending in the application. Claims 2--4 and 14--16 have been cancelled. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We reverse.
1 Appellants identify Nokia Technologies Oy as the real party in interest.
App. Br. 1.
Appeal2017-007160
Application 13/077,281
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Claimed Invention
Appellants' claimed invention relates to a user interface (such as a
mobile device interface) projected onto a user's body, and activated by the
user's body position as determined by sensors on the body. Spec. i-fi-12--4.
Claims 1, 13, and 19 are independent. Claim 1 is representative of the
invention and the subject matter of the appeal, and reads as follows (with
disputed limitations emphasized):
1. An apparatus comprising at least one processor and at least
one memory including computer program code, the at least one
memory and the computer program code configured to, with the
processor, cause the apparatus to at least:
receive at the processor information from a first sensor
regarding a position of the first sensor, wherein the first sensor
is embodied by a device comprising a projector and is disposed
on a user's body;
receive at the processor information from a second sensor
regarding a position of the second sensor, wherein the second
sensor is disposed on the user's body and is spaced from the first
sensor;
determine the position of the first sensor with respect to
the position of the second sensor so as to determine a detected
position of at least part of the user's body;
determine whether the detected position comprises an
activation position; and
provide for activation of the projector to project a user
interface onto a surface in response to the determination that the
detected position comprises the activation position, wherein the
activation position is a predefined position of the part of the
user's body in which effective projection of the user interface
onto the surface and user interaction with the user interface is
facilitated.
2
Appeal2017-007160
Application 13/077,281
Am. to App. Br. 2 (Claims App'x) (filed September 20, 2016) (emphases
added).
The Rejection on Appeal
Claims 1, 5-13, and 17-25 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Mistry et al. (US 2010/0199232 Al; Aug. 5,
2010) ("Mistry") and Pulli et al. (US 6,771,294 Bl; Aug. 3, 2004) ("Pulli").
Final Act. 2-6.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of the arguments
raised in the Briefs. On the record before us, we cannot sustain the
Examiner's rejections.
Appellants argue the Examiner erred in finding the prior art teaches or
suggests "determin[ing] the position of the first sensor [on the user's body]
with respect to the position of the second sensor [on the user's body] so as to
determine a detected position of at least part of the user's body" and thereby
activate the projector, as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 5-9; Reply Br. 1-3.
An embodiment illustrating the disputed limitation is shown in Appellants'
Figure 4, reproduced below.
3
Appeal2017-007160
Application 13/077,281
FIG. 4
Figure 4 depicts a wrist-mounted projector 80 projecting user interface 100
onto the backside of a user's hand 130. Spec. i-fi-f 16, 53. The projector 80 is
activated by sensors 91 and 92, including an "activation position being
achieved" as detected by the relative position of the sensors, and possibly
also a "confirming input" (such as a tap on one or more sensors). Id. i1 61.
The Examiner finds Pulli teaches or suggests the disputed elements.
Ans. 2-5. Specifically, the Examiner relies on Pulli Figure 2B and/or Figure
2C, and their associated descriptions in Pulli. Ans. 2. On the record before
us, however, we are persuaded the Examiner has erred.
We begin with Figure 2C, which is reproduced below.
Figure 2C
4
Appeal2017-007160
Application 13/077,281
Figure 2C depicts position tracking "markers" 254 on a user's hand, which
may be detected by a "camera" (not shown) worn by the user, in order to
determine the position of the hand and project an "augmented reality"
interface thereon. Pulli col. 5, 11. 34--41. The "markers" may or may not be
seen by the naked eye. Id. at col. 5, 11. 39-40.
The Examiner finds Pulli' s depiction of "markers" and an affiliated
camera teaches the two body-mounted "sensors" recited in claim 1. Ans. 4.
As Appellants argue, however, the "markers" in Pulli are not described as
"sensors," nor would one of ordinary skill in the art understand them as
such. They are simply target or reference markings detected by the one and
only sensing device ("sensor") described in Figure 2C, i.e., the camera. Pulli
col. 5, 11. 35--40.
In the Answer, the Examiner construes "sensor" as any device that
"responds to a physical stimulus," such as "heat, light, sound [or] pressure
... and transmits or reacts to a resulting impulse (as for measurement or
operating a control)." Ans. 5 (citing Merriam Webster dictionary, undated).
The Examiner reasons that, because the markers in Pulli Figure 2C "reflect
light" in a manner captured by the user-mounted camera, they are sensors.
Id. The Examiner's interpretation of sensor, however, seemingly would
encompass any object seen by the human eye, captured on camera, or
detected by any other sensor. We do not agree with this interpretation. All
common objects "reflect light," but not all objects are sensors. As the
dictionary definition cited by the Examiner states, a sensor must "transmit"
or "react to" some impulse; simply being "seen" by a human eye or captured
by a camera is not transmitting or reacting to an impulse. See supra, Ans. 5.
5
Appeal2017-007160
Application 13/077,281
In short, we find Pulli Figure 2C teaches one body-mounted sensor
(i.e., the camera, not shown), not two body-mounted sensors as recited in
claim 1. Moreover, on the record before us, the Examiner presents no
findings that a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand Pulli
Figure 2C as being modifiable to utilize two sensors as recited in claim 1.
The Examiner's reliance on Pulli Figure 2B is erroneous for the same
reasons as set forth above. Figure 2B is reproduced below.
Figure 2B
Figure 2B, an alternative embodiment to Figure 2C, depicts a "position
tracking device" 252 mounted on a user's glasses 102 (in lieu of the camera
referenced in Figure 2C), and a "virtual reality glove" 250 on the user's hand
(in lieu of the markers of Figure 2C). Pulli col. 5, 11. 20-33. Contrary to the
Examiner's findings, we find Figure 2B, like Figure 2C, teaches one sensor
(the position tracking device), not two sensors. The glove 250 is not
described as a sensor in Pulli, but rather is the target tracked by the position
tracking device (and can be the screen on which the user interface is
projected). Id. col. 5, 11. 29--33. Simply because a glove "reflects light"
(making it recognizable as a glove) does not make it a sensor.
Furthermore, it is moot whether (as the Examiner finds and
Appellants contest) elements from Figures 2B and 2C may properly be
6
Appeal2017-007160
Application 13/077,281
"combined" in this case. Ans. 5---6; cf Boston Scientific Scimed, Inc. v.
Cordis Corp., 554 F.3d 982, 991 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ("[c]ombining two
embodiments disclosed adjacent to each other in a prior art patent does not
require a leap of inventiveness"). There is no dispute here that the "position
tracking device" of Figure 2B and camera referenced in (but not shown in)
Figure 2C are alternatives for one another. As discussed above, these are the
only "sensors" taught in the figures, and the Examiner does not find that
Pulli teaches their use together. The other elements in the figures, i.e., the
glove and the markers, are not sensors. Accordingly, substituting (for
example) the markers in Figure 2C for the glove in Figure 2B does not teach
the disputed claim limitations.
For the foregoing reasons, Appellants' arguments persuade us the
Examiner erred on the record before us in rejecting claim 1. For the same
reasons, we are persuaded of error regarding the rejection of independent
claims 13 and 19, which include limitations commensurate in scope to those
discussed above regarding claim 1, and the rejection of the dependent
claims. Accordingly, we do not sustain the obviousness rejection of claims
1, 5-13, and 17-25.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1, 5-13, and
17-25.
REVERSED
7