Ex Parte White et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 25, 2017

13117402 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 25, 2017)

United States Patent and Trademark Office
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
13/117,402 05/27/2011 Sean White 042933/405623 7530
10949 7590
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
EXAMINER
LE, SARAH
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2619
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/27/2017 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):
u sptomail @ alston .com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SEAN WHITE and LANCE WILLIAMS
Appeal 2016-003156
Application 13/117,4021
Technology Center 2600
Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., ADAM J. PYONIN, and
SHARON FENICK, Administrative Patent Judges.
FENICK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s Final
Rejection of claims 1—6 and 8—12. Claims 7 and 13—31 are cancelled.
(Appeal Br. 18—19.) We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b)(1).
We affirm.
Invention
Appellants’ invention relates to facilitation of interactions with
augmented reality devices, including visual recording of a view from an
imaging device and display of the visual recording of the view on a display
1 Appellants identify Nokia Technologies Oy as the real party in interest.
(Appeal Br. 2.)
Appeal 2016-003156
Application 13/117,402
device. Upon receipt of an indication of a touch input to the display device,
an icon representative of the touch input is displayed to the imaging device.
(Spec. Abstract.) This displayed icon may remain at the same position
relative to a scene in the view as the field of view changes with the motion
of a user. (M]Hf 45^46.)
Exemplary Claims
Claims 1 and 5, reproduced below, are exemplary:
1. A method comprising:
receiving an image of a view captured by an augmented
reality device;
causing the image to be displayed on a remote user
interface, wherein the remote user interface is remote from the
augmented reality device;
updating the received image based on a movement of a
user with the augmented reality device;
receiving an indication of an input provided to the remote
user interface, the input comprising a movement across a display
of the remote user interface such that the input is in a same
location relative to the captured view; and
causing a cursor displayed by an augmented reality device
display to remain stationary relative to the captured view while
the captured view changes perspective based on the movement
of the user with the augmented reality device, and while the
cursor moves on the augmented reality device display, wherein
the cursor is displayed based on the input provided to the remote
user interface.
5. The apparatus of Claim 4, wherein the at least one
processor and at least one memory storing computer program
code are configured, with the at least one processor, to cause the
apparatus to receive the input to identify a respective feature
within the image and continue to identify the respective feature
as the image changes.
2
Appeal 2016-003156
Application 13/117,402
Rejections
The Examiner rejects claims 1—5 and 8—11 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Beller et al. (US 6,046,712; iss. Apr. 4,
2000)(“Beller”), Zhou et al. (US 2007/0248261 Al; pub. Oct. 25,
2007)(“Zhou”), and Buhrke et al. (US 2007/0162863 Al; pub. July 12,
2007)(“Buhrke”). (Final Action 5—18).
The Examiner rejects claims 6 and 12 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Beller, Zhou, Buhrke, and Mann (US
6,614,408 Bl; iss. Sept. 2, 2003). (Final Action 18—19).
Issues
I. Did the Examiner err in finding the cited references teach or
suggest “causing a cursor displayed by an augmented reality device display
to remain stationary relative to the captured view while the captured view
changes perspective based on the movement of the user with the augmented
reality device,” as recited in claim 1?
II. Did the Examiner err in combining Beller and Buhrke, in
combination with Zhou, in the rejection of claim 1?
III . Did the Examiner err in finding the cited references teach or
suggest “receive the input to identify a respective feature within the image
and continue to identify the respective feature as the image changes,” as
recited in claim 5?
IV. Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 6 and 12?
ANALYSIS
Preliminarily, with respect to Appellants’ argument that the office
action appealed from was improperly designated as final (Appeal Br. 8), we
note that any request to seek review of the Examiner’s failure to designate a
3
Appeal 2016-003156
Application 13/117,402
rejection as a new ground must be made by petition to the Technology
Center Director overseeing the Examiner’s Art Unit. 37 C.F.R. § 41.40(a).
(I) Obviousness Rejection — Claim 1
causing a cursor displayed by an augmented reality device
display to remain stationary relative to the captured view while
the captured view changes perspective based on the movement
of the user with the augmented reality device
Claim 1 recites, inter alia, the display of an image of a view captured
by an augmented reality device, the updating of the received image based on
the movement of a user with the augmented reality device, and, for a cursor
displayed based on input provided to a remote user interface, “causing a
cursor displayed by an augmented reality device display to remain stationary
relative to the captured view while the captured view changes perspective
based on the movement of the user with the augmented reality device, and
while the cursor moves on the augmented reality device display.” (emphasis
added.) Regarding the last limitation (“the cursor display limitation”),
Appellants argue that, because of the words “while” in the cursor display
limitation, the limitation “include[s] temporal limitations which impose a
continuous association of the cursor to some reference point in the view as
the view changes perspective based on movement of the user with the
device.” (Appeal Br. 12.) Appellants contend that neither Beller nor Buhrke
teach this, nor can they be combined in a way which suggests the feature.
(Id. at 12-13.)
We note, first, that in the cursor display limitation, “the movement of
the user with the augmented reality device” has antecedent basis in the claim
limitation of “updating the received image based on a movement of a user
with the augmented reality device.” The Examiner finds the user movement
4
Appeal 2016-003156
Application 13/117,402
and updated image to be taught or suggested by both Beller (Final Action 6)
and Zhou (id. at 8). The Examiner finds Beller teaches “the operator of the
remote system can see the changing view of the user of the head mounted
system in real time.” (Id. at 6, quoting Beller 2:16—19.) The Examiner also
finds various teachings from Beller, Zhou, and Buhrke to be pertinent to the
cursor display limitation (id. at 7, 9—11.)
Appellants argue that Buhrke only teaches or suggests multiple views
of a three-dimensional environment, each provided to one of Buhrke’s
“collaborators.” Appellants contend:
Although a view may “change” perspective to the perspective of
a different collaborator . . . there is no suggestion that the two
views of Figures 6 and 8 would be incorporated into an animation
such that the pointer remains stationary relative to a view while
the view changes perspective based on movement.
(Appeal Br. 12.) Appellants argue that there would never be a transition
between the two perspectives provided in Buhrke because each is the view
of a separate user/collaborator, and, thus, while in Appellants’ interpretation
of claim 1 “a display is continuously maintained” during user movement and
corresponding updating of the image, Buhrke does not contemplate such a
continuously maintained display. (Id. at 12—13.)
However, we agree with the Examiner that the combination of the
teachings of Beller (in which views are updated based on the movement of a
user — a continuously maintained display during movement) and those of
Buhrke (teaching two perspectives of a scene in which a cursor appears in
the same relative position in the view) would teach or suggest the cursor
display limitation. (Final Action 2—12, Answer 3—4.) Appellants focus on
the individual teachings of the prior art and the purported deficiency in each,
and do not address what the combination would have suggested to one of
5
Appeal 2016-003156
Application 13/117,402
ordinary skill in the art. One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking
references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of
references. See In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir.
1986) (citing In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981)). Accordingly,
we agree with the Examiner that the combination of cited references teaches
or suggests the cursor display limitation, including the “while” recitations
therein. See Answer 3—6.
Thus we are not persuaded, by this argument, of error in the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 1.
(II) Obviousness Rejection — Claim 1
Combination of Beller and Buhrke
Appellants additionally argue, with respect to the combination of
Beller and Buhrke, that the combination is improper because providing
views from different user perspectives to a remote user, and suddenly
switching between these views, would be disorienting. (Appeal Br. 13—14.)
However, as the Examiner finds, the combination of Beller’s teaching of a
gradually changing viewpoint is combined with Buhrke’s teaching that a
cursor would remain at the same relative position in the view from the
gradually changed viewpoint. (Final Action 11; Answer 6.) No
combination which would switch user perspectives suddenly has been
contemplated by the Examiner and therefore we are not persuaded by
Appellants’ arguments that the Examiner’s combination of Beller, Buhrke,
and Zhou would be disorienting. While Appellants further argue that “there
is simply no motivation” for the combination of references (Appeal Br. 14),
we note that the Examiner has explicitly provided a motivation for the
combination (Final Action 10—11).
6
Appeal 2016-003156
Application 13/117,402
In view of our findings and conclusions with respect to the arguments
presented by Appellants with respect to claim 1, we are not persuaded by
such arguments of error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1. We sustain
the obviousness rejection of claim 1 and of claims 2-4 and 8—10, not argued
separately.
(Ill) Obviousness Rejection — Claim 5
to cause the apparatus to receive the input to identify a
respective feature within the image and continue to identify the
respective feature as the image changes
Appellants argue with respect to the rejection of claim 5, the cited
portion of Beller specifically requires the user to maintain one position
during receipt of the input, and this teaching therefore “clearly contradicts
the independent claims which require movement of the user with the
augmented reality device.” (Appeal Br. 14—15.) Thus, Appellants argue the
combination of the prior art teaches away from the features of the
independent claims.
However, we note that although Beller teaches that the user may be
stationary while an “assistant can add marks, icons, text or graphics to the
picked up image ... so as to identify, for example, a particular object within
the picked up image” (Beller 8:38—67), this does not require the user in
Beller to remain stationary at other times. In fact, the rejection combines
this teaching in Beller of identification input with other teachings, including
those in Beller itself, which relate to continued remote user movement and
image change based on such movement. (Final Action 5—7, 14—15.) It is
clear that Beller teaches both that “the operator of the remote system can see
the changing view of the user of the head mounted system in real time”
(Beller 2:16—19) and that the identification process may require a user to
7
Appeal 2016-003156
Application 13/117,402
remain stationary or realign head position. We see no contradiction within
Beller, nor in the use of Beller’s teachings regarding user movement in
general on one hand, and a user remaining stationary for identification, on
the other.
Thus, we are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments of error in the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 5, or of claim 11, argued on the same basis.
(Appeal Br. 15.)
(VI) Obviousness Rejections — Claims 6 and 12
Appellants argue the rejection of claims 6 and 12 based on the alleged
issues with the rejection of claim 1, arguing further that the additional
reference does not cure the argued deficiencies. Accordingly, we are
unpersuaded of error in the rejections of claims 6 and 12 for reasons
discussed above.
DECISION
The Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejections of claims 1—6 and 8—12
are affirmed.
Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv), no time period for taking any
subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended.
AFFIRMED
8