Kevin CHANG et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jul 8, 2021

2020002510 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 8, 2021)

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.
15/830,802 12/04/2017 Kevin Chaohwa CHANG MTNR P1024 9124
122066 7590 07/08/2021
M&B IP Analysts, LLC
150 Morristown Road
Suite 205
Bernardsville, NJ 07924-2626
EXAMINER
LEIBY, CHRISTOPHER E
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2622
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/08/2021 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):
eofficeaction@appcoll.com
pair@mb-ip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte KEVIN CHAOHWA CHANG and EMANUEL YOSEF
DRUCKMANN
Appeal 2020-002510
Application 15/830,802
Technology Center 2600
Before MARC S. HOFF, JAMES R. HUGHES, and
CATHERINE SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judges.
HUGHES, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Claims 1–6 and 8–22 are pending, stand rejected, are appealed by
Appellant, and are the subject of our decision under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a).1
See Final Act. 1–2.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 We use the term “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Kevin Chaohwa
Chang and Emanuel Yosef Druckmann. See Bibliographic Data Sheet and
Appeal Br. 3.
2 We refer to Appellant’s Specification (“Spec.”), filed Dec. 4, 2017; Appeal
Brief (“Appeal Br.”), filed Sept. 23, 2019; and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.”),
Appeal 2020-002510
Application 15/830,802
2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claimed subject matter, according to Appellant, “relates generally
to virtual reality devices, and more specifically, to devices using user body
movements to send signals to a virtual reality system.” Spec. ¶ 2.
Appellant’s claims are directed to computer readable media, virtual reality
(VR) motion controllers and methods for generating motion commands
based on detected motion of a user. The controller includes processing
circuitry, orientation sensors, and communication interfaces that are fastened
to a user’s body. The orientation sensor(s) sense three-dimensional motion
of the user and the processing circuitry uses the sensor readings to determine
an initial reference position as well as a subsequent (current) user position.
The processing circuitry translates the initial reference position and the
subsequent user position into motion commands using a non-one-to-one
ratio between the sensor readings and the motion commands. See Spec. ¶¶
9, 10, 20, 21, 27, 30, 32–34, 39, 44, 45, 51, 57; Abstract. Claim 1 (directed
to a controller), 13 (directed to a method), 21 (directed to a computer
readable medium), and 22 (directed to a controller) are independent. Claim
1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A virtual reality (VR) motion controller,
comprising:
a processing circuitry;
an orientation sensor;
a communication interface; and
a housing having the processing circuitry, the orientation
sensor, and the communication interface disposed therein, the

filed Feb. 10, 2020. We also refer to the Examiner’s Final Office Action
(“Final Act.”), mailed Feb. 25, 2019; and Answer (“Ans.”) mailed Dec. 9,
2019.
Appeal 2020-002510
Application 15/830,802
3
housing further configured to be securely fastened to a body of a
user;
wherein the orientation sensor is configured to provide
sensor readings indicative of a three-dimensional motion of the
user;
wherein the processing circuitry is configured to:
receive the sensor readings from the orientation
sensor;
determine an initial reference position based on the
sensor readings;
determine a current user position based on the
sensor readings; and
translate the initial reference position and the
current user position into motion commands using a non-one-to-
one ratio between the sensor readings and the motion commands;
and
wherein the communication interface is configured to
relay the motion commands to a VR device.
Appeal Br. 17 (Claims App.) (emphasis added).
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Smith et al. (“Smith”) US 9,595,083 B1 Mar. 14, 2017
Minnen et al.
(“Minnen”)
US 2014/0035805 A1 Feb. 6, 2014
Cheong et al.
(“Cheong”)
US 2017/0011210 A1 Jan. 12, 2017
Zhang et al.
(“Zhang”)
US 2017/0243327 A1 Aug. 24, 2017
Dimitrov et al.
(“Dimitrov”)
US 2017/0357327 A1 Dec. 14, 2017
(filed Nov. 30, 2016)

Appeal 2020-002510
Application 15/830,802
4
REJECTIONS3
1. The Examiner rejects claims 1–4, 8, 9, 11, 13, 14, 17, 19, 21,
and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Cheong, Minnen,
and Dimitrov. See Final Act. 2–14.
2. The Examiner rejects claims 5, 6, 10, 15, 16, and 18 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Cheong, Minnen, Dimitrov, and
Smith. See Final Act. 14–18.
3. The Examiner rejects claims 12 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Cheong, Minnen, Dimitrov, and Zhang. See
Final Act. 18–19.
ANALYSIS
Obviousness Rejection of Claims 1–4, 8, 9, 11, 13,
14, 17, 19, 21, and 22
The Examiner rejects independent claim 1 (as well as independent
claims 13, 21, and 22, and dependent claims 2, 3, 4, 8, 9, 11, 14, 17, and 19)
as being obvious over Cheong, Minnen, and Dimitrov. See Final Act. 2–5;
Ans. 3–7. The Examiner relies on Minnen to teach the disputed feature of
“translat[ing] the . . . user position[s] into motion commands using a non-
one-to-one ratio between the sensor readings and the motion commands.”
Appeal Br. 17 (Claims App.)(claim 1); see Final Act. 4–5. Appellant
contends that Cheong, Minnen, and Dimitrov do not teach this disputed
limitation of claim 1. See Appeal Br. 7–11; Reply Br. 2–4. Specifically,
Appellant contends, inter alia, that the Examiner-cited paragraphs of

3 The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”), Pub. L. No. 112–29, 125
Stat. 284 (2011), amended 35 U.S.C. § 103. Because the present application
has an effective filing date after the AIA’s effective (March 16, 2013), this
decision refers to 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Appeal 2020-002510
Application 15/830,802
5
Minnen do not teach the recited “non-one-to-one ratio” for translating
position into VR movement—
The goal of Minnen is to take different-sized movements
in the real world and equate them to a single movement in the
VR space . . . . A non-one-to-one ratio, by definition, remains a
ratio. Namely a larger change of position of the user will result
in a greater value for the motion command compared to a smaller
change of position (or a greater opposite value, should the ratio
be negative). Here, Minnen explicitly teaches a single movement
that is not tied by any specific ratio to any command, but rather
a single fixed “zoom” command. Thus, even if the references
are combined and modified as suggested by the Examiner, that
combination or modification is still missing a claimed element.
Reply Br. 4; see Appeal Br. 9–10; Reply Br. 3–4.
We agree with Appellant that the Examiner-cited portions of Minnen
(in combination with Cheong and Dimitrov) do not teach or suggest the
disputed translation ratio for translating position into VR movement—i.e.,
“translat[ing] the . . . user position[s] into motion commands using a non-
one-to-one ratio between the sensor readings and the motion commands.”
Appeal Br. 17 (Claims App.)(claim 1); see Appeal Br. 9–10; Reply Br. 3–4.
As pointed out by Appellant, the Examiner-cited portions of Minnen (see
Minnen ¶¶ 143–147; Figs. 17A–17G) do not teach translating position into
motion, but instead describe mapping hand displacement to zoom range such
that the displacement of different users is normalized. See Appeal Br. 9–10;
Reply Br. 3–4. The cited portions of Minnen disclose normalizing
displacement, not translating motion. See Minnen ¶¶ 143–147; Figs. 17A–
17G. The Examiner-cited portions of Minnen provide no disclosure of
sensing a position change and translating it into VR motion, much less that
different position changes translate into greater (or lesser) movement (i.e., a
non-one-to-one translation or ratio). See id. Further, as pointed out by
Appeal 2020-002510
Application 15/830,802
6
Appellant, Minnen accomplishes its mapping of displacement using an
image-capture system (vision-based interface). Appeal Br. 10 (citing
Minnen ¶¶ 72, 74). The claim requires body-mounted sensors, and Cheong
teaches using such sensors (gloves). See Appeal Br. 10 (citing Cheong ¶¶
1591–1592); see also Final Act. 2–4; Cheong ¶¶ 1588–1590; Fig. 149. The
Examiner does not sufficiently explain how the normalized image–capture
displacement information of Minnen would suggest to one of ordinary skill
in the art translating movement of body-worn sensors (as in Cheong) into
non-one-to-one VR motion. Thus, the Examiner does not sufficiently
explain how Minnen (in combination with Cheong) teaches or suggests the
disputed features of claim 1.
Consequently, we are constrained by the record before us to find that
the Examiner erred in finding that the combination of Cheong, Minnen, and
Dimitrov renders obvious Appellant’s claim 1. Independent claims 13, 21,
and 22 include limitations of commensurate scope. Claims 2, 3, 4, 8, 9, 11,
14, 17, and 19 depend from and stand with claims 1 and 13, respectively.
Thus, we do not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 1–4,
8, 9, 11, 13, 14, 17, 19, 21, and 22.
Obviousness Rejection of Claims 5, 6, 10, 12, 15, 16, 18, and 20
The Examiner rejects dependent claims 5, 6, 10, 15, 16, and 18 as
being obvious over Cheong, Minnen, Dimitrov, and Smith. See Final Act.
14–18. The Examiner also rejects claims 12 and 20 as being obvious over
Cheong, Minnen, Dimitrov, and Zhang. See Final Act. 18–19. The
Examiner does not suggest that the additional cited references (Smith or
Zhang) cure the deficiencies of Minnen in combination with Cheong and
Dimitrov (supra). Therefore, we do not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness
Appeal 2020-002510
Application 15/830,802
7
rejections of claims 5, 6, 10, 12, 15, 16, 18, and 20 for the same reasons set
forth for claim 1 (supra).
CONCLUSION
Appellant has shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1–6
and 8–22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. We, therefore, do not sustain the
Examiner’s rejections of claims 1–6 and 8–22.

DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–4, 8, 9,
11, 13, 14,
17, 19, 21,
22
103 Cheong, Minnen,
Dimitrov
1–4, 8, 9,
11, 13, 14,
17, 19, 21,
22
5, 6, 10, 15,
16, 18
103 Cheong, Minnen,
Dimitrov, Smith
5, 6, 10, 15,
16, 18
12, 20 103 Cheong, Minnen,
Dimitrov, Zhang
12, 20
Overall
Outcome
1–20

REVERSED