Magic Leap, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jul 8, 2021

2020002108 (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.
14/706,838 05/07/2015 Samuel A. MILLER ML-0227USCON17 7917
132471 7590 07/08/2021
Vista IP Law Group, LLP (Magic Leap, Inc.)
2160 Lundy Ave., Ste. 230
San Jose, CA 95131
EXAMINER
MATHEWS, CRYSTAL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2623
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):
docketing@viplawgroup.com
sp@viplawgroup.com
vlm@viplawgroup.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SAMUEL A. MILLER
Appeal 2020-002108
Application 14/706,838
Technology Center 2600
Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, ROBERT E. NAPPI, and
JUSTIN BUSCH, Administrative Patent Judges.
DIXON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), the Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–20. See Final Act. 1. 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 (2018). The Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Magic
Leap, Inc. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2020-002108
Application 14/706,838
2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to systems and methods for rendering user
interfaces for augmented or virtual reality. Spec. ¶ 2. Claim 1, reproduced
below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A virtual content rendering system, comprising:
an optical apparatus comprising at least a light field
generation subsystem that includes one or more waveguides and
a plurality of curved reflectors or mirrors located in at least one
waveguide of the one or more waveguides, wherein
the light field generation subsystem is configured to
render a four-dimensional light field for displaying
virtual contents including one or more virtual objects in
the four-dimensional light field using the plurality of
curved reflectors or mirrors;
the plurality of curved reflectors or mirrors are
located in the at least one waveguide and are configured to
refocus light as a plurality of virtual point sources emitting
respective spherical waves at a plurality of radial distances
for at least a part of the virtual contents; and
the optical apparatus is configured to project the
light associated with the virtual contents that include a
virtual user interface to a user;
a user interface component coupled to the virtual user
interface and configured to receive a user input in response to an
interaction comprising a pose or movement of the user with at
least a feature in the virtual user interface, the user interface
component comprising at least one pose or movement tracking
device coupled to the light field generation subsystem and
positioned in relation to the user; and
a processor to receive the user input and to determine an
action to be performed based at least in part on the user input.

Appeal Br. 57 (emphasis added).

Appeal 2020-002108
Application 14/706,838
3
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Blixt US 2013/0107214 A1 May 2, 2013
Kerr US 2015/0103003 A1 Apr. 16, 2015
Chaum US 2015/0277123 A1 Oct. 1, 2015

REJECTIONS
Claims 1–10, 13, 15–18, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Chaum. Final Act. 5.
Claims 11, 12, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Chaum and Blixt. Final Act. 13.
Claim 14 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Chaum and Kerr. Final Act. 15.
OPINION
35 U.S.C. § 103
We review the appealed rejection for error based upon the issues the
Appellant identifies, and in light of the arguments and evidence produced
thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential)
(“[I]t has long been the Board’s practice to require an applicant to identify
the alleged error in the examiner’s rejections.”) (cited with approval in In re
Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011)). In rejecting claims under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a), the examiner bears the initial burden of establishing a
prima facie case of obviousness. In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445 (Fed.
Cir. 1992); see also In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1472 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
Only if this initial burden is met does the burden of coming forward with
Appeal 2020-002108
Application 14/706,838
4
evidence or argument shift to the Appellant. See Oetiker, 977 F.2d at 1445;
Piasecki, 745 F.2d at 1472.
Obviousness is determined on the basis of the evidence as a whole and
the relative persuasiveness of the arguments. See Oetiker, 977 F.2d at 1445;
Piasecki, 745 F.2d at 1472. Upon review of the evidence and each of the
respective positions set forth in the record, we find that the preponderance of
evidence supports the Appellant’s position in the record. Accordingly, we
reverse the Examiner’s rejection on appeal essentially for the reasons set
forth in the record by the Appellant, with the following emphasis.
The Appellant argues independent claims 1 and 17 as a group.
Appeal Br. 27. We select claim 1 to be illustrative of the group and claim 17
contains similar limitations.
At issue is whether Chaum teaches a “four dimensional light field.”2
Appeal Br. 27–38, 47–49; Ans. 3–7; Reply Br. 2–11, 25–26.
The Appellant argues the finding by the Examiner that “‘dynamic
video data’ includes all three spatial dimensions with the temporal
component of a fourth dimension’ in Chaum is inconsistent with the
well-established four-dimensional light field display.” Appeal Br. 28; See
Reply Br. 6. According to the Appellant, “[t]he well-established four
dimensions of a light field do not include a ‘temporal component’ or
‘depth dimension’ alleged in the final Office Action.” Appeal Br. 29; See
Reply Br. 8. The Appellant alleges that the definition of a 4D light field is
established in two documents submitted by the Appellant in the IDS dated

2 While the Appellant makes other arguments responsive to the Section 103
rejection, these arguments need not be addressed at this time because the
findings pertaining to this particular claim language are determinative of the
outcome.
Appeal 2020-002108
Application 14/706,838
5
November 28, 2018. Appeal Br. 29–31. According to the Appellant,
Levoy3 sets forth the definition of a 4D light field and Said4 sets forth the
definition of a 5D light field.5 Appeal Br. 30–31.
The Examiner points to Figures 4–5 and paragraphs 221–223 of the
Appellant’s Specification as describing the claimed “four-dimensional light
field” and, in light of these descriptions, interprets the “four-dimensional
light field” as “a field of light projected from the microdisplay into the eye
of a user to approximate light reflecting from a real three-dimensional object
or scene.” Ans. 3–4. This construction may properly describe a light field.
However, this interpretation does not account for the requirement that the
light field is a “four-dimensional light field.”
The Examiner finds that the “four-dimensional light field” is taught
by:
Chaum: ¶ 568, “The red, green and blue light sources 36r, 36g,
and 36b may be switched on and off or set to a predetermined
level by their respective modulation controllers 138, which is
drawn as a single unit in FIG. 2. The modulation corresponds
to pixelated, dynamic video data, which typically has a frame
refresh rate higher than that perceptible by the human eye,”

3 Marc Levoy& Pat Hanrahan, “Light Field Rendering,” Proc. ACM
SIGGRAPH, July 1996.
4 Amir Said & Eino-Ville Talvala, “Spatial-angular analysis of displays for
reproduction of light fields,” Proc. SPIE 7237, Stereoscopic Displays and
Applications XX, 723707 (17 February 2009).
5 The Appellant cites extrinsic evidence to explain the recited term “four-
dimensional light field.” The cited sections of the Specification that
allegedly support this term do not appear to clarify what is meant by or how
to create and use a “four-dimensional light field.” Accordingly, to the extent
rendering a four-dimensional light field in the context of the Appellant’s
invention is enabled, the Specification appears to rely on the knowledge of
the ordinarily skilled artisan.
Appeal 2020-002108
Application 14/706,838
6
wherein the virtual contents is rendered to have three
dimensions, including the depth dimension ¶ 828, “In some
exemplary embodiments focus is controlled to provide that the
combined actual scene transmitted through the proximate
screen 10315 and the constructed images reflected or diffracted
from the screen 10315 have the same apparent distance and are
superimposed so as to be simultaneously in focus.”

Final Act. 6 (emphasis added); see Ans. 4.

The Examiner also finds “the ‘dynamic video data’ includes all three
spatial dimensions with the temporal component of a fourth dimension”
(Final Act. 4 (emphasis added)) and “[t]he three spatial dimensions of the
constructed images at an apparent distance correspond to three of the four
dimensions of the claimed ‘four-dimensional light field.’ The fourth
dimension is the temporal component of Chaum’s ‘dynamic video data’”
(Ans. 5 (emphasis added)).
The Examiner’s factual findings supporting the conclusion of
obviousness and the Examiner’s construction for the “four-dimensional light
field” do not line up.
The three dimensions, referenced by the Examiner in these findings,
are not contained in the cited portions of Chaum. The red, green, and blue
light sources of Chaum paragraph 568, as well as dynamic video data, do not
teach or suggest three, or four, dimensions of a light field, and the Examiner
provides no further explanation how Chaum teaches multiple dimensions of
a light field. As persuasively put by the Appellant, “neither ¶¶ [0568] and
[0828] nor FIG. 2 of Chaum discloses or suggests the alleged ‘three
dimensions, including the depth dimension.’” Appeal Br. 32.
Thus, the Examiner did not sufficiently explain how Chaum’s
disclosures teach or suggest multiple dimensions of a light field, let alone a
Appeal 2020-002108
Application 14/706,838
7
“four-dimensional light field” and, therefore, the Examiner did not establish
that Chaum teaches this limitation. The Appellant persuasively argues that
the factual findings pertaining to Chaum fail to teach a “four-dimensional
light field.” Appeal Br. 47; Reply Br. 3.
As a result, we find that the Examiner has not made adequate factual
findings for every claim element to support the ultimate conclusion of
obviousness of independent claim 1, and similar deficiencies in the rejection
of claim 17, as well as their respective dependent claims 2–16 and 18– 20.
CONCLUSION
We REVERSE the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–20 under
35 U.S.C. § 103.
DECISION SUMMARY
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–10, 13,
15–18, 20
103 Chaum 1–10, 13,
15–18, 20
11, 12, 19 103 Chaum, Blixt 11, 12, 19
14 103 Chaum, Kerr 14
Overall
Outcome
1–20

REVERSED