MICROSOFT TECHNOLOGY LICENSING, LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 29, 2020

14745151 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jan. 29, 2020)

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.
14/745,151 06/19/2015 Scott Ramsby WHG15302U 1044
69316 7590 01/29/2020
MICROSOFT CORPORATION
ONE MICROSOFT WAY
REDMOND, WA 98052
EXAMINER
LHYMN, SARAH
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2613
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/29/2020 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):
chriochs@microsoft.com
usdocket@microsoft.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte SCOTT RAMSBY, JOE THOMPSON, DAN OSBORN, SHAWN
CRISPIN WRIGHT, BRIAN KRAMP, MEGAN SAUNDERS, and
FOREST WOODCROFT GOUIN

Appeal 2018-006164
Application 14/745,151
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, CARL L. SILVERMAN, and
MICHAEL J. ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judges.

SAADAT, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL1

Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant2 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–20, which are all the claims in this
application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 An oral hearing was held for this appeal on January 9, 2020.
2 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as
Microsoft Technology Licensing, LLC. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2018-006164
Application 14/745,151

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant’s disclosure is directed to adjusting a displayed augmented
reality object with respect to the field of view (FOV) of a wearer of a near-
eye display device. In particular, the disclosed system creates “a virtual
spring” by defining “a target region of interest of the augmented reality
object . . . as well as overlap parameters that define how much of the target
region of interest is to be displayed,” which “allows the augmented reality
object to stay in a relatively stable position when the FOV changes by a
small amount and then quickly pulls the augmented reality object along with
the FOV when the FOV moves by a larger amount.” Spec. ¶ 13.
Claim 1 is illustrative of the invention and reads as follows:
1. A wearable, head-mounted display system
comprising:
a near-eye display to display an augmented reality object
perceivable at an apparent real world location by a wearer of
the head-mounted display system; and
a controller to adjust the apparent real world location of
the augmented reality object as a function of a field of view
(FOV) of the wearer, including moving the apparent real world
location of the augmented reality object along with the FOV
when the FOV is changing, the function based on a bounding
region of the augmented reality object and one or more overlap
parameters between the bounding region of the augmented
reality object and the FOV of the wearer.
REFERENCES AND REJECTIONS
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Adamczyk US 5,577,961 Nov. 26, 1996
Southworth US 2012/0275755 Al Nov. 01, 2012
Vaught US 2013/0021373 Al Jan. 24, 2013
Cajigas US 2013/0120224 Al May 16, 2013
Appeal 2018-006164
Application 14/745,151

3
Grinberg WO 2013/171731 Al Nov. 21, 2013
Fyke US 2014/0225898 Al Aug. 14, 2014

Claims 1–13, 15, and 17–20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Fyke, Cajigas, Vaught, and Southworth. Final Act. 4–
25.
Claim 14 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Fyke, Cajigas, Vaught, Southworth, and Grinberg. Final Act. 26.
Claim 16 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Fyke, Cajigas, Vaught, Southworth, and Adamczyk. Final Act. 27.

ISSUE ON APPEAL
Appellant’s arguments in the Appeal Brief present the following
dispositive issue3:
Whether the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Fyke,
Cajigas, Vaught, and Southworth teaches or suggests the following
limitation recited in independent claims 1, 17, and 20:
a controller to adjust the apparent real world location of the
augmented reality object as a function of a field of view (FOV)
of the wearer, including moving the apparent real world location
of the augmented reality object along with the FOV when the
FOV is changing, the function based on a bounding region of
the augmented reality object and one or more overlap
parameters between the bounding region of the augmented
reality object and the FOV of the wearer.
Appeal Br. 15–22.

3 We do not address Appellant’s other contentions because this contention is
dispositive of the issue on appeal.
Appeal 2018-006164
Application 14/745,151

4
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s
contentions in the Appeal Brief and the Reply Brief that the Examiner has
erred, as well as the Examiner’s response to Appellant’s arguments in the
Appeal Brief.
For the limitation at issue, the Examiner relies on the disclosure in
Cajigas of a processor that determines the FOV and adjusts “the apparent
real world location of a virtual object (augmented reality object) as a
function of changing FOV of the user” and the disclosure in Vaught of
moving “an augmented real[i]ty image as the HMD device moves, or along
with the FOV when the FOV is changing.” Final Act. 6 (citing Cajigas
¶¶ 31, 34, 45–49, 70–78; Vaught ¶ 153). The Examiner also relies on the
disclosure in Southworth of incorporating a bounding box for a graphical
object “whereby the virtual object being able to move according to such
control within a boundary that is set relative to a marker corresponds to
Applicant’s claimed ‘bounding region of the augmented reality object.’”
Final Act. 6 (citing Southworth ¶¶ 56–58). Finally, the Examiner finds the
disclosure in Fyke of using “a hypothetical spring joining an augmented
reality object to an anchor location” teaches “the function based on a
bounding region of the augmented reality object and one or more overlap
parameters between the bounding region of the augmented reality object
and the FOV of the wearer, the overlap parameters relating to the spring
constant.” Final Act. 7 (citing Fyke Fig. 4, ¶¶ 68–73).
Appellant argues “Southworth identifies a distinctive real-world
marker in the real-world environment, and presents a graphics object (e.g., a
virtual pet) such that it appears to the user at the position of the real-world
Appeal 2018-006164
Application 14/745,151

5
object.” Appeal Br. 16. Appellant points to paragraph 56 of Southworth
and argues the location of the disclosed “bounding box” does not change
with a changing FOV, which is different from the claimed “bounding
region” that causes the augmented reality object to be adjusted as a function
of FOV. Id. Appellant further contends Fyke fails to disclose the recited
“one or more overlap parameters between the bounding region . . . and the
FOV” because the “spring function” of Fyke “is used to tether the identifier
to its tracked object,” and is not in the form of an overlap that “in tandem
with a bounding region of the identifier, influence[s] how the identifier
moves with a FOV of the wearer.” Appeal Br. 17–18.
In response, the Examiner explains the proposed rejection is based on
the combination of the references. Ans. 9–11. The Examiner finds
combining the bounding box for a graphical object in Southworth with the
hypothetical spring joining an augmented reality object to another location
in Fyke would have taught or suggested the claimed “the function based on a
bounding region of the augmented reality object and one or more overlap
parameters between the bounding region of the augmented reality
object and the FOV of the wearer.” Ans. 11.
To the extent the spring 501 of Fyke joining the object 310 and the
identifier 311 can be characterized as “a bounding region,” such connection
relates the way an object moves according to spring physics. See Fyke
¶¶ 68–73. We find no teaching or suggestion in Fyke of describing the
movement of an augmented object with respect to the movement of FOV of
the wearer. In addition, as Appellant argues, although Southworth discloses
“an associated bounding box that defines how far the graphics object may
move away from the real-world object,” the recited relationship between the
Appeal 2018-006164
Application 14/745,151

6
augmented reality object and the FOV of the wearer is not discussed. Reply
Br. 8. We also agree with Appellant’s assertion that “the location of
Southworth’s bounding box never changes, even when the FOV of the
wearer changes.” Id.
Accordingly, we agree with Appellant that the Examiner does not
provide prima facie support for the rejection. “[T]he examiner bears the
initial burden, on review of the prior art or on any other ground, of
presenting a prima facie case of unpatentability.” In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d
1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992). Therefore, on the record before us, we are
constrained to find the Examiner errs in rejecting independent claims 1, 17,
20 as obvious.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, we do not sustain the obviousness
rejection of independent claims 1, 17, and 20, as well as claims 2–13, 15,
and 18–20 dependent therefrom, over Fyke, Cajigas, Vaught, and
Southworth. The Examiner has not relied upon the additional references to
teach or suggest the above-identified limitation in rejecting claims 14 and
16. See Final Act. 26–27. Accordingly, for reasons similar to those above
for independent claims 1, 17, and 20, we do not sustain the remaining
rejections.

DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–13, 15,
17–20
103(a) Fyke, Cajigas,
Vaught,
Southworth
1–13, 15, 17–
20
Appeal 2018-006164
Application 14/745,151

7
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Basis Affirmed Reversed
14 103(a) Fyke, Cajigas,
Vaught,
Southworth,
Grinberg
14
16 103(a) Fyke, Cajigas,
Vaught,
Southworth,
Adamczyk
16
Overall
Outcome
1–20

REVERSED