NOKIA TECHNOLOGIES OY

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Nov 4, 2021

2020006021 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 4, 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.
15/537,012 06/16/2017 Jussi LEPPÄNEN 059864.02552 4683
11051 7590 11/04/2021
SQUIRE PB (Nokia)
Nokia Technologies Oy
ATTN: IP Department
2550 M Street, NW
Washington, DC 20037
EXAMINER
LU, HWEI-MIN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2175
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/04/2021 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):
IP-Squire@SquirePB.com
sonia.whitney@squirepb.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JUSSI LEPPÄNEN and ANTTI ERONEN
Appeal 2020-006021
Application 15/537,012
Technology Center 2100

Before MINN CHUNG, AMBER L. HAGY, and DAVID J. CUTITTA II,
Administrative Patent Judges.

HAGY, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–10, 12–14, and 17, which are all of
the pending claims. See Final Act. 1–2; Appeal Br. 1. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

1 “Appellant” herein refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Nokia Technologies
Oy. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2020-006021
Application 15/537,012

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The subject matter of the present application pertains to “controlling
advancement of virtual reality content.” Spec. 1:7–8. By way of
background, Appellant’s Specification describes “[v]irtual reality” as
providing “a computer-simulated environment that simulates a viewer’s
presence in that environment.” Id. at 1:13–14. Such a “virtual reality
environment” may be experienced using, for example, “a head-mounted
viewing device that comprises a stereoscopic display.” Id. at 1:14–16.
Appellant’s application purports to describe and claim embodiments
that “relate to controlling advancement of visual virtual reality content based
on whether at least a defined proportion of a user’s field of view coincides
with at least one pre-defined region of interest in the visual virtual reality
content.” Id. at 4:28–31.
The virtual reality content data 21 may, for example, comprise
audiovisual content in the form of a video (such as a movie) or a
video game. The virtual reality content data 21 provides virtual
reality content that may, for example, be experienced by a viewer
using a head-mounted viewing device. The virtual reality
content data 21 comprises visual virtual reality content data 22,
a plurality of identifiers 24 and multiple audio tracks 26.
The visual virtual reality content data 22 provides visual virtual
reality content. The visual virtual reality content might be
stereoscopic content and/or panoramic content which extends
beyond a viewer’s field of view when it is viewed.
Id. at 6:13–23.

Appeal 2020-006021
Application 15/537,012

3
Claims 1, 14, and 17 are independent. Claim 1, reproduced below
with disputed limitations italicized, is representative:
1. A method, comprising:
determining a first region of interest at a first time in visual
virtual reality content that is configured to extend beyond a
viewer’s field of view when viewing the visual virtual reality
content, wherein virtual reality content data is stored in a
memory and the virtual reality content data comprises the visual
virtual reality content;
monitoring, while a viewer is viewing the visual virtual
reality content, whether a defined proportion of the viewer’s field
of view coincides with the first region of interest in the visual
virtual reality content, wherein the defined proportion is less than
a total field of view;
controlling advancement of the visual virtual reality
content based on whether the defined proportion of the viewer’s
field of view coincides with the determined first region of interest
in the visual virtual reality content;
determining a new second region of interest in the visual
virtual reality content, positioned outside the viewer’s field of
view while the viewer is viewing the visual virtual reality
content, at a second time in the visual virtual reality content;
determining, while the viewer is viewing the visual virtual
reality content, that the defined proportion of the viewer’s field
of view does not coincide with the new second region of interest
in the visual virtual reality content; and
ceasing advancement of at least a portion of the visual
virtual reality content, comprising the second region of interest,
based on the determination that the defined.
Appeal Br. 16 (Claims App.) (emphasis added).
Appeal 2020-006021
Application 15/537,012

4
REJECTION2
Claims 1–10, 12–14, and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(a)(2) as anticipated by Ross, U.S. Patent No. 9,392,212 B1, issued
July 12, 2016 (“Ross”). Final Act. 3–16.
OPINION
We have considered Appellant’s arguments (Appeal Br. 10–13; Reply
Br. 3–6) in light of the Examiner’s findings and explanations (Final Act. 3–
18; Ans. 3–22). For the reasons set forth below, we are not persuaded of
Examiner error in the rejection of the pending claims, and we, therefore,
sustain the Examiner’s rejection.
Appellant argues the rejection of independent claims 1, 14, and 17
collectively with regard to the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2). Appeal Br. 10–13. Appellant does not separately
argue patentability for the dependent claims. Id. at 13. Therefore, based on
Appellant’s arguments, we decide the appeal of claims 1–10, 12–14, and 17
based on claim 1 alone. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2019).
Appellant argues the Examiner’s finding of anticipation by Ross is in
error because Ross fails to disclose “wherein virtual reality content data is
stored in a memory and the virtual reality content data comprises the visual
virtual reality content,” as recited in independent claim 1 and
commensurately recited in independent claims 14 and 17. In particular,
Appellant argues the Examiner errs in reading both “virtual reality content

2 In the Final Action, the Examiner also rejected claim 12 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112(b) as indefinite. Final Act. 2–3. The Examiner withdrew this
rejection in the Answer based on Appellant’s intervening amendment to the
claims. Ans. 18.
Appeal 2020-006021
Application 15/537,012

5
data” and “visual virtual reality content” onto Ross’s virtual reality content.
Appeal Br. 11–12 (emphases added). Appellant contends this finding fails
to recognize the distinction between these separately claimed elements. Id.;
Reply Br. 3–4.
We are not persuaded of Examiner error in the rejection. As the
Examiner points out, and we agree, claim 1 recites that “the virtual reality
content data comprises the visual virtual reality content.” Ans. 19 (emphasis
added). Thus, the claimed “virtual reality content data” and “visual virtual
reality content” “can never be completely separate and distinctly claimed
elements,” as the Examiner notes, because the former “comprises” the latter,
meaning the visual virtual reality content is included or contained within the
virtual reality content data. Id. (emphasis omitted). And as the Examiner
finds, and we agree, Ross discloses “virtual reality content data” that
includes visual virtual reality content and that is stored in electronic storage
(memory). Final Act. 3–4, 9; Ross 24:48–64.
Relatedly, Appellant argues that the Examiner errs in finding that
Ross discloses “visual virtual reality content.” Appeal Br. 12–13. Appellant
argues that Ross discloses primary, secondary, and tertiary virtual reality
content that “includes non-visual virtual reality content such as music or a
soundtrack.” Id. Appellant then argues “[i]n contrast, the Appellant’s
claimed visual virtual reality content, as explained on page 9, lines 5-13 of
the current application, enables a viewer to see a stereoscopic display and
one or more display panels. Thus, the virtual reality content of Ross is not
comparable with the Appellant’s claimed visual virtual reality content.” Id.
at 13.
Appeal 2020-006021
Application 15/537,012

6
We are not persuaded of Examiner error in the rejection. As the
Examiner finds, and we agree, Ross discloses visual as well as non-visual
virtual reality content. Final Act 3–6 (citing Ross 5:45–6:40, 6:46–7:3,
15:29–55, Fig. 4A); Ans. 22. Ross discloses storytelling using virtual
reality, with multiple levels of content (primary, secondary, and tertiary),
which includes visual content:
The virtual reality content may include primary virtual reality
content, secondary virtual reality content, tertiary virtual reality
content, etc., and/or other virtual reality content. System 10 may
be configured such that primary virtual reality content may be
displayed to a user, and, responsive to the user turning his view
and/or otherwise moving away from the primary virtual reality
content, one or more sensory cues may be provided to the user
that indicates to the user that his view is no longer directed
toward the primary virtual reality content.
Ross 6:44–52 (emphasis added).
Ross also describes how each of the different levels of virtual reality
content may present different things to the user, including display of visual
elements:
For example, the primary virtual reality content may be a movie
(e.g., a three dimensional movie) and the secondary, tertiary, etc.,
virtual reality content may be content associated with the movie
(e.g., characters from the movie, objects seen in the movie, music
and/or a soundtrack from the movie, a game associated with the
movie, etc.). The virtual reality content (e.g., the primary,
secondary, tertiary, etc., virtual reality content, information that
describes the virtual space itself) for display to the user may be
obtained from electronic storage, via external resources not
included in system 10 (e.g., a server), and/or from other sources.
Ross 24:53–64 (emphasis added).
In its Reply Brief, Appellant argues the Examiner has changed
position in terms of what disclosure in Ross the Examiner maps to the
Appeal 2020-006021
Application 15/537,012

7
claimed visual virtual reality content. Reply Br. 4–5. In particular,
Appellant contends the Examiner took the position in the Final Action that
“the claimed visual virtual reality content is comparable to the virtual reality
content of Ross (i.e., the primary, secondary, and tertiary virtual reality
contents as a whole).” Id. Appellant then contends that the Examiner makes
a different finding in the Answer “to indicate that the visual virtual reality
content is comparable to the ‘movie content to be displayed/seen to/by
users.’” Id. at 5. Appellant then argues that this change in position
undermines the Examiner’s original finding regarding the recitation in
claim 1 of “a first region of interest in the visual virtual reality content,”
which the Examiner had mapped to Ross’s primary virtual reality content.
Id. Appellant contends that if Ross’s primary content is comparable to a
movie and not to a region of interest within the movie, then “Ross does not
disclose or suggest a first region of interest in the visual virtual reality
content.” Id.
We do not agree with Appellant’s characterization of the Examiner’s
position as having changed or as being inconsistent. The Examiner finds, in
the Final Action, that Ross discloses visual virtual reality content including
primary, secondary, and tertiary virtual reality content. Final Act. 3–4. The
Examiner also finds that these different layers of content are presented as
divided areas in a virtual space to the viewer, and finds Ross’s primary
virtual reality content is equivalent to the claimed “first region of interest in
the visual virtual reality content.” Id. at 3–4 (citing Ross 5:45–6:40,
Fig. 4A). The Examiner does not take a different position in the Answer, but
maintains that Ross discloses primary, secondary, and tertiary virtual reality
content, which content includes not only the movie itself (which may be the
Appeal 2020-006021
Application 15/537,012

8
primary content) but also additional visual content such as characters or
objects seen in the movie (which may be displayed as secondary or tertiary
virtual reality content). Ans. 20–21; Ross 24:48–64. The Examiner further
states that “Ross’s ‘primary, secondary, and tertiary virtual reality content
(information)’ is analogous to ‘the virtual reality content data’ and Ross’s
‘visual portions of the primary, secondary, and tertiary virtual reality
content’ such as ‘objects seen in the movie’ is analogous to ‘the visual
virtual reality content.’” Ans. 22 (emphasis omitted). In so doing, the
Examiner does not limit the “visual virtual reality content” to only Ross’s
primary virtual reality content (e.g., a movie), but finds, consistent with
Ross’s disclosure, that visual virtual reality content may be displayed in each
of Ross’s different levels of virtual reality content.
We determine the Examiner’s findings are supported by the cited
disclosures, and we are not persuaded of Examiner error in finding Ross
discloses “visual virtual reality content” as well as “determining a first
region of interest . . . in visual virtual reality content.” See Final Act. 3–4
(citing Ross 5:45–6:40, Fig. 4A).
For the foregoing reasons, we are not persuaded of Examiner error in
the rejection of independent claim 1, and we, therefore, sustain that
rejection, along with the rejection of the remaining claims, which are all
argued collectively with claim 1. See Appeal Br. 10–13.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s anticipation rejection of claims 1–10, 12–14, and 17
is sustained.

Appeal 2020-006021
Application 15/537,012

9
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–10,
12–14,
17
102(a)(2) Ross 1–10, 12–
14, 17

TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED