Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 9, 2022

2021000005 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 9, 2022)

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. 14/843,375 09/02/2015 Jin-Goo LEE 678-5253 (P21920-US) 1988 66547 7590 03/09/2022 THE FARRELL LAW FIRM, P.C. Paul J Farrell 290 Broadhollow Road Suite 210E Melville, NY 11747 EXAMINER LIU, ZHENGXI ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER OPQA NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/09/2022 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): pto@farrelliplaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte JIN-GOO LEE, SANG-WON KANG, WOO-SUK CHOI, and CHI-HYUN CHO Appeal 2021-000005 Application 14/843,375 Technology Center 2600 Before JEAN R. HOMERE, HUNG H. BUI, and ADAM J. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judges. HOMERE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE1 Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant2 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 3, 6, 8-10, 12, 14, 16, 17, and 23-23. Appeal Br. 12-16 (Claims App). Claims 2, 4, 5, 7, 11, 13, 15, and 18-22 are cancelled. Id. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. 1 We refer to the Specification, filed Sep. 2, 2015 (“Spec.”); Final Office Action, mailed Jan 10, 2020 (“Final Act.”); Appeal Brief, filed May 11, 2020 (“Appeal Br.”); Examiner’s Answer, mailed Aug. 6, 2020 (“Ans.”); and Reply Brief, filed Sep. 29, 2020 (“Reply Br.”). 2 “Appellant” refers to “Applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. Appeal Br. 1. Appeal 2021-000005 Application 14/843,375 2 II. CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER According to Appellant, the claimed subject matter relates to a method and system for providing a Virtual Reality (VR) service by connecting an electronic device to a Head-Mounted Device (HMD). Spec. 1:5-7. Figure 2, reproduced below, is useful for understanding the claimed subject matter: Figure 2 above depicts electronic device 101 attached to HMD 103 to provide VR service when worn by a user. Spec. 11: 8-20. In particular, upon receiving a signal from HMD 103 via communication interface 170, processor120 determines that electronic device 101 is attached to HMD 103, and subsequently provides VR service upon further detecting that HMD 103 coupled to electronic device 101 is worn by a user. Id. Appeal 2021-000005 Application 14/843,375 3 Claims 1 and 10 are independent. Claim 1, with disputed limitations emphasized, is illustrative: 1. A method for providing a Virtual Reality (VR) service by an electronic device, the method comprising: displaying, by the electronic device, a first monoscopic image on a display included in the electronic device, wherein the first monoscopic image is not used to provide the VR service; identifying, by the electronic device, that the electronic device is connected with a Head Mounted Device (HMD); in response to identifying that the electronic device is connected with the HMD, stopping, by the electronic device, the displaying of the first monoscopic image, and displaying a second monoscopic image, wherein the second monoscopic image is not used to provide the VR service; identifying, by the electronic device, that a user is wearing the HMD based on an electrical signal received from a sensor of the HMD while the electronic device is connected with the HMD; and in response to identifying that the user is wearing the HMD while the HMD is connected with the electronic device, stopping, by the electronic device, the displaying of the second monoscopic image, and processing a third stereoscopic image, wherein the third stereoscopic image is used to provide the VR service to the user. Appeal Br. 12 (emphasis added). III. REFERENCES The Examiner relies upon the following references as evidence.3 Name Reference Date Raffle US 8,958,158 B1 Feb. 17, 2015 Asakura US 2005/0160302 A1 Jul. 21, 2005 Hoellwarth US 2010/0079356 A1 Apr. 1, 2010 3 All reference citations are to the first named inventor only. Appeal 2021-000005 Application 14/843,375 4 White US 2013/0141452 A1 June 6, 2013 IV. REJECTION The Examiner rejects claims 1, 3, 6, 8-10, 12, 14, 16, 17, and 23-32 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the combined teachings of Hoellwart, Raffle, Asakura, and White. Final Act. 6-26. V. ANALYSIS We consider Appellant’s arguments seriatim, as they are presented in the Appeal Brief, pages 4-11 and the Reply Brief, pages 1-4.4 We are unpersuaded by Appellant’s contentions. Except as otherwise indicated herein below, we adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth in the Final Action, and the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellant’s Appeal Brief.5 Final Act. 2-26; Ans. 4-18. However, we highlight and address specific arguments and findings for emphasis as follows. Appellant argues that the Examiner errs in finding that the combination of Hoellwart, Raffle, Asakura, and White teaches or suggests 4 We have considered in this Decision only those arguments Appellant actually raised in the Briefs. Arguments not made are forfeited. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2017). 5 See ICON Health and Fitness, Inc. v. Strava, Inc., 849 F.3d 1034, 1042 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“As an initial matter, the PTAB was authorized to incorporate the Examiner’s findings.”); see also In re Brana, 51 F.3d 1560, 1564 n.13 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (upholding the PTAB’s findings, although it “did not expressly make any independent factual determinations or legal conclusions,” because it had expressly adopted the examiner’s findings). Appeal 2021-000005 Application 14/843,375 5 [I]n response to identifying that the electronic device is connected with the HMD, stopping, by the electronic device, the displaying of the first monoscopic image, and displaying a second monoscopic image, wherein the second monoscopic image is not used to provide the VR service as recited in independent claim 1. Appeal Br. 6. In particular, Appellant argues that Hoellwarth’s disclosure of (1) displaying a monoscopic image before the electronic device is connected with an HMD, and (2) displaying the same image stereoscopically after connecting the electronic device with the HMD does not teach the disputed limitations. Id. at 6-7 (citing Hoellwart ¶¶ 69,75). Further, Appellant argues that Raffle’s disclosure of deactivating an image source when a user is not wearing a HMD unconnected with an electronic device does not cure the noted deficiencies of Hoellwart. Id. at 9 (citing Raffle). According to Appellant, Raffle merely provides displaying a blank screen to save power when a user is not wearing the HMD, as opposed to stopping a first monoscopic image to display a second monoscopic image. Id. at 9. Additionally, Appellant argues that the power saving devices of Asakura and White, likewise, do not cure the noted deficiencies of Hoellwwarth and Raffle. Id. at 10, Reply Br. 1-4. Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive of reversible Examiner error. As an initial matter, we note that the disputed claim language “stopping… the displaying of the first monoscopic image, and displaying a second monoscopic image” must be given its broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with Appellant’s disclosure, as explained in Morris: [T]he PTO applies to the verbiage of the proposed claims the broadest reasonable meaning of the words in their ordinary usage as they would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, taking into account whatever enlightenment by way of Appeal 2021-000005 Application 14/843,375 6 definitions or otherwise that may be afforded by the written description contained in the applicant’s specification. In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997); see also In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (stating that “claims must be interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow.”). Our reviewing court states, “the proper … construction is not just the broadest construction, but rather the broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification.” In re Man Mach. Interface Techs. LLC, 822 F.3d 1282, 1287 (Fed. Cir. 2016). In this case, Appellant’s Specification recites in relevant parts the following: According to an embodiment of the present disclosure, when the electronic device 101 is attached to the HMD 103, the processor 120 controls the display 160 to display a temporary image. The temporary image may be, e.g., a black image, a still image or motion picture preset by the user. The temporary image may be, e.g., an image including a white image or logo. Spec. 12:7-11 (emphasis added). When it is determined in step S1202 that the electronic device 101 is connected with the HMD 103 ("Yes" in step S1202), the processor 120 switches the operation mode of the electronic device 101 into a first operation mode, in step S1204. The first operation mode is an operation mode of the electronic device 101 in which, although the electronic device 101 is attached to the HMD 103, the HMD 103 may not yet have been put on the user. In the first operation mode, the electronic device 101 may display a temporary image through the display 160. According to an embodiment of the present disclosure, in the first operation mode, the processor 120 may temporarily pause or terminate various operations running on the electronic device 101 (e.g., game play, voice call, video call, video playing, or display of messages or emails). Spec. 29:16-25 (emphasis added). Appeal 2021-000005 Application 14/843,375 7 As initially referenced in the Appeal Brief, the cited portions of Appellant’s Specification indicate that the claimed “stopping... the displaying of a first monoscopic image, and the displaying a second monoscopic image” occur as part of a first operation mode during which the electronic device temporarily displays an image, which may be, e.g., still, black, or frozen. Appeal Br. 2. Thus, while Appellant’s Specification does not particularly disclose that during the first operation, upon detecting that the HMD is connected to the electronic device, the latter device stops the displaying of a first monoscopic image to display a second monoscopic image, such steps can be reasonably inferred from the cited text. Id. Accordingly, we broadly, but reasonably construe the disputed limitations as pausing (temporarily stopping) the display of a first monostatic image to display a black or blank image upon detecting an HMD is connected to the electronic device, and it is not being worn by the user. As noted above, it is undisputed that Hoellwart discloses an electronic device displaying (1) a first monoscopic image before being connected with an HMD, and (2) a stereoscopic image upon detecting that a user is wearing the HMD connected therewith. Appeal Br. 6, Ans. 5-6 (citing Hoellwart ¶ 75). It is likewise undisputed that Raffle discloses displaying a blank screen to save power when a user is not wearing the HMD. Appeal Br. 9, Ans.6-7 (citing Raffle 1: 6-8, 11:31-33). The Examiner then proposes to combine the cited teachings of Hoellwart and Raffle to save power when the user is not wearing the HMD. Ans. 7-8. In particular, the Examiner finds the following: After the combination of Hoellwarth and Raffle, Hoellwarth's second image in the HMD (display) mode is replaced by Raffle's Appeal 2021-000005 Application 14/843,375 8 power-saving image in the HMD (display) mode. There is no dispute regarding the motivation, which is to save power. The dispute actually is the reasonableness of the aforementioned replacement. The aforementioned replacement is reasonable, because the context for displaying Hoellwarth's second image is similar to the context for displaying Raffle's power-saving image. Hoellwarth's second image is displayed in the HMD (display) mode, when it is reasonable to assume that one is not wearing the ad hoc HMD (display), while Raffle's power-saving image is displayed in the HMD (display) mode, when it is determined that one is not wearing a HMD (display). Id. It is reasonable to assume that one is not wearing the ad hoc HMD (display) after the ad hoc HMD (display) has been formed and before a first successful determination that the ad hoc HMD is worn by a user. There are two possible states of the ad hoc HMD (display): it is either worn by a user, or not. Because the context of Hoellwarth' s teaching is the initial setup of the ad hoc HMD, and when it has not been determined for the first time that the ad hoc HMD (display) is worn by the user, it is reasonable to assume the ad hoc HMD (display) is not worn by the user at the very moment it is determined that the ad hoc HMD (display) is formed by connecting a smartphone and a head mountable structure. This assumption is reasonable until it is determined for the first time that a user is wearing the HMD (display). Further, it may take some time or significant amount of time before the first successful determination that the ad hoc HMD is worn by the user, because it takes time to determine if one is wearing the ad hoc HMD, one probably does not wear the ad hoc HMD initially, or possibly never wears it. Id. at 8. We find the Examiner’s proposed combination of the cited teachings of Hoellwart and Raffle is no more than a simple arrangement of old elements with each performing the same function it had been known to perform, yielding no more than what one would expect from such an arrangement. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007). Appeal 2021-000005 Application 14/843,375 9 Therefore, the ordinarily skilled artisan, being “a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton,” would have been able to fit the teachings of the cited references together like pieces of a puzzle to predictably result in an electronic device displaying a first monoscopic image, and upon detecting an HMD coupled therewith is not worn by a user, the electronic device displays a blank screen to save power. Id. at 420-21. Consistent with our claim construction above, we also find that Raffle’s displayed blank screen teaches a second monoscopic image. That is, the ordinarily-skilled artisan would have readily appreciated that proposed combination would predictably result in the electronic device displaying a first monoscopic image, and upon being connected with an HMD, the electronic device subsequently stops the display of the first monoscopic image to display a blank screen or a second monoscopic image when the HMD is not worn by a user. Because Appellant has not demonstrated that the Examiner’s proffered combination would have been “uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art,” we agree with the Examiner that the proposed modification would have been within the purview of the ordinarily skilled artisan. See Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing KSR, 550 U.S. at 418). Further, we find on this record that the Examiner’s proposed reason to combine the teachings of Hoellwart and Raffle is insufficient. The U.S. Supreme Court has held “[t]he combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007). The Court further instructs that: Often, it will be necessary for a court to look to interrelated teachings of multiple patents; . . . and the background knowledge Appeal 2021-000005 Application 14/843,375 10 possessed by a person having ordinary skill in the art, all in order to determine whether there was an apparent reason to combine the known elements in the fashion claimed by the patent at issue. Id. at 418. “[R]ejections on obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (cited by KSR, 550 U.S. at 418). However, the Court also instructs that “the analysis need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418. In addition, the Court instructs, “if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill.” Id. at 417. This precedent controls, and the application of the cited legal principles to the facts of this appeal provide us with the necessary guidance in affirming this obviousness rejection. We agree with the Examiner that the proposed combination of the teachings of Hoellwart and Raffle is supported by a preponderance of the evidence, and the ensuing conclusion of obviousness is consistent with controlling authorities. Ans. 7. Consequently, we are satisfied that, on the record before us, the Examiner has established by a preponderance of the evidence that the combination of Hoellwart and Raffle teaches the disputed claim limitations. Because we are not persuaded of Examiner error, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 as being Appeal 2021-000005 Application 14/843,375 11 unpatentable over the combination of Hoellwart, Raffle, Asakura, and White. Regarding the rejections of claims 3, 6, 8-10, 12, 14, 16, 17, and 23- 32, Appellant either does not present separate patentability arguments or reiterates substantially the same arguments as those discussed above for the patentability of claim 1. As such, claims 3, 6, 8-10, 12, 14, 16, 17, and 23- 32 fall therewith. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). On this record, we affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1, 3, 6, 8-10, 12, 14, 16, 17, and 23-32. VII. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 3, 6, 8-10, 12, 14, 16, 17, 23-32 103 Hoellwart, Raffle, Asakura, White 1, 3, 6, 8-10, 12, 14, 16, 17, 23-32 VIII. 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)(1). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED