THOMSON LICENSING

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Oct 26, 2021

2020005501 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 26, 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.
15/197,927 06/30/2016 Renaud DORE 2014P00119 US 6159
14868 7590 10/26/2021
Patent Docketing
200 Bellevue Parkway, Suite 300
Attention: Docketing
Wilmington, DE 19809
EXAMINER
RETALLICK, KAITLIN A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2482
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/26/2021 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@interdigital.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte RENAUD DORE, FRANCK GALPIN, and
BENOIT VANDAME

____________________

Appeal 2020-005501
Application 15/197,927
Technology Center 2400
____________________

Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, JOHN A. EVANS, and
CARL L. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.

EVANS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL1
Appellant2 seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final
rejection of Claims 1–4 and 9. Appeal Br. 1. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).

1 Our Decision refers to Appellant’s Appeal Brief filed March 28, 2020
(“Appeal Br.”); Examiner’s Answer mailed May 5, 2020 (“Ans.”); the Final
Action mailed October 28, 2019 (“Final Act.”), and the Specification filed
February 22, 2018 (“Spec.”).
2 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. The Appeal Brief identifies INTERDIGITAL CE
PATENT HOLDINGS, Paris, FRANCE, as the real party in interest. Appeal
Br. 3.
Appeal 2020-005501
Application 15/197,927

2
We AFFIRM.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
INVENTION.
The claims relate to a gaze-tracking device. See Abstract. An
understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of Claim 1, the
sole independent Claim, which is reproduced below with some formatting
added:
1. A head mounted device comprising at least one gaze
tracking device comprising:
a plurality of light sources arranged to project infra-red
light on a surface of an eye of a user of said head mounted
device; and
a light-field camera comprising a microlens array having
a plurality of micro-lenses for capturing the infra-red light
reflected off the surface of the eye of the user;
wherein said plurality of light sources and said light-field
camera are located on a rim of a frame of the head mounted
device and said plurality of light sources being arranged in a
pattern around the rim of the frame of the head mounted device
to generate a number of reflections on the eye of the user and
said projected infra-red light is polarized by polarizing filters of
the micro-lenses of the microlens array to increase sensibility of
measurements of gaze of the user.

Appeal 2020-005501
Application 15/197,927

3
Prior Art
Name3 Reference Date
Georgiev US 8,228,417 B1 July 24, 2012
Miao US 9,116,337 B1 Aug. 25, 2015
Blum US 2002/0140899 A1 Oct. 3, 2002
Bar-Zeev US 2012/0068913 A1 Mar. 22, 2012
Thörn US 2014/0104392 A1 Apr. 17, 2014
Gramatikov US 2016/0081547 A1 Mar. 24, 2016

REJECTIONS4 AT ISSUE
1. Claims 1–3 and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Bar-Zeev, Blum, Thörn, Gramatikov, and Georgiev.
Final Act. 13–21.
2. Claim 4 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Bar-Zeev, Blum, Thörn, Gramatikov, Georgiev, and Miao. Final Act.
21–22.

ANALYSIS
We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues
identified by Appellant and in light of the arguments and evidence produced
thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential),
cited with approval in In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[I]t
has long been the Board’s practice to require an applicant to identify the
alleged error in the examiner’s rejections.”). We have considered in this

3 All citations herein to the references are by reference to the first named
inventor/author only.
4 The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being
examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Final Act. 2.
Appeal 2020-005501
Application 15/197,927

4
decision only those arguments Appellant actually raised in the Brief. Any
other arguments which Appellant could have made but chose not to make in
the Brief are deemed to be forfeit. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2019).
After considering the evidence presented in this Appeal and each of
Appellant’s arguments, we are not persuaded that Appellant identifies
reversible error. Thus, we affirm the Examiner’s rejections for the reasons
expressed in the Final Office Action and the Answer. We add the following
primarily for emphasis.
CLAIMS 1–3 AND 9: OBVIOUSNESS OVER
BAR-ZEEV, BLUM, THÖRN, GRAMATIKOV, AND GEORGIEV.
The prima facie case is synthesized from the contributions of the five,
cited references. See Final Act. 13–21. We find the Examiner’s findings to
be reasonable.
Appellant contends:
Thorn is silent regarding that the ‘infra-red light is polarized by
polarizing filters of the micro-lenses of the microlens array to
increase sensibility of measurements of gaze of the user.’ Thus,
it follows that Thorn neither teaches nor suggests that the
projected infra-red light is polarized by polarizing filters of the
micro-lenses of the microlens array.
Appeal Br. 9. Similarly, with respect to each of the remaining four
references, Appellant makes an essentially identical allegation as to the
silence of the reference. See Appeal Br. 7–10. Nor does Appellant file a
Reply Br.
We find that Appellant has failed to present substantive arguments
and supporting evidence persuasive of Examiner error regarding the
aforementioned disputed limitation. See In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357
(Fed. Cir. 2011) (“we hold that the Board reasonably interpreted Rule 41.37
Appeal 2020-005501
Application 15/197,927

5
to require more substantive arguments in an appeal brief than a mere
recitation of the claim elements and a naked assertion that the corresponding
elements were not found in the prior art.”).
Moreover, Appellant argues each reference separately, but fails to
address the Examiner’s synthesis. See Ans. 24. “[O]ne cannot show non-
obviousness by attacking references individually where. . . the rejections are
based on combinations of references.” In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426
(CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir.
1986) (Nonobviousness cannot be established by attacking the references
individually where the rejection is based upon the teachings of a
combination of references.).
In view of the foregoing, we find Appellant has failed to persuade us
that the Examiner has erred.
CLAIM 4: OBVIOUSNESS OVER BAR-ZEEV, BLUM, THÖRN,
GRAMATIKOV, GEORGIEV, AND MIAO.
Appellant argues, as discussed above, in respect to Miao. Appeal Br.
11.
In view of the foregoing, we find Appellant has failed to persuade us
that the Examiner has erred.

Appeal 2020-005501
Application 15/197,927

6
DECISION
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–3, 9 103 Bar-Zeev, Blum,
Thörn, Gramatikov,
Georgiev
1–3, 9
4 103 Bar-Zeev, Blum,
Thörn, Gramatikov,
Georgiev, Miao
4
Overall
Outcome
1–4, 9

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