Wayne Patrick. O'Brien

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Aug 12, 2019

14736208 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Aug. 12, 2019)

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.
14/736,208 06/10/2015 WAYNE PATRICK O'BRIEN 14695.03 6996
37833 7590 08/12/2019
Richard C. Litman
112 S. West Street
Alexandria, VA 22314
EXAMINER
SCHNIREL, ANDREW B
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2625
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/12/2019 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):
mbashah@nathlaw.com
uspto@4patent.com
uspto@nathlaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte WAYNE PATRICK O’BRIEN
____________

Appeal 2019-004243
Application 14/736,208
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before JEAN R. HOMERE, IRVIN E. BRANCH, and MICHAEL M.
BARRY, Administrative Patent Judges.

HOMERE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Non-Final
Rejection of claims 1 and 15, which constitute all claims pending in this
application.1 Claims App’x. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 Appellant identifies the real party in interest as the inventor of record,
Wayne P. O’Brien. App. Br. 3. In an earlier appeal (2018-004218) dated
05/01/2018 (“Dec.”), we affirmed-in part the Examiner’s rejections of
claims 1 and 15.
Appeal 2019-004243
Application 14/736,208

2
Introduction
According to Appellant, the claimed subject matter relates to a
holographic user interface (100) for manipulating and controlling an external
device such as a robotic arm (110) in a remote location. Spec. ¶ 1. As
depicted in Figure 1 below, the holographic user interface (100) includes a
holographic display unit (30) for constructing and displaying a hologram
(116), and a motion detector (35) for detecting movement and location of a
physical command object, such as a user’s finger or hand (17) relative to the
displayed hologram. Id. ¶ 12. The motion detector (35) communicates with
a controller CPU (10), which converts into a command signal the detected
location of the physical command object (17) within the displayed hologram
(116). Id. The command signal is transmitted to the external device (110),
which subsequently emulates the detected movement of the physical object
(17). Id.

Appeal 2019-004243
Application 14/736,208

3
Figure 1 depicts a perspective view of a holographic user interface for
remotely controlling a robotic arm. Spec. ¶14.

Representative Claim
Independent claim 1 is representative, and reads as follows:
Claim 1. A holographic user interface system adapted for direct
manipulation of an external device, the system consisting of:
the external device;
a holographic display unit for constructing and displaying a hologram,
wherein the hologram visually represents at least one object for
manipulating the external device;
a motion detector for detecting direct, real time movement and
location of a physical command object relative to the displayed hologram;
a controller in real time continuous communication with the motion
detector for converting the detected location of the physical command object
relative to its position with respect to the displayed hologram into a
command signal when the command object is at or near a contact point in
the hologram or performs a contact code; and
means for transmitting the command signal in real time to the external
device controllable by the controller, wherein the means for transmitting the
command signal further includes means for the controller to discriminate
between generic motions made by the command object and motions specific
to the manipulation of the external device without user intervention.

Prior Art Relied Upon

Verard et al., US 2014/0282008 A1 Sept. 18, 2014;
hereinafter “Verard”
Sun et al., US 2011/0301813 A1 Dec. 8, 2011;
hereinafter “Sun”
Montellese US 7,671,843 B2 Mar. 2, 2010.

Appeal 2019-004243
Application 14/736,208

4
Rejections on Appeal

Claim 1 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over the combination of Verard and Sun. Non-Final Act. 7–10.
Claim 15 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over the combination of Sun, Montellese and Verard. Id. at 10–14.

ANALYSIS2
Appellant argues that the Examiner erred in finding that Verard
teaches a computer that discriminates in real-time between generic motions
and specific motions made by a command object to manipulate an external
object without user intervention, as recited independent claim 1. App. Br.
10–14. In particular, Appellant argues that although Verard discloses a first
embodiment in which a robot performs in real-time a procedure wherein a
specific movement concurrently with a surgeon’s performance, the cited
procedure does not discriminate between generic and specific movements.
App. Br. 10–11 (citing Verard ¶ 63). Further, Appellant argues that
although Verard alternatively discloses in a second embodiment another
procedure wherein the surgeon reviews his/her movements before allowing
the robot to perform them, thereby discriminating between generic and
specific movements, such procedure is not performed in real-time and
without user intervention. Id. at 11–12 (citing Verard ¶¶ 63, 64). According

2 Rather than reiterate all the arguments of Appellant and all the Examiner’s
findings and conclusions, we refer to the Specification (filed Jun. 10, 2015)
(“Spec.”), Appeal Brief (filed January 9, 2019) (“App. Br.”), the Reply Brief
(filed May 7, 2019) (“Reply Br.”), the Answer (mailed March 8, 2019)
(“Ans.”), and the Non-Final Office Action (mailed August 14, 2018) (“Non-
Final Act.”) for the respective details.
Appeal 2019-004243
Application 14/736,208

5
to Appellant, these two embodiments are mutually exclusive and cannot be
combined. Id. at 11. That is, because the latter embodiment requires that the
surgeon select the correct movements from storage, this non-real-time and
user-intervention embodiment teaches away from the former, which requires
real-time operation and without user intervention. Id. at 11–12. Likewise,
Appellant argues that Sun’s disclosure of a holographic vehicular interface,
which discriminates between small and large steering wheel changes to
effectuate automatic and immediate lane movement changes in the displayed
holographic interface, is incompatible with Verard’s second embodiment.
Id. at 12–14. Additionally, Appellant argues that the cited disclosure of Sun
does not teach discriminating between intended and unintended movements.
Id. at 14. These arguments are not persuasive.
As noted in our earlier Decision, and undisputed by both Appellant
and the Examiner:
the claim requires the CPU distinguishing between generic and
specific movements in real-time, and without user intervention…
Verard’s first embodiment describes a CPU that performs a specific
movement in real-time, and without user intervention, but it does not
contemplate generic movements to thereby discriminate between the
two types of movements. Verard ¶ 63… Verard’s second
embodiment discriminates between specific movements and generic
movements, but it does not do so in real-time and without user
intervention. Id. ¶¶ 63, 64.

Dec. 9.
As further noted by the Examiner, Verard’s second embodiment
indicates that the task performed by the robot can be executed on-the-fly
(e.g., dynamically, continuously or in real-time) with or without dynamic
adaptation of the task to adjust for changes in target or therapy instrument.
Ans. 16 (citing Verard ¶ 64). We therefore agree with the Examiner that the
Appeal 2019-004243
Application 14/736,208

6
two cited embodiments of Verard are not incompatible because they both
allow performing a command in real time and without user intervention. Id.
Accordingly, we do not agree with Appellants that Verard’s second
embodiment would change the principle of operation of the first
embodiment. Likewise, we are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that
Sun’s disclosure of providing real-time feedback to the amount of movement
of a virtual object is incompatible with Verard’s second embodiment. As
correctly noted by the Examiner, the cited disclosure of Sun modifies
Verard’s disclosure of executing a user’s command on the fly without user
intervention to predictably result in a computer that discriminates in real-
time between generic motions and specific motions made by a command
object to manipulate an external object without user intervention. Id. at 17–
18.
Additionally, we find the Examiner’s proposed combination of the
cited teachings of Sun, Montellese, and Verard is no more than a predictable
arrangement of old elements, with each performing the same function it had
been known to perform, yielding no more than one would expect from such
an arrangement. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007).
The ordinarily-skilled artisan, being “a person of ordinary creativity, not an
automaton,” would be able to fit the teachings of the cited references
together like pieces of a puzzle to predictably result in a steering wheel
including a holographic user interface system having a controller that
transmits a command signal (e.g., clockwise and counterclockwise rotational
motions of the wheel) to the vehicle steering system without user
intervention. Id. at 420–21. Because Appellant has not demonstrated that
the Examiner’s proffered combination would have been “uniquely
Appeal 2019-004243
Application 14/736,208

7
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. Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-
Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing KSR, 550 U.S. at
418). Consequently, we are not persuaded of error in the Examiner’s
obviousness rejections of claims 1 and 15.

DECISION
For the above reasons, we affirm the Examiner’s obviousness
rejections of claims 1 and 15.
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)(iv).

AFFIRMED