Andras Tantos et al.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardAug 1, 201913728892 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Aug. 1, 2019) Copy Citation 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. 13/728,892 12/27/2012 Andras Tantos 337040-US-NP 7788 69316 7590 08/01/2019 MICROSOFT CORPORATION ONE MICROSOFT WAY REDMOND, WA 98052 EXAMINER SCHNIREL, ANDREW B ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2625 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/01/2019 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): 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 ANDRAS TANTOS, ROD G. FLECK, JEDD PERRY, and DAVID D. BOHN _____________ Appeal 2018-001789 Application 13/728,8921 Technology Center 2600 ______________ Before ERIC S. FRAHM, NORMAN H. BEAMER, and MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges. FRAHM, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is a Decision on Appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection of claims 1–20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. 1 According to Appellants, Microsoft Technology Licensing, LLC is the real party in interest (Br. 3). Appeal 2018-001789 Application 13/728,892 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants’ disclosed and claimed invention pertains to “[a] near-eye display (NED) device, such as a head mounted display (HMD) device” (see, e.g., Figs. 1A–C) that “may be worn by a user for an augmented reality (AR) experience or a virtual reality (VR) experience” (Spec. ¶ 1). More specifically, Appellants disclose and claim a near-eye display device and method for reducing display update time (Title; Abstract; see also Figs. 4A– C). Update time delays cause users to have “to wait a noticeable time period for image data to be updated to reflect a response to a user action” (Spec. ¶ 1). Claim 1 is exemplary, and is reproduced below, with emphases added to key limitations: 1. A method comprising: determining a three-dimensional (3D) distance vector in a 3D field of view of a near-eye display device, the vector extending to a 3D point of focus of a user of the near-eye display device and from one of a predetermined reference point on the near-eye display device and an eye of the user, which eye is spaced apart from and not bonded to the near-eye display device, the 3D point of focus of the user being out in a corresponding 3D region of displayable scenery in the 3D display field of view, beyond the near-eye display device; based on the determined distance vector that extends to the user's 3D point of focus and based on predetermined low perception criteria, determining whether at least some of image data of the corresponding 3D region of displayable scenery qualifies as lossless priority data which does not satisfy the low perception criteria; based on the determined distance vector, determining whether at least some of other image data of the corresponding 3D region of displayable scenery qualifies as allowed loss data which satisfies the low perception criteria; Appeal 2018-001789 Application 13/728,892 3 responsive to at least some of the image data qualifying as allowed loss data, first transmitting to the near- eye display device as first updating data, the allowed loss data, said first transmitting using one or more communication techniques allowing for lossy transmission; and responsive to at least some of the other image data qualifying as lossless priority data, second transmitting to the near-eye display device as second updating data, the lossless priority image data using one or more communication techniques satisfying lossless transmission criteria. Claims Appendix (Br. 28) (emphases added). Remaining independent claims 10 and 16 recite commensurate limitations regarding analyzing 3D image data to determine whether to use a communication technique for transmitting data to a near-eye display device that (i) allows for lossy transmission; or (ii) satisfies lossless transmission criteria, but uses focal region image data instead of a 3D distance vector as in claim 1. The Examiner’s Rejections The Examiner has rejected (i) claims 10–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Camp, Jr. (US 2009/0096927 A1; issued Apr. 16, 2009) and Deering (US 2009/0189974 A1; published July 30, 2009) (Final Act. 3–14; Ans. 3–14); and (ii) claims 1–9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the same base combination of Camp, Jr. and Deering taken with Lemelson (US 2002/0105482 A1; published Aug. 8, 2002) and various other references (Final Act. 14–26; Ans. 15–27). ANALYSIS We have reviewed Appellants’ arguments in the Appeal Brief (Br. 8– 27), the Examiner’s rejections (Final Act. 3–26; Ans. 3–27), and the Examiner’s response (Ans. 27–34) to Appellants’ arguments in the Appeal Appeal 2018-001789 Application 13/728,892 4 Brief. Independent claims 1, 10, and 16 recite similar limitations pertaining to the analysis of 3D image data to determine whether to use a communication technique for transmitting data to a near-eye display device that (i) allows for lossy transmission; or (ii) satisfies lossless transmission criteria. Based on Appellants’ arguments in the Appeal Brief (see generally Br. 8–26), two principal issues are presented on appeal: (1) Does the combination of Camp, Jr. and Deering teach or suggest analyzing 3D image data to determine whether to send data using lossy or lossless transmission; and (2) Has the Examiner erred in determining it would have been obvious to modify Camp, Jr.’s video coding technique with Deering’s eye mounted displays, when the Examiner improperly relies on three different embodiments of Deering, with motivation provided only as to one of the embodiments? Appellants contend (i) Camp, Jr. “does not teach or suggest anything having to do with analyzing 3D scenes” (Br. 8) and the Examiner fails to “explain where and how Camp discloses receiving image data representing a three-dimensional (3D) field of view” (Br. 19); (ii) Camp, Jr. “does not inherently disclose anything about lossless and lossy ‘transmission’ by mentioning degree of error coding” (Br. 19); and (iii) Camp, Jr. “does not inherently teach ‘lossless’ transmission,” and “[i]t is pure speculation to assume otherwise” (Br. 20). We agree with Appellants’ contentions above. Appellants also contend (see Br. 9–17) that (i) Deering teaches that Eye-Mounted-Displays (“EMD”s) should be mounted directly on or in the user’s eyeballs as shown in Figures 61 and 66 (as opposed to a near-eye display device as shown in Appellants’ Figs. 1A–C); (ii) “the outstanding Appeal 2018-001789 Application 13/728,892 5 grounds of rejection do not explicitly identify which embodiment of Camp is being relied on,” thus, “the Board (as well as Applicant) are being asked to engage in speculation in this regard since proper notice under 35 USC §132 is not being provided” (Br. 16); (iii) because Deering’s EMDs are mounted directly on the user’s eyeballs, unlike the recited near-eye display device which is spaced apart from the user’s eyes, the motivation provided by the Examiner “lacks technical underpinning” (Br. 18); and (iv) therefore, the “PHOSITA would have no motivation to look to Deering for possible teachings applicable to the system of Camp” (Br. 17). We agree with Appellants’ contentions above. Specifically, the Examiner has relied on no less than three different embodiments of Deering as teaching the recited near-eye display: (1) the eye mounted display system 105 shown in Figure 24 and described in paragraphs 23 and 350 (see Final Act. 4–5, 16–17; Ans. 5, 17, 29); (2) the display 6110 mounted on a contact lens 6140 shown in Figure 61 and described in paragraph 476 (see Ans. 30); and (3) the contact lens display 6810 mounted on top of a cornea shown in Figure 66 and described in paragraph 479) (see Final Act. 4, 16; Ans. 5, 17, 30). Notably, the Examiner provides motivation for making the combination with respect to only one of these embodiments (the eye mounted display system shown in Figure 24 and described in paragraphs 23 and 350) (see Final Act. 5, 17; Ans. 5, 17, 29), leaving us to speculate as to the proper motivation for combining Deering’s display device(s) with Camp, Jr.’s video coding technique. In other words, the Examiner relies on a motivation statement that fails to support at least one claim limitation in one embodiment relied upon. Appeal 2018-001789 Application 13/728,892 6 We will not resort to speculation or assumptions to cure the deficiencies in the Examiner’s fact finding. See In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017 (CCPA 1967). As such, based on the record before us, we find that the Examiner improperly relies upon the base combination of Camp, Jr. and Deering to teach or suggest the disputed claim limitations. See Warner, 379 F.2d at 1017. In view of the foregoing, we agree with Appellants that the Examiner has not provided a prima facie case of obviousness for claims 1–20, which are all rejected over the same base combination of Camp, Jr. and Deering. As a result, based on the record before us, we cannot sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejections of independent claims 1, 10, and 16, as well as dependent claims 1–9, 11–15, and 17–20 depending respectively therefrom, over the base combination of Camp, Jr. and Deering. CONCLUSION Appellants have persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–20.2 2 We recognize that Appellants’ arguments present additional issues (see, e.g., Br. 8–26). Because we were persuaded of error by the issues regarding (i) lossy and lossless transmission; and (ii) the motivation to modify Camp, Jr. with Deering, as recited in claims 1, 10, and 16, we do not reach the additional issues, as the two issues discussed in our analysis are dispositive of the Appeal. Appeal 2018-001789 Application 13/728,892 7 DECISION We reverse the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1–20. REVERSED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation