Apple Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jul 20, 2020

2019001561 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 20, 2020)

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.
14/923,293 10/26/2015 Peter Meier P28486USC1
(119-1105USC1)
5063
61947 7590 07/20/2020
Apple - Blank Rome
c/o Blank Rome LLP
717 Texas Avenue, Suite 1400
Houston, TX 77002
EXAMINER
CHEN, FRANK S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2611
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/20/2020 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):
houstonpatents@blankrome.com
mbrininger@blankrome.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte PETER MEIER
Appeal 2019-001561
Application 14/923,293
Technology Center 2600
BEFORE JOSEPH L. DIXON, ROBERT E. NAPPI, and
STEVEN M. AMUNDSON, Administrative Patent Judges.
DIXON, 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 2–22. Final Act. 1. Claim 1 has been
canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as
Apple Inc. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2019-001561
Application 14/923,293

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a method of displaying virtual information
in the view of the real environment according to the accuracy information of
the current pose in relation to an assigned accuracy parameter. Abstract.
Claim 2, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
2. A method of displaying virtual information in a view of a
real environment, comprising:

determining a current pose of a system that displays virtual
information in a real environment, wherein the current pose is
determined relative to at least one part of the real environment;

determining an uncertainty value for the current pose
indicative of an accuracy of a location of the pose;

obtaining, based on the current pose, a plurality of points
of interest and an uncertainty parameter for each of the plurality
of points of interest, wherein the uncertainty parameter indicates
an accuracy of a location of a corresponding point of interest; and

determining a display method for each of the plurality of
points of interest based on the uncertainty value and each point
of interest’s corresponding uncertainty parameter.
REFERENCES

The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Tu US 2004/0260465 A1 Dec. 23, 2004
Choi US 2010/0268451 A1 Oct. 21, 2010
King et al. US 2011/0164029 A1 July 7, 2011
Waldman US 2011/0199479 A1 Aug. 18, 2011
Appeal 2019-001561
Application 14/923,293

3
REJECTIONS2
Claims 2, 3, 5–10, 12–17, and 19–22 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Waldman in view of Tu further
in view of Choi.
Claims 4, 11, and 18 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Waldman, Tu, and Choi, and further in view of
King.
OPINION
35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
With respect to independent claims 2, 9, and 16, Appellant argues the
claims together. Appeal Br. 7. We select independent claim 2 as the
illustrative claim for the group and address Appellant’s arguments thereto.
Appellant argues the cited prior art fails to disclose the claimed “uncertainty
value” (Appeal Br. 7–8) and the cited art fails to disclose the claimed
“uncertainty parameter” (Appeal Br. 8–9). See also Reply Br. 3–6.
Appellant argues that the claimed uncertainty value is determined “for
the current pose indicative of an accuracy of a location of the current pose”
where the current pose refers to the pose of a system that displays virtual
information in a real environment. Appeal Br. 7. Appellant further argues
that the Waldman reference is merely concerned with a distance or range
from a device’s geographic location as defining a field of view in which
items identified as search results are to be presented. Appeal Br. 7–8.

2 The Examiner has withdrawn the obviousness-type double-patenting
rejection of claims 2, 4, 6, 7, 9, 11, 13, 14, 16, 18, 20, and 21. Ans. 4.
Appeal 2019-001561
Application 14/923,293

4
Appellant argues that the Examiner’s reliance upon the Tu reference
misinterprets the specific claim language where the claims recite that “the
uncertainty parameter indicates an accuracy of a location of a corresponding
point of interest” because a distance slot from the view point of the camera
does not disclose an accuracy of a location. Appeal Br. 9.
The Examiner relies upon the broadest reasonable interpretation of the
claimed “uncertainty value for a pose” in the rejection of independent
claim 2. Ans. 5. The Examiner finds that “[t]he Specification never
discloses any teachings regarding an uncertainty value that shows an
accuracy of any location.” Ans. 5. Although of the Examiner may question
the support in the Specification, the language of independent claim 2
expressly recites “determining an uncertainty value for the current pose
indicative of an accuracy of a location of the pose,” and the Examiner’s
concerns are a question under the written-description requirement rather than
a broadest reasonable interpretation in an obviousness determination.3
We agree with the Appellant that the claim specifically requires an
“uncertainty value for the current pose indicative of an accuracy of a
location of the pose” and an “uncertainty parameter for each of the plurality
of points of interest” which indicates an accuracy of the location of the
points of interest. We further agree with the Appellant that the Examiner
has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the combination of
prior art references teaches the use of both an uncertainty value and

3 The Examiner has not presented a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph, for failure to comply with the written-description requirement.
We further note that the preliminary amendment presenting independent
claim 2 indicates corresponding support at paragraphs 48–50 of the
originally filed Specification.
Appeal 2019-001561
Application 14/923,293

5
uncertainty parameter to determine a display method for each of the points
of interest. As a result, we find the Examiner has not set forth a sufficient
showing of obviousness based upon the combination of the Waldman, Tu,
and Choi references for independent claim 2 and its respective dependent
claims.
Independent claims 9 and 16 contain similar uncertainty value and
uncertainty parameter limitations. The Examiner has not sufficiently shown
the prior art combination teaches or suggests the invention recited therein,
and we cannot sustain the obviousness rejection of independent claims 9 and
16 and their respective dependent claims for the same reasons as discussed
with respect to independent claim 2.
With respect to dependent claims 4, 11, and 18, the Examiner has not
shown that the additional reliance upon the King reference remedies the
noted deficiency in the obviousness rejection for the parent claims.
Consequently, we cannot sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of
dependent claims 4, 11, and 18 for the same reasons.
DECISION
The Examiner’s obviousness rejections are reversed.
DECISION SUMMARY

Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
2, 3, 5–10,
12–17, 19–
22
103(a) Waldman, Tu, Choi 2, 3, 5–
10, 12–
17, 19–
22
Appeal 2019-001561
Application 14/923,293

6
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
4, 11, 18 103(a) Waldman, Tu, Choi,
King
4, 11, 18
Overall
Outcome
2–22

REVERSED