AUTODESK, Inc

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardMar 15, 2021

2019004546 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 15, 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. 14/622,770 02/13/2015 Tovi GROSSMAN AUTO/1317US 1061 107456 7590 03/15/2021 Artegis Law Group, LLP John Carey 7710 Cherry Park Drive Suite T #104 Houston, TX 77095 EXAMINER NASRI, MARYAM A ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2483 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/15/2021 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): bkistler@artegislaw.com jmatthews@artegislaw.com sjohnson@artegislaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte TOVI GROSSMAN, GEORGE FITZMAURICE, and NATALIA BOGDAN Appeal 2019-004546 Application 14/622,770 Technology Center 2400 Before JEAN R. HOMERE, JEREMY J. CURCURI, and IRVIN E. BRANCH, Administrative Patent Judges. BRANCH, 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 1–5, 8–15, and 18–20, which are all of the pending claims. Appeal Br. 5. Claims 6, 7, 16, 17, and 21 are canceled. Claims App. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 We use the term “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as AUTODESK, INC. Appeal Br. 3. Appeal 2019-004546 Application 14/622,770 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to flip-up stereo viewing glasses. Spec. ¶ 1. Claim 1, reproduced below with the key disputed limitation emphasized, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A system for viewing a stereoscopic display, the system comprising: a frame chassis; a hinge mechanism; a left lens assembly coupled to the frame chassis via the hinge mechanism and configured to be transparent to a first image output by the stereoscopic display and opaque to a second image output from the stereoscopic display; a right lens assembly coupled to the frame chassis via the hinge mechanism and configured to be transparent to the second image output and opaque to the first image output; one or more sensors positioned to detect whether, when the system is worn by a user, the left lens assembly and the right lens assembly are in a first orientation for viewing two- dimensional content presented by the stereoscopic display or a second orientation for viewing three-dimensional content presented by the stereoscopic display; and a communication transceiver configured to transmit information to and receive information from at least one of the stereoscopic display and a controller associated with the stereoscopic display, wherein the hinge mechanism comprises an automated actuator configured to cause the hinge mechanism to automatically move the left lens assembly and the right lens assembly between the first orientation and the second orientation in response to the communication transceiver receiving an electronic signal indicating whether the stereoscopic display is displaying two-dimensional content or three-dimensional content. Appeal 2019-004546 Application 14/622,770 3 REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Name Reference Date Kuno US 2010/0182404 A1 July 22, 2010 Saitoh US 2010/0201897 A1 Aug. 12, 2010 Watabu US 2011/0141248 A1 June 16, 2011 Ishii US 2012/0056885 A1 Mar. 8, 2012 REJECTIONS Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis 1–4, 8–11, 18–20 103 Saitoh, Kuno, Watabu 5, 12–15 103 Saitoh, Kuno, Watabu, Ishii OPINION Appellant argues error in the rejection of claims 1 and 10 because the combination of Saitoh, Kuno, and Watabu does not teach or suggest “an automated actuator [that] automatically move[s the lenses] in response to a communication transceiver receiving an electronic signal indicating whether the stereoscopic display is displaying two-dimensional content or three- dimensional content.” Appeal Br. 10–13. Appellant also argues Kuno does not teach or suggest sensors positioned to detect the position of the lenses while worn by a user. Id. at 14–15. We are unpersuaded of error in the rejection of claims 1 and 10 for the following reasons. Appellant argues “Saitoh is completely silent with respect to the disclosed shutters being automatically flipped in response to some kind of electronic signal.” Id. at 10. This argument is unpersuasive because the Appeal 2019-004546 Application 14/622,770 4 Examiner relies on Watabu, not Saitoh, for teaching automatically flipping shutters in response to a signal. Ans. 13 (citing Watabu ¶¶ 134–136). The Examiner finds “Watabu discloses a transceiver, which receives a signal [from] a display unit and based on the received signal, it switches the shutter glasses form 2D to 3D.” Id. Each reference cited by the Examiner must be read, not in isolation, but for what it fairly teaches in combination with the prior art as a whole. In re Merck & Co. Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986); see also In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981) (explaining that when the rejection is based on a combination of references, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually). The relevant inquiry is whether the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to ordinarily skilled artisans in light of the combined teachings of the references. Appellant argues further that Watabu does not cure the deficiencies of Saitoh because, in Watabu, “shutters embedded within the lenses are caused to open or close[, but] the lenses, themselves, do not move and are not moved.” Appeal Br. at 11. This argument is similarly unpersuasive because the Examiner relies on Saitoh for moving lenses, not Watabu. Ans. 6–8; Keller, 642 F.2d at 425. Regarding the combined teachings of Saitoh and Watabu, Appellant argues error because “neither reference discloses the concept of receiving an electronic signal indicating whether the display is presenting 2D or 3D content, and, in response to this signal, physically moving the lenses” and “[t]he logical nexus between these two steps is entirely absent from the references.” Appeal Br. 10. Appellant contends the combination “would have to disclose that the 3D glasses receive an electronic signal indicating [] whether the display is presenting 2D content or 3D content, and then, in Appeal 2019-004546 Application 14/622,770 5 response to this electronic signal, an automated actuator automatically moves the lenses between a 2D mode for viewing 2D content and a 3D mode for viewing 3D content.” Id. We find these arguments unavailing because Appellant’s arguments begin from a premise based on individual teachings of the references. Id. at 11. We also do not agree with Appellant that the combined teachings of the references fail because neither reference teaches a “nexus” between the steps. Id. at 12. We recognize that the Examiner must articulate some “reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir 2006). However, the reasoning (i.e., “nexus”) need not appear in, or be expressly described by one or more of the references on which the Examiner relies. Instead, a reason to combine teachings from the prior art “may be found in explicit or implicit teachings within the references themselves, from the ordinary knowledge of those skilled in the art, or from the nature of the problem to be solved.” WMS Gaming Inc. v. Int’l Game Tech., 184 F.3d 1339, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (citing In re Rouffet, 149 F.3d 1350, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 1998)). “Under the correct [obviousness] analysis, any need or problem known in the field of endeavor at the time of invention and addressed by the patent can provide a reason for combining the elements in the manner claimed.” KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 420 (2007). Moreover, Appellant does not point to any evidence of record that the combinations would be “uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art” or “represented an unobvious step over the prior art.” Leapfrog Enters. Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418–19 (2007)). The Examiner’s findings are reasonable because the skilled artisan would Appeal 2019-004546 Application 14/622,770 6 “be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle” because the skilled artisan is “a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 420–21. We are persuaded the claimed subject matter exemplifies the principle that “[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, 550 U.S. at 416, To whatever extent Appellant argues error based on the claimed “actuator” being “automated,” we adopt the Examiner’s response based on Venner. Ans. 14 (citing In re Venner, 262 F.2d 91, 95 (CCPA 1958). As to Appellant’s argument that Kuno does not teach or suggest sensors positioned to detect the position of the lenses while worn by a user (Appeal Br. 14–15), we are unpersuaded because Appellant again fails to consider what the combined teachings of the references would have taught or suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art. Accordingly, we are unpersuaded of error in the rejection of claims 1 and 10. We also are unpersuaded of error in the rejections of the claims that depend from claims 1 and 10 that are not argued separately, with particularity, except for the rejection of claim 15, to which we now turn. Claim 15 depends ultimately from claim 10 and recites that the claimed controller “is further configured to change a display mode of the stereoscopic display based on the orientation of the left lens assembly and the right lens assembly.” Appellant argues Ishii does not disclose “changing the display mode of a display (i.e., whether the display is in the 2D mode or the 3D mode) depending on the determined orientation.” Appeal Br. 15–16. Appellant contends “the Examiner’s interpretation of ‘display mode’ to mean any quality of the display, including qualities other than a mode of displaying either 2D or 3D content, is overly broad and quite clearly Appeal 2019-004546 Application 14/622,770 7 inconsistent with Appellant's specification.” Reply Br. 9 (referring to Ans. 16–17 (“claim 15 does not mention that the mode refers to 2D mode or 3D mode of the display”)). We agree with the Examiner that the recited “display mode” in claim 15 is not limited to 2D and 3D (Ans. 15–16), so Appellant’s argument is not commensurate with the scope of the claim. We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that Appellant’s Specification requires the narrower interpretation because the Specification portions identified by Appellant are not limiting. Reply Br. 8–9 (citing Spec. ¶ 27 (“change from one display mode (e.g., presenting 3D content) to a different display mode (e.g., presenting 2D content)”)); see also Spec. ¶¶ 27, 28, 31, 36–39. Although claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, (Fed. Cir. 1993). Accordingly, arguments must be commensurate in scope with the actual claim language. In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 1348 (CCPA 1982). In contrast to Appellant’s argument that display mode means specifically 2D or 3D (“i.e., whether the display is in the 2D mode or the 3D mode”), Appellant’s specification makes these display modes exemplary of other possible display modes by using “e.g.,” rather than “i.e.” Spec. ¶ 27. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 15. Appeal 2019-004546 Application 14/622,770 8 DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1–4, 8–11, 18–20 103 Saitoh, Kuno, Watabu 1–4, 8–11, 18–20 5, 12–15 103 Saitoh, Kuno, Watabu, Ishii 5, 12–15 Overall Outcome 1–5, 8–15, 18–20 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)(iv). AFFIRMED