Ex Parte BONILLA ACEVEDO et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 14, 2018

15297106 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 14, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
15/297,106 10/18/2016
909 7590 11/16/2018
Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman, LLP
PO Box 10500
McLean, VA 22102
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Dennis Rommel BONILLA ACEVEDO
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
039444-0449689 2206
EXAMINER
MARTELLO, EDWARD
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2613
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/16/2018 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):
docket_ip@pillsburylaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DENNIS ROMMEL BONILLA ACEVEDO and
ADAM PHILLIP ZUCKERMAN
Appeal 2018-002621
Application 15/297, 106 1
Technology Center 2600
Before DEBRA K. STEPHENS, DANIEL J. GALLIGAN, and
DAVID J. CUTITTA II, Administrative Patent Judges.
GALLIGAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Introduction
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1-20, which are all of the claims pending in the application. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM. 2
1 According to Appellants, the real parties in interest are the inventors,
Adam Zuckerman and Dennis Bonilla. App. Br. 2.
2 Our Decision refers to Appellants' Appeal Brief filed September 11, 2017
("App. Br."); Appellants' Reply Brief filed January 12, 2018 ("Reply Br.");
Examiner's Answer mailed November 13, 2017 ("Ans."); and Final Office
Action mailed April 19, 2017 ("Final Act.").
Appeal 2018-002621
Application 15/297, 106
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Claims on Appeal
Claims 1, 8, and 12 are independent claims. Claim 1 is reproduced
below.
1. A system for facilitating a virtual reality presentation
based on a real-world route of a vehicle, the system comprising:
an in-vehicle computer system of a vehicle that comprises
one or more processors programmed with computer program
instructions that, when executed, cause the in-vehicle computer
system to:
obtain destination information associated with the vehicle,
wherein the destination information comprises information
indicating a destination location of the vehicle;
obtain virtual reality content based on the destination
information, wherein the virtual reality content is obtained based
on:
(i) a determination of one or more environmental
characteristics of one or more portions of a real-world
route to the destination location using the destination
information; and
(ii) a determination of one or more virtual route
portions for a virtual route for a virtual reality presentation
so that one or more environmental characteristics of the
one or more virtual route portions are similar to the one or
more environmental characteristics of the one or more
real-world route portions, and
wherein the virtual reality content comprises one or more
content portions related to the one or more virtual route portions;
monitor the current location of the vehicle with respect to
the one or more real-world route portions; and
cause, via one or more output devices of the vehicle, a
presentation of a content portion related to a virtual route portion
of the one or more virtual route portions responsive to a
determination, based on the monitoring, that the vehicle is on a
2
Appeal 2018-002621
Application 15/297, 106
real-world route portion that corresponds to the virtual route
portion, wherein the one or more content portions comprise the
presented content portion.
Szczerba
Hill
Alaniz
References
US 2010/0292886 Al
US 2013/0009994 Al
US 2015/0100179 Al
Examiner's Rejection
Nov. 18, 2010
Jan. 10,2013
Apr. 9, 2015
Claims 1-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Szczerba, Alaniz, and Hill. Final Act. 7-29.
Our review in this appeal is limited only to the above rejection and the
issues raised by Appellants. Arguments not made are waived. See MPEP
§ 1205.02; 37 C.F.R. §§ 4I.37(c)(l)(iv) and 4I.39(a)(l).
ANALYSIS
Independent Claims 1. 8. and 12
"virtual reality content"
Appellants contend the Examiner erred in finding Szczerba teaches
"virtual reality content ... related to the one or more virtual route portions,"
as recited in claim 1 and similarly recited in claims 8 and 12. App. Br. 6-8;
Reply Br. 4--5. Specifically, Appellants argue Szczerba "is completely silent
with respect to any virtual reality content being displayed to the user" and,
instead, Szczerba "focuses on enhancing the display of the real world
environment of the vehicle" and "presenting an image of the operational
environment (i.e., the real-world environment in which the vehicle is
disposed)." App. Br. 7; Reply Br. 4--5. Appellants further argue the
Examiner erred by "asserting that 'operator inputs' depicted in Fig. 38 of
3
Appeal 2018-002621
Application 15/297, 106
Szczerba correspond[] to the claimed 'virtual route portions."' App. Br. 7;
Reply Br. 4--5.
We are not persuaded. We agree with the Examiner's finding that
(Final Act. 7-8; Ans. 11-12) Szczerba's enhanced vision system's (EVS)
display of "graphical images upon a windscreen of a vehicle" (Szczerba
,r 49) teaches "virtual reality content ... related to one or more portions of a
virtual route." For example, the Examiner points out (Final Act. 7-8; see
Ans. 11-12) that Figure 36 of Szczerba describes a system "to project upon
a windscreen tum by tum graphical navigational aids," such as navigation
arrow 264, which displays "vehicle maneuvers required to follow the
planned travel route to arrive at a navigational destination" (Szczerba ,r 189).
Appellants' argument that Szczerba's "information representing a real
world environment" is precluded from the meaning of "virtual reality
content" (Ans. 7; Reply Br. 4) is not commensurate with the scope of the
claims. The Specification does not provide a definition of "virtual reality
content" and instead broadly describes that "[ v ]irtual reality ... is a
computer technology that may, for example, replicate an environment, real
or imagined, and simulates a user's physical presence and environment."
Spec. ,r 3. Consistent with that description of "virtual reality," the graphical
images displayed on Szczerba's windshields that create a virtual driving
environment teach "virtual reality content." For example, Szczerba's
projections provide an enhanced driving environment for the user by
"projecting tum by tum instructions upon the windscreen" (Szczerba ,r 189,
Fig. 36) and by identifying "a destination building ... with a graphical box."
(id. ,r 191, Fig. 36). Szczerba's projections further replicate a driving
environment by electronically displaying "lane indicators 222 and 224;
4
Appeal 2018-002621
Application 15/297, 106
vehicle indicator 228; pedestrian indicator 230; [and] vehicle speed display
234." Id. ,r 180, Fig. 33; see id. ,r,r 181-184, Figs. 34--35, 27. Moreover,
even if Szczerba does not teach "virtual reality content," the Examiner also
relies on the combination of Alaniz and Hill to teach "virtual reality content"
(Ans. 12), which Appellants do not contest.
Furthermore, Appellants' argument that Szczerba' s "operator inputs"
do not teach "virtual route portions" (App. Br. 7; Reply Br. 4--5) does not
address the Examiner's finding that Szczerba's proposed route teaches the
use of "virtual route portions." See Final Act. 7 (citing Szczerba ,r,r 156,
158, 189 ("the planned travel route")). In particular, the Examiner points out
that "the data from Szczerba must be relied upon and used to set a
corresponding virtual route." Ans. 15; Final Act. 7 (citing Szczerba ,r 156).
The data Szczerba uses is "information from a 3D map database to identify a
proposed route to an identified destination." Szczerba ,r 156. Szczerba's
proposed route teaches the use of "virtual route portions" because that
proposed route is based on a 3D map database, i.e., a database of virtual
route portions.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding the
combination of Szczerba, Alaniz, and Hill teaches "virtual reality content ...
related to one or more portions of a virtual route," as recited in claim 1 and
similarly recited in claims 8 and 12.
Improper Combination
Appellants contend the Examiner improperly combined Szczerba,
Alaniz, and Hill. App. Br. 5---6; Reply Br. 2-3. Appellants' arguments are
premised on the assertion that Szczerba "is not related [to], or does not
5
Appeal 2018-002621
Application 15/297, 106
describe or suggest the usefulness of presenting the vehicle operator with
virtual content." App. Br. 6; Reply Br. 2-3. However, as discussed above,
we agree with the Examiner that Szczerba teaches virtual content and,
accordingly, Appellants' arguments are not persuasive.
Appellants' remaining arguments that the Examiner's combination is
the result of "impermissible hindsight" because of "a lack of valid reasoning
in the cited art to combine the references, and the fact that the combination is
only present on the record in Appellant[s'] specification" (App. Br. 6; Reply
Br. 2) are not persuasive. Initially, the teaching, suggestion, or motivation
standard is no longer required in determining obviousness, and, therefore,
the reason to combine need not be found in the references themselves. See
KSR Int 'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). Moreover, the
Examiner provides articulated reasoning having "rational underpinning to
support the legal conclusion of obviousness." KSR, 550 U.S. at 417-18.
Specifically, the Examiner finds a skilled artisan would have combined the
references to "provid[ e] a virtual environment for immersive display that is
substantially equivalent to the real environment/route but may be displaced
in location, time, theme and various user determined preferences." Final
Act. 10. We agree with the Examiner that user customization of content is a
rational feature to incorporate into a content display system. Even further,
the Examiner points out (Ans. 18) that Hill suggests a customized "virtual-
world environment of the person's current location" as the user "walks
through the [user's] real-world environment" (Hill ,r,r 23-26). Appellants
provide no arguments or evidence persuasively addressing the Examiner's
articulated rationale.
6
Appeal 2018-002621
Application 15/297, 106
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner improperly
combined Szczerba, Alaniz, and Hill or failed to show the combination of
Szczerba, Alaniz, and Hill teaches or suggests the limitations as recited in
claim 1 and claims 8 and 12, not separately argued. Therefore, we sustain
the rejection of claims 1, 8, and 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Szczerba, Alaniz, and Hill.
Dependent Claims 2. 4. 6. 10. 13. 16. and 18
"selection of the one or more virtual route portions"
Appellants contend the Examiner erred in finding Szczerba teaches
"the determination of the one or more virtual route portions comprises a
selection of the one or more virtual route portions from a set of predefined
virtual route portions for the virtual reality presentation," as recited in
claim 2 and similarly recited in claims 4, 6, 10, 13, 16, and 18. App. Br. 8,
1 O; Reply Br. 5---6. Specifically, Appellants argue Szczerba "merely
describe[ s] the use of GPS information to obtain an estimate of the location
of the vehicle (i.e., a real world location of the vehicle), and the use of a
camera ( disposed on the vehicle) to obtain a localized depiction of the
environment of the vehicle" rather than teaching "virtual route portions
compris[ing] a selection of the one or more virtual route portions from a set
of predefined virtual route portions." App. Br. 8 (emphases omitted).
We are not persuaded. As discussed above, we agree with the
Examiner's finding that Szczerba generates a "planned travel route," or
"proposed route," from stored virtual route portions. Ans. 15; Final Act. 7
(citing Szczerba ,r,r 156, 189). Specifically, the planned travel route, or
"proposed route," is generated by selecting virtual route portions from
7
Appeal 2018-002621
Application 15/297, 106
"information from a 3D map database." Szczerba ,r 156. That is, Szczerba
selects portions of the stored electronic 3D map, i.e., "predefined virtual
route portions," to create a planned travel route made of the selected virtual
route portions. Appellants' arguments directed to GPS information and
localized environment information (App. Br. 8) do not address Szczerba's
generation of a planned travel route by selecting virtual route potions stored
in a 3D map database.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding
Szczerba teaches "the determination of the one or more virtual route portions
comprises a selection of the one or more virtual route portions from a set of
predefined virtual route portions for the virtual reality presentation," as
recited in claim 2 and similarly recited in claims 4, 6, 10, 13, 16, and 18.
"similar to the one or more environmental characteristics"
Appellants contend the Examiner erred in finding Hill teaches
a virtual representation of a second real-world environment
different from the first real-world environment ... the virtual
reality presentation ... selection being based on the one or more
environmental characteristics of the one or more virtual route
portions being similar to the one or more environmental
characteristics of the one or more real-world route portions,
as recited in claim 4 and similarly recited in claim 16. App. Br. 9; Reply
Br. 8. Specifically, Appellants argue "Hill merely describe[ s] the virtual
display may be modified by the user based on a certain theme" but Hill does
not teach "content corresponding to a different real-world environment is
selected for a user's virtual environment based on the different real-world
environment-corresponding content having environment characteristics
8
Appeal 2018-002621
Application 15/297, 106
similar to the environment characteristics of the user's current location
environment." App. Br. 9 (emphases omitted); Reply Br. 8.
We are not persuaded. The Examiner relies on (Final Act. 12-13)
Hill's description that the "selection of some or all of the virtual-reality data
206 (e.g., virtual-reality graphics, textures, features, etc.) ... may also be
based on real-world data [that is] collected" (Hill ,r 77; see id. ,r,r 21-22).
Hill explains that "if the real-world data is indicative of rainy/overcast
conditions, the virtual reality data 206 may be darker-shade graphics and/or
may include rain, lighted street lamps, wet pavements and/or other features
characteristic of the rainy/overcast conditions." Id. ,r 77; see id. ,r,r 21-22.
That is, based on rainy real-world environmental conditions, Hill selects
environmentally similar rainy virtual reality content.
Appellants' arguments, addressing Hill's medieval themes or different
city themes (App. Br. 9; Reply Br. 8) do not address Hill's content based on
real-world environmental characteristics such as rain. Accordingly, we are
not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding Hill teaches
a virtual representation of a second real-world environment
different from the first real-world environment ... the virtual
reality presentation ... selection being based on the one or more
environmental characteristics of the one or more virtual route
portions being similar to the one or more environmental
characteristics of the one or more real-world route portions,
as recited in claim 4 and similarly recited in claim 16.
"a time different from the current time "
Appellants contend the Examiner erred in finding Hill teaches
virtual reality content is a virtual representation of the first real-
world environment at a time different from the current time ...
the one or more virtual route portions being selected for the
9
Appeal 2018-002621
Application 15/297, 106
virtual reality presentation from a set of predefined virtual route
portions that correspond to the different-time real-world route
portions,
as recited in claims 6 and 18. App. Br. 9-10; Reply Br. 9. Specifically,
Appellants argue Hill's "description of modifying a user's virtual
environment based on a theme cannot be properly interpreted as virtual
reality content that represents the same real world environment of the user at
a time different from the current time, much less ... the first real-world
environment at the different time." App. Br. 9-10 (emphases omitted).
We are not persuaded. The Examiner relies on (Final Act. 13-14)
Hill's "user-specified modifications of virtual-world graphics 208" (Hill
,r 30; see Hill ,r 26, Fig. 3) to teach "a virtual representation of the first real-
world environment at a time different from the current time." Hill details
that those modifications can
modify the virtual-reality data 206 to represent a medieval
environment, in which case buildings represented in the virtual-
reality data 206 may be modified to have turrets, towers,
sandstone construction, drawbridges, columns, gargoyles,
battlement roof structures, or any other medieval-type features.
If the person 104 elects to modify the virtual-reality data 206 to
represent a futuristic environment, features and/or characteristics
of the virtual-reality data 206 may be modified to have neon
lighting, hover-craft vehicles, neon-lighted raceways or tracks as
roadways and/or sidewalks, etc.
Id. ,I 26.
Appellants' arguments that Hill's virtual environment modifications
do not represent "the same real world environment of the user at a time
different from the current time" (App. Br. 9-10; Reply Br. 9) are not
commensurate with the scope of the claim. First, the claims only require
that the time is "different from the current time," which broadly
10
Appeal 2018-002621
Application 15/297, 106
encompasses any time that is not the immediate time. As such, Hill's
generation of virtual reality worlds "in non-real time" (Hill ,r 22) necessarily
generates a virtual reality worlds "at a time different from the current time"
because the virtual reality world is not generated at precisely the current
time. Second, the Specification describes that "the virtual reality content
may reflect the predicted features of the landscape one year later ... such as
buildings, forests, hills, swamps, rivers, streams, or other features of the
landscape predicted to exist a year later)." Spec. ,r 43. That is, the
Specification broadly describes that content representing "a time different
from the current time" is broadly "predicted" content. Consistent with the
Specification's description, Hill describes such "predicted" content, e.g., "a
futuristic environment" that predicts "neon lighting, hover-craft vehicles,
neon-lighted raceways or tracks as roadways and/or sidewalks." Hill ,r 26.
Moreover, the claimed feature merely recites varying the type of data
displayed, namely, varying virtual content data to display an environment
during a different time. We determine that it would not have been "uniquely
challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art" to display
different types of content data. Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc.,
485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citation omitted). That is,
Appellants' claims specify the type of data being displayed, but we are not
persuaded that specifying the type of data displayed recites a non-obvious
feature.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding Hill
teaches
virtual reality content is a virtual representation of the first real-
world environment at a time different from the current time ...
the one or more virtual route portions being selected for the
11
Appeal 2018-002621
Application 15/297, 106
virtual reality presentation from a set of predefined virtual route
portions that correspond to the different-time real-world route
portions,
as recited in claims 6 and 18.
Remaining Claims 3. 5. 7. 9. 11. 14. 15. 17. 19. and 20
Appellants do not argue separate patentability for dependent claims 3,
5, 7, 9, 11, 14, 15, 17, 19, and 20, which depend directly or indirectly from
claims 1, 8, and 12. See App. Br. 5-10. Accordingly, for the reasons set
forth above, we sustain the Examiner's decision to reject claims 5, 7, 9, 11,
14, 15, 17, 19, and 20.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-20 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Szczerba, Alaniz, and Hill.
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.
§ 4I.50(f).
AFFIRMED
12