Ex Parte DeMers et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardApr 15, 2016

13207010 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 15, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. 13/207,010 89955 7590 HONEYWELL/IPL Patent Services 115 Tabor Road P.O.Box 377 FILING DATE 08/10/2011 04/19/2016 MORRIS PLAINS, NJ 07950 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Robert E. DeMers 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. H0029406-5446 (002.1386) 5073 EXAMINER MAZUMDER, TAPAS ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2616 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 04/19/2016 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): patentservices-us@honeywell.com DL-ACS-SM-IP@Honeywell.com docketing@ifllaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte ROBERT E. DEMERS, STEPHEN MEED, and JEFF LANCASTER Appeal2014-005589 Application 13/207,0101 Technology Center 2600 Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, JEFFREY A. STEPHENS, and STACY B. MARGOLIES, Administrative Patent Judges. MARGOLIES, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This appeal arises under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from the Examiner's Final Office Action rejecting claims 1-15. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). We reverse. 1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Honeywell International, Inc. App. Br. 2. Appeal2014-005589 Application 13/207,010 SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION The invention is directed generally to a virtual display that depicts a view of an external environment and a portion of a structure that blocks a view of the external environment. See Abstract. Claim 7 is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal and is reproduced below: 7. An apparatus comprising: a display device for displaying visual images within an enclosure; a location device configured to determine a location within the enclosure in reference to an external environment; at least one memory device configured to store data representing a visual image of the external environment; and a processing device configured to command the display device to simultaneously generate (i) a view of the external environment from the location and (ii) a structure representation, the structure representation being a visual depiction of a structure in the enclosure and appearing in front of the generated view of the external environment without blocking the generated view of the external environment. REFERENCES AND REJECTIONS The Examiner rejected claims 1--4, 8, and 9 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable in view of Stavaeus (US 2008/002163 6 A 1; Jan. 24, 2008), Jong (US 2005/0280706 Al; Dec. 22, 2005), and Tokuyama (US 6,796,408; Sept. 28, 2004). Final Act. 6-10. The Examiner rejected claims 7, 10, 12, and 13 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable in view of Stavaeus and Jong. Final Act. 3---6. 2 Appeal2014-005589 Application 13/207,010 The Examiner rejected claims 5 and 6 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable in view of Stavaeus, Jong, Tokuyama, and Trescott (US 2008/0158371 Al; July 3, 2008). Final Act. 10-12. The Examiner rejected claims 11, 14 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable in view of Stavaeus, Jong, and Trescott. Final Act. 12-14. ISSUE The pivotal issue is whether the Examiner erred in finding that Stavaeus and Jong teach a processor configured to command a display device to simultaneously generate a view of an external environment and a "structure representation, the structure representation being a visual depiction of a structure in the enclosure and appearing in front of the generated view of the external environment without blocking the generated view of the external environment," as recited in independent claim 7 and similarly recited in independent claim 1. ANALYSIS Appellants argue, among other things, that Jong does not disclose simultaneously rendering the claimed structure representation, and that the Examiner does not rely on Stavaeus for disclosing this claim element. App. Br. 12. Specifically, Appellants argue that Jong discloses simultaneous rendering of a window covering onto a virtual window, and that the window covering is a visual depiction of a structure that is not in the enclosure. Id. Appellants also argue that the window covering actually blocks the generated view of the external environment. Id. 3 Appeal2014-005589 Application 13/207,010 The Examiner responds that, in Jong, either the window or the window covering is a structure. Ans. 15. The Examiner finds that Jong's window does not block the generated view, and Jong's window covering can be moved up so that the user's view of the external environment can be unblocked. Id. at 15-16. Appellants persuade us that the Examiner erred. The Examiner relies on Jong for disclosing the claim element of a processing device configured to command the display device to simultaneously generate both a view of the external environment and "a structure representation, the structure representation being a visual depiction of a structure in the enclosure and appearing in front of the generated view of the external environment without blocking the generated view of the external environment." See Ans. 4--5, Final Act. 4--5. Appellants' Specification defines "enclosure" as "an enclosed space within an environment where the structure of the enclosure blocks the view from within the enclosure," and defines "structure" as "an object that is part of the enclosure." Spec. 2-3. Neither the window nor the window covering in Jong is the claimed "structure representation" because neither is a visual depiction of a structure in the enclosure (as required by claim 7) or a visual depiction of a portion of the structure (as required by claim 1 ). The enclosure in Jong does not have a window or window covering; rather, the enclosure is a windowless room. See Jong i-f 38 ("[T]he goal of the present invention [is] to simulate an outdoor scene visible window for a windowless room .... "); i-fi-1 1---6, 12. Jong discloses that the window and window covering are virtual to create the appearance of a real window and window covering in a windowless room. See Jong, Abstract, i-f 4 Appeal2014-005589 Application 13/207,010 38. We therefore disagree with the Examiner's findings that Jong discloses commanding a display device to generate the claimed structure representation, as required by claim 7 and similarly required by claim 1. See Ans. 4--7, Final Act. 4--7. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent claims 1 and 7 and dependent claims 2---6 and 8-15. DECISION We reverse the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-15. REVERSED \ 5