Magic Leap, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Nov 4, 2020

2019004263 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 4, 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.
15/062,104 03/05/2016 Michael J. Woods ML-0247US 6376
132471 7590 11/04/2020
Vista IP Law Group, LLP (Magic Leap, Inc.)
2160 Lundy Ave., Ste. 230
San Jose, CA 95131
EXAMINER
EARLES, BRYAN E
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2625
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/04/2020 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):
docketing@viplawgroup.com
sp@viplawgroup.com
vlm@viplawgroup.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
________________

Ex parte MICHAEL J. WOODS
________________

Appeal 2019-004263
Application 15/062,104
Technology Center 2600
________________

Before BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, JASON V. MORGAN, and
JAMES B. ARPIN, Administrative Patent Judges.

MORGAN, 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 rejecting claims 1–20, 22–44, 46–66, and 68–70, all of
the pending claims. Claims 21, 45, and 67 are canceled. Appeal Br. 23, 26,
28. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

1 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant
identifies the real party in interest as Magic Leap, Inc. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2019-004263
Application 15/062,104

2

SUMMARY OF THE DISCLOSURE
Appellant’s claimed subject matter relates to an “augmented reality
display system compris[ing] a handheld component housing an
electromagnetic field emitter, the electromagnetic field emitter emitting a
known magnetic field, the head[-]mounted component coupled to one or
more electromagnetic sensors that detect the magnetic field emitted by the
electromagnetic field emitter housed in the handheld component.” Abstract.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAIM
(Disputed Limitations Emphasized and Bracketing Added)
49. An augmented reality display system, comprising:
a handheld component housing an electromagnetic field emitter,
the electromagnetic field emitter emitting a known magnetic
field;
a head mounted component having a display system that
displays virtual content to a user, the head mounted component
coupled to one or more electromagnetic sensors that detect the
magnetic field emitted by the electromagnetic field emitter
housed in the handheld component, [1] wherein at least one of
the one or more electromagnetic sensors comprises a non-solid
ferrite cube, the non-solid ferrite cube increasing
electromagnetic field sensitivity and reducing a weight of the
non-solid ferrite cube compared with a solid ferrite cube,
wherein a head pose is known; and
a controller communicatively coupled to the handheld
component and the head mounted component, the controller
receiving magnetic field data from the handheld component,
and receiving sensor data from the head mounted component,
wherein the controller determines a hand pose based at least in
part on the received magnetic field data and the received sensor
data,
Appeal 2019-004263
Application 15/062,104

3

wherein the display system modifies the virtual content
displayed to the user based at least in part on the determined
hand pose.
REFERENCES
The Examiner relies on the following references:
Name Reference Date
Lewis US 4,462,165 July 31, 1984
Na’Aman et al. US 2014/0267646 A1 Sept. 18, 2014
Efrat et al. US 2014/0222409 A1 Aug. 7, 2014
Jaaskelainen et al. US 2014/0139226 A1 May 22, 2014
Wang et al. US 2005/0107870 A1 May 19, 2005
Foxlin US 2004/0201857 A1 Oct. 14, 2004
REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejects claims 1–16, 18–20, 25–40, 42–44, 49–62, and
64–66 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over the combined teachings of
Foxlin, Efrat, and Lewis. Final Act. 3–11.
The Examiner rejects claims 17, 41, and 63 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
obvious over the combined teachings of Foxlin, Efrat, Lewis, and Na’Aman.
Final Act. 11–12.
The Examiner rejects claims 22, 23, 46, 47, 68, and 69 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over the combined teachings of Foxlin, Efrat,
Lewis, and Wang. Final Act. 12–13.
The Examiner rejects claims 24, 48, and 70 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
obvious over the combined teachings of Foxlin, Efrat, Lewis, and
Jaaskelainen. Final Act. 13–14.
Appeal 2019-004263
Application 15/062,104

4

ADOPTION OF EXAMINER’S FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
We agree with and adopt as our own the Examiner’s findings as set
forth in the Answer and in the Final Office Action, and we concur with the
Examiner’s conclusions. We have considered Appellant’s arguments, but we
do not find them persuasive of error. We provide the following explanation
for emphasis.
ANALYSIS
In rejecting claim 49 as obvious, the Examiner relies on Foxlin and
Efrat for most of the recitations, including a “head mounted component
coupled to one or more electromagnetic sensors.” Final Act. 3–5 (citing, e.g.,
Foxlin ¶ 74, Fig. 1). The Examiner relies on Lewis, however, to teach
recitation [1], “wherein at least one of the one or more electromagnetic
sensors comprises a non-solid ferrite cube.” See id. at 5 (citing Lewis 2:7–
31, Figs. 1–3). The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious “to
modify the electromagnetic field sensor of the [augmented reality] display
system, as taught by Foxlin and Efrat, to incorporate using a non-solid ferrite
cube as the electromagnetic field sensor, as taught by Lewis, in order to
provide a simple and low[-]cost electromagnetic field sensor.” Id. at 5–6
(citing Lewis 3:13–18).
Appellant contends the Examiner erred because
Lewis does not disclose, describe, teach, or suggest a ferrite
cube, let alone an electromagnetic sensor comprising a non-
solid ferrite cube. Instead, Lewis discloses an orientation sensor
that can automatically compensate for errors caused by ferrous
materials located in the surrounding environment – without ever
disclosing the orientation sensor comprises a ferrite cube.
Appeal 2019-004263
Application 15/062,104

5

Appeal Br. 15 (emphasis added). That is, Appellant argues “the sensor of
Lewis ‘includes a magnetic permeable core,’ which would not include
ferrite.” Id. (citing Lewis 1:52–55).
Appellant’s argument is unpersuasive because Lewis teaches a sensor
having a “magnetic permeable core” with three sets of parallel axis legs that
“can be envisioned as six continuous edges of a cube.” Lewis 2:19–31. The
Examiner acknowledges that “Lewis does not expressly state that[] the
material for the magnetic permeable core 10 is selected from a list of
materials including a ferrimagnetic (magnetic ferrite) material.” Ans. 15.
The Examiner finds, however, that “it would be well within the routine
practice of a person having ordinary skill in the art to employ the use of
ferrites, a type of material commonly used in magnetic permeable cores,
simply by ascertaining the application in which the sensor is to be applied.”
Id.
The Examiner thus concludes,
[it would have been] obvious to a person having ordinary skill
in the art, through routine optimization and based on the
parameters of the desired application, to select a particular
material for the magnetic permeable core from a finite list of
materials, comprising: Ferromagnetic Materials (e.g., Fe, Co
and Ni), Anti-Ferromagnetic Materials (e.g., chromium, FeMn
alloy and NiO) and Ferrimagnetic Materials (e.g., Fe3O4).
Id. at 16. That is, the Examiner concludes that use of ferrite materials for
magnetic permeable cores would have been obvious to an artisan of ordinary
skill.
Appellant does not substantively rebut the Examiner’s findings and
conclusions regarding the use of ferrite materials for magnetic permeable
cores. Rather, Appellant contends, “the Examiner’s Answer appears to have
Appeal 2019-004263
Application 15/062,104

6

attempted to take Official Notice. If the Examiner’s Answer has intended to
take Official Notice, such an attempt is traversed, at least because it is not in
compliance with the USPTO’s own procedures.” Reply Br. 3.
Whether the Examiner improperly took official notice without
properly complying with Office procedure is a petitionable matter, not an
appealable matter. MPEP § 1201 (“The Board will not ordinarily hear a
question that should be decided by the Director on petition”); see also, e.g.,
Ex Parte Lennon Image Techs., LLC, Appeal No. 2015-006360, 2017 WL
4217297, at *18 (PTAB 2017) (non-precedential). We decline, then, to
address the question.
Because we find the Examiner’s unrebutted findings and analysis
reasonable, we agree with the Examiner that the Lewis sensor—having a
magnetic permeable core—would have suggested to an artisan of ordinary
skill an electromagnetic sensor comprising a non-solid ferrite cube. Final
Act. 5; Ans. 15–16. Therefore, we agree with the Examiner that Lewis
suggests recitation [1].
Appellant further argues the Examiner erred because
The Lewis disclosure not only fails to disclose
electromagnetic sensors comprising a nonsolid ferrite cube[,]
but in fact explicitly teaches away from at least the
aforementioned claim limitations because the Lewis disclosure
teaches the desirability of compensating for errors caused by
ferrous materials located in the surrounding, therefore
suggesting that the sensor of Lewis would function better
without the presence of ferrous materials.
Appeal Br. 17; Reply Br. 6.
Appellant’s argument is not persuasive because Lewis teaches that its
“three axis orientation sensor . . . operates in a ferrous environment”
Appeal 2019-004263
Application 15/062,104

7

(Lewis 1:39–40) and automatically compensates “for errors caused by the
ferrous materials located in the surrounding environment” (id. at 1:45–48).
“[I]n general, a reference will teach away if it suggests that the line of
development flowing from the reference’s disclosure is unlikely to be
productive of the result sought by the applicant.” In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551,
553 (Fed. Cir. 1994). But here, the Examiner correctly characterizes the
ability of the Lewis sensor to operate in a ferrous environment as an
enhancement or feature. Ans. 16.
Moreover, being operable in a ferrous environment (as opposed to
being inoperable in a ferrous environment) fails to suggest using ferrous
materials (e.g., a ferrite cube) would be unlikely to be productive for the
result sought by Appellant (i.e., “increasing electromagnetic field sensitivity
and reducing a weight of the non-solid ferrite cube compared with a solid
ferrite cube”). Appeal Br. 26–27 (claim 49). Therefore, Appellant has not
established that Lewis teaches away from modifying the combination of
Foxlin and Efrat to include recitation [1].
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s obvious rejections under
35 U.S.C. § 103 of claim 49, and of claims 1–20, 22–44, 46–48, 50–66, and
68–70, which Appellant does not argue separately with persuasive
specificity. Appeal Br. 17–19.

Appeal 2019-004263
Application 15/062,104

8

CONCLUSION
Claims
Rejected
35
U.S.C. § References Affirmed Reversed
1–16, 18–20,
25–40, 49–62,
64–66
103 Foxlin, Efrat,
Lewis
1–16, 18–20,
25–40, 42–44,
49–62, 64–66

17, 41, 63 103 Foxlin, Efrat,
Lewis, Na’Aman
17, 41, 63
22, 23, 46, 47,
68, 69
103 Foxlin, Efrat,
Lewis, Wang
22, 23, 46, 47,
68, 69

24, 48, 70 103 Foxlin, Efrat,
Lewis,
Jaaskelainen
24, 48, 70
Overall
Outcome
1–20, 22–44,
46–66, 68–70

TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking subsequent action in connection with this
appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED