Microsoft Technology Licensing, LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardMar 16, 2021

2019006755 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 16, 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. 14/724,633 05/28/2015 Todd Michael Lyon WHG15308 2985 69316 7590 03/16/2021 MICROSOFT CORPORATION ONE MICROSOFT WAY REDMOND, WA 98052 EXAMINER CHANG, DANIEL ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2487 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/16/2021 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): chriochs@microsoft.com jkarr@microsoft.com usdocket@microsoft.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte TODD MICHAEL LYON, MARIA M. CAMERON, FELICIA STEPHANIE WILLIAMS, SCOTT PETILL, and QI KUAN ZHOU ________________ Appeal 2019-006755 Application 14/724,633 Technology Center 2400 ____________ Before SCOTT B. HOWARD, JOYCE CRAIG, and MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2, 5, 8‒11, 14, 17‒19, 21, 22, and 24‒29.1 Claims 3, 4, 6, 7, 12, 13, 15, 16, 19, 20, and 23 have been cancelled. Appeal Br. 28‒32. 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. Appellant identifies Microsoft Technology Licensing, LLC as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 3. Appeal 2019-006755 Application 14/724,633 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction The claimed subject matter relates to head mounted displays that self- calibrate based on a determined inter-pupillary distance of a user. Spec. ¶¶ 1‒5. Claim 1 is illustrative of the appealed subject matter and reads as follows: 1. A head-mounted display device for determining an inter- pupillary distance of a user, comprising: a see-through display providing both eyes of the user with a view of a physical object; a processor; and a non-volatile storage device holding instructions executable by the processor to: select an image that corresponds to the physical object viewable by the user; display the image to a first eye of the user at an offset to the physical object; display blocking light to a second eye of the user to obscure vision in the second eye; in response to alignment user input, move a position of the image relative to the physical object; output an instruction to provide completion user input when the image aligns with the physical object; when the completion user input is received, determine the inter-pupillary distance of the user; and calibrate the head-mounted display device based on the inter-pupillary distance. The Examiner’s Rejections Claims 1, 2, 10, 11, 19, 24, 25, 27, and 28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Border (US 2012/0120103 A1; May Appeal 2019-006755 Application 14/724,633 3 17, 2012), Stafford (US 2014/0274391 A1; Sept. 18, 2014), and Raffle (US 2013/0088413 A1; Apr. 11, 2013). Final Act. 5‒10. Claims 5 and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Border, Stafford, Raffle, and Tricoukes (US 2011/0249122 A1; Oct. 13, 2011). Final Act. 10‒11. Claims 8 and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Border, Stafford, Raffle, Konno (US 2012/0108328 A1; May 3, 2012), and Cederlund (US 2013/0169560 A1; July 4, 2013). Final Act. 11‒13. Claims 9 and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Border, Stafford, Raffle, and Konno. Final Act. 13‒15. Claims 21 and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Border, Stafford, Raffle, and Fujimaki (US 2013/0234914 A1; Sept. 12, 2013). Final Act. 15‒17. Claims 26 and 29 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Border, Stafford, Raffle, and Sugden (US 2013/0194164 A1; Aug. 1, 2013). Final Act. 17‒18. ANALYSIS The Examiner finds the combination of Border, Stafford, and Raffle teaches or suggests instructions executable by the processor to “display blocking light to a second eye of the user to obscure vision in the second eye,” as recited in claim 1. Final Act. 7‒8. In particular, the Examiner finds Raffle teaches a head-mounted display (HMD) that provides an opaque display for one eye of a wearer as well as a view of the real-world environment for the other eye of the wearer. Appeal 2019-006755 Application 14/724,633 4 Ans. 18 (citing Raffle ¶ 34). The Examiner finds this opaque display only displays blocking light to one eye of the user. Id. Appellant argues the Examiner errs because Raffle does not teach or suggest the “display blocking light” limitation. Appeal Br. 14‒16. In particular, Appellant argues Raffle teaches various examples of combinations of displays for HMDs, but none of these configurations include displaying blocking light, as claimed. Id. at 15. Appellant argues the various configurations include HMDs that only allow a user to see through one lens of the display, but this effect is not achieved by displaying blocking light, as claimed. Id. Appellant has persuaded us of Examiner error. Claim 1 recites “a see- through display providing both eyes of the user with a view of a physical object.” Claim 1 further recites instructions executable by the processor to “display blocking light to a second eye of the user to obscure vision in the second eye.” Thus, claim 1 requires that blocking light is displayed to only one eye of a user, and that blocking light is displayed as a result of instructions executed by a processor. Raffle teaches HMDs, such as glasses and goggles, which may include one or two see-through displays. Raffle ¶ 34. The HMD may present an opaque display to one or both eyes of the user, where the opaque display is configured to display images to the user. Id. However, these opaque displays are not “see-through” to provide the user “with a view of a physical object,” as recited in claim 1. That is, the opaque displays block the view of the user and instead project images of physical objects to the user. Id. The Examiner has not identified, nor have we found, any teachings in Raffle of a see-through display that may be configured to display blocking light to Appeal 2019-006755 Application 14/724,633 5 obscure a user’s vision, as claimed. Nor has the Examiner identified any teachings of obscuring a user’s vision as a result of instructions executable by a processor. Accordingly, we are constrained by the record to agree with Appellant that the Examiner errs in finding the combination of Border, Stafford, and Raffle teaches or suggests instructions executable by the processor to “display blocking light to a second eye of the user to obscure vision in the second eye,” as recited in claim 1. For these reasons, we do not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claim 1.2 We also do not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of independent claim 10, which recite commensurate subject matter. By virtue of their dependency from one of these independent claims, we also do not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of dependent claims 2, 11, 19, 24, 25, 27, and 28 for the same reasons. Claims 5, 8, 9, 14, 17, 18, 21, 22, 26, and 29 stand rejected as unpatentable over Border, Stafford, Raffle and one or more additional references. Final Act. 10‒18. The Examiner does not find that any of the additional references teaches or suggests instructions executable by the processor to “display blocking light to a second eye of the user to obscure vision in the second eye,” as recited in claim 1. See id. Accordingly, we also do not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejections of claims 5, 8, 9, 14, 17, 18, 21, 22, 26, and 29 for the same reasons discussed above. 2 Because we agree with at least one of the dispositive arguments advanced by Appellant, we need not reach the merits of Appellant’s other arguments. Appeal 2019-006755 Application 14/724,633 6 CONCLUSION In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 2, 10, 11, 19, 24, 25, 27, 28 103(a) Border, Stafford, Raffle 1, 2, 10, 11, 19, 24, 25, 27, 28 5, 14 103(a) Border, Stafford, Raffle, Tricoukes 5, 14 8, 17 103(a) Border, Stafford, Raffle, Konno, Cederlund 8, 17 9, 18 103(a) Border, Stafford, Raffle, Konno 9, 18 21, 22 103(a) Border, Stafford, Raffle, Fujimaki 21, 22 26, 29 103(a) Border, Stafford, Raffle, Sugden 26, 29 Overall outcome 1, 2, 5, 8‒11, 14, 17‒19, 21, 22, 24‒29 REVERSED