Microvision, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 24, 2021

2020000464 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 24, 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.
15/390,891 12/27/2016 Patrick J. McVittie MVIS 16-11 8064
26943 7590 03/24/2021
MICROVISION, INC.
6244 185TH AVENUE NE
REDMOND, WA 98052
EXAMINER
MISHLER, ROBIN J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2628
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/24/2021 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):
KEVIN_WILLS@MICROVISION.COM
LEGAL@MICROVISION.COM
LINDSEY_STIBBARD@MICROVISION.COM
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte PATRICK J. McVITTIE,
P. SELVAN VISWANATHAN, and
JONATHAN A. MORARITY
____________________

Appeal 2020-000464
Application 15/390,891
Technology Center 2600
____________________

Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, JUSTIN BUSCH, and
JAMES W. DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judges.

DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1–20. We have jurisdiction over the pending claims under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We reverse.

1 Throughout this Decision, we use the word “Appellant” to refer to
“applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42 (2019). Appellant identifies
Microvision, Inc. as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2020-000464
Application 15/390,891

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellant’s disclosed and claimed invention generally relates to
projection and three dimensional measurement systems for performing
occlusion-based height estimates of a foreground object (e.g., a finger)
relative to a background surface. Spec. 1:5–6, 8:15–18, Title.
Figure 1 is illustrative of the claimed system and is reproduced below.

Figure 1 illustrates “a foreground object causing an occlusion in the
field of view of a projection apparatus.” Spec. 2:4–5. As shown in Figure 1,
a projection apparatus (100) comprises a transmitter (110) and a receiver
(120). Spec. 5:30–6:2. The transmitter (110) projects light into a field of
view (112). Spec. 6:1–2. The light is projected towards surface (130) and
also falls on any foreground objects (132) in the field of view (112).
Spec. 6:1–5. Receiver (120) includes a light detector and detects light that is
reflected off of objects in its field of view. Spec. 6:6–7. As shown,
Appeal 2020-000464
Application 15/390,891

3
transmitter (110) and receiver (120) are not co-located. As such, “a
positional disparity exists that causes some projected light to not be received
by receiver 120 after reflection.” Spec. 6:10–12. According to the
Specification, the portion of projected light not received by receiver (120)
after reflection may be referred to as an occluded surface illumination.
Spec. 6:10–13.
Figure 2 is similar to Figure 1, but is from a different perspective.
Figure 2 is reproduced below.

Figure 2 shows a side view of “a foreground object causing an
occlusion in the field of view of a projection apparatus.” Spec. 5:28–30. As
shown in Figure 2, transmitter (110) projects light into a field of view (112)
(illustrated using longer dashed lines). Spec. 6:1–2. Receiver (120) detects
reflected light within its collector field of view (122) (illustrated using
shorter dashed lines). Spec. 6:6–9. The detected reflected light, also
Appeal 2020-000464
Application 15/390,891

4
referred to as returned illumination data, includes light reflected from
surface (130) and from foreground object (132). Spec. 6:6–9. As shown in
Figure 2, occluded surface illumination (140) is within the field of view of
transmitter (110) and is, therefore illuminated, however, the reflected light is
blocked (occluded) by the foreground object (132) (i.e., the tip of the user’s
finger). See Spec. 7:28–8:3. The Specification further states the area of
occluded surface illumination is also referred to as an “occlusion region,”
which is the term recited in the claims. Spec. 8:2–3.
Figure 3 illustrates the various returned illuminations of Figures 1 and
2 and is reproduced below.

Figure 3 “shows illumination of a background surface and a
foreground object with respect to transmitter/receiver disparity in
Appeal 2020-000464
Application 15/390,891

5
accordance with various embodiments of the present invention.”
Spec. 7:13–15. Light from transmitter (110) is reflected from either surface
(130) or foreground object (132) and returned to (and detected by) receiver
(120). As shown in Figure 3, these returned illuminations include returned
surface illumination (310) and returned finger illumination (320).
Spec. 7:24–28. “Light pulses that reach surface 130 at region 330 are
reflected but do not reach receiver 120 due to positional disparity between
transmitter 110 and receiver 120, and the height of finger 302 above surface
130. This results in occluded surface illumination 330.” Spec. 7:28–8:2.
In disclosed and claimed embodiments, the returned illumination data
is used to determine the location and size of the occluded region and the
occlusion data may be used to determine the height of the foreground object
above the surface. Spec. 8:15–18; see also Spec. 9:17–10:22, Fig. 6.
Claim 1 is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal and is
reproduced below with the disputed limitation emphasized in italics:
1. A method comprising:
receiving returned illumination data generated by
measuring a property of a scanned beam of light reflected off a
foreground object and a background surface within a field of
view, the returned illumination data including data representing
an occlusion region within the field of view in which light
reflected off the background surface is occluded from a receiver
by the foreground object, and
determining a distance between the foreground object and
the background surface using an attribute of the occlusion region.

Appeal 2020-000464
Application 15/390,891

6
The Examiner’s Rejections
1. Claims 1–6, 9, and 12–18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wilson et al. (US 2007/0201863 A1;
Aug. 30, 2007) (“Wilson”). Final Act. 2–3.
2. Claims 7, 8, 10, 11, 19, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Wilson and Huebner (US 2013/0229396
A1; Sept. 5, 2013). Final Act. 3–5.

ANALYSIS2
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1)
Appellant disputes the Examiner’s finding that Wilson anticipates
claim 1. Appeal Br. 4–5. In particular, Appellant argues that Wilson fails to
disclose the claimed occlusion region and instead describes shadowed areas.
Appeal Br. 5. In contrast to the claimed occlusion regions in which
“projected light reaches the background surface but is occluded from
reaching the receiver,” Appellant argues Wilson’s shadows are areas in
which light does not reach the background surface. Appeal Br. 5 (citing
Wilson ¶¶ 49–50, Fig. 9); Reply Br. 2.
Wilson describes a system to “perform sensing and detection of
objects” on a surface using imaging techniques and examining the shadows
cast by the objects. Wilson ¶ 27. Specifically, Wilson describes an IR (i.e.,
infrared) illuminant positioned to generate “controlled shadows indicating

2 Throughout this Decision, we have considered the Appeal Brief, filed
October 3, 2019 (“Appeal Br.”); the Reply Brief, filed October 28, 2019
(“Reply Br.”); the Examiner’s Second Answer, mailed October 28, 2019
(“Ans.”); and the Final Office Action, mailed May 6, 2019 (“Final Act.”),
from which this Appeal is taken.
Appeal 2020-000464
Application 15/390,891

7
height.” Wilson ¶ 27. A shadow analysis component is used to determine
whether an object is touching a surface based on the appearance of the
object’s shadow. Wilson ¶ 49, Fig. 9.
Figure 9 of Wilson is illustrative and is reproduced below.

Figure 9 shows an aspect of shadow analysis to distinguish between
an object hovering over a surface and one touching the surface. Wilson
¶ 15. As shown in the top image of Figure 9, the finger on the left is
hovering above the surface whereas the finger on the right is touching the
surface. See Wilson ¶ 49. Wilson describes that the height of the finger
position with respect to the surface on the left can be determined “if the
finger and its shadow are matched to each other and tracked.” Wilson ¶ 49.
We agree with Appellant that Wilson’s shadow area refers to an area
in which the projected light does not reach the background surface. Rather,
the shadow is cast by the foreground object (e.g., a finger) blocking the
Appeal 2020-000464
Application 15/390,891

8
projected light from the surface. As such, we disagree with the Examiner
that Wilson’s “shadow region reads on [(Appellant’s claimed)] occlusion
region.” See Ans. 3.
Moreover, although there may be an occlusion region in Wilson, due
to disparate spacing between an illuminant (i.e., transmitter) and Wilson’s
cameras (i.e., receiver), this region is not described in the identified portions
of Wilson; nor is it relied on to determine a distance between a foreground
object and a background surface.
For the reasons discussed supra, we are persuaded of Examiner error.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent
claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1). For similar reasons, we do not sustain
the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 9 and 14, which recite
similar limitations. In addition, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) of dependent claims 2–6, 12, 13, and 15–18.

Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103
The Examiner rejected claims 7, 8, 10, 11, 19, and 20 over the
combined teachings of Wilson and Huebner. Final Act. 3–5. Claims 7, 8,
10, 11, 19, and 20 depend directly or indirectly from one of independent
claims 1, 9, and 14.
On this record, the Examiner has not relied on, or explained how, the
additionally cited reference—Huebner (alone or in combination)—could
overcome the deficiency in Wilson discussed above for claim 1. Hence, for
the reasons discussed for claim 1, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection
of claims 7, 8, 10, 11, 19, and 20.

Appeal 2020-000464
Application 15/390,891

9
CONCLUSION
We reverse the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–6, 9, and 12–
18 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1).
We reverse the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 7, 8, 10, 11, 19,
and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.

DECISION SUMMARY
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–6, 9, 12–
18
102(a)(1) Wilson 1–6, 9,
12–18
7, 8, 10, 11,
19, 20
103 Wilson, Huebner 7, 8, 10,
11, 19, 20
Overall
Outcome
1–20

REVERSED