Misapplied Sciences, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardMar 18, 2021

2019006526 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 18, 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. 15/002,158 01/20/2016 Albert Han Ng 3081-003US1 7031 22897 7590 03/18/2021 Kaplan Breyer Schwarz, LLP 90 Matawan Road, Suite 201 Matawan, NJ 07747 EXAMINER MIDKIFF, AARON ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2621 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/18/2021 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): docketing@kbsiplaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte ALBERT HAN NG, PAUL HENRY DIETZ, and DAVID STEVEN THOMPSON Appeal 2019-006526 Application 15/002,158 Technology Center 2600 Before ALLEN R. MACDONALD, BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, and ADAM J. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judges. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s rejection. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM IN PART. 1 Herein, “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Misapplied Sciences, Inc. Appeal Br. 3. Appeal 2019-006526 Application 15/002,158 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction The Application is directed to “provid[ing] a way to deliver ‘personalized’ or ‘differentiated’ content to viewers” using “one or more multi-view displays (MVDs) . . . . [that] operate[] by controlling the images presented to different viewing locations, each of which locations ha[s] a unique viewing angle with respect to each pixel in the MVD.” Spec. ¶¶ 5, 7. Claims 1–7 and 9–22 are pending; claims 1 and 13 are independent. Appeal Br. 23–25. Claim 1 is reproduced below for reference (emphasis added): 1. A method for providing differentiated content, via a multi- view display, to a plurality of viewers in a viewing space, the method comprising: determining a location of each of the viewers in the viewing space; establishing a set of characteristics for each of the viewers; and generating, via a content-generation system, differentiated content for presentation to each of the viewers via the multi-view display, wherein the differentiated content generated for an associated viewer is inferred by the content-generation system based on the set of characteristics established for the associated viewer. References and Rejections The Examiner relies on the following prior art: Name Reference Date Zacks US 2005/0195330 A1 Sept. 8, 2005 Karaoguz US 2011/0159929 A1 June 30, 2011 Yuan US 2013/0093752 A1 Apr. 18, 2013 Itoh US 2015/0062314 A1 Mar. 5, 2015 Appeal 2019-006526 Application 15/002,158 3 Claims 1–4, 9, 10, and 12–22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Karaoguz in view of Zacks. Final Act. 5–16. Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Karaoguz, Zacks, and further in view of Yuan. Final Act. 16, 17. Claims 6, 7, 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Karaoguz, Zacks, and further in view of Itoh. Final Act. 17–19. ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s arguments. Arguments Appellant could have made, but chose not to make, are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). Independent Claim 1 Appellant argues the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 is in error: [T]he combined teachings of Kara[oguz] and Zacks (namely, Kara[oguz]’s disclosure of determining viewer head orientation, etc., to know where to deliver the content requested by a viewer, and Zacks’ disclosure of using viewer profiles to establish viewing privileges, and filtering or “gating” a viewer’s request for particular content using such viewing privileges) does not disclose or suggest appellant’s claimed method. In particular, those references do not disclose or suggest the limitation of “generating, via a content-generation system, differentiated content for presentation to each of the viewers via the multi-view display, wherein the differentiated content generated for an associated viewer is inferred by the content-generation system based on the set of characteristics established for the associated viewer.” Appeal Br. 17. Appeal 2019-006526 Application 15/002,158 4 Appellant presents a Declaration by one of the inventors, Paul H. Dietz (The “Declaration”), which states “that Zacks discloses the use of viewer characteristics to filter content, rather than infer content as disclosed in” the claims. Declaration ¶ 12; see Appeal Br. 16, 17. We have reviewed Appellant’s arguments and Declaration, but we are not persuaded of Examiner error. Particularly, we disagree with Appellant that “Zacks discloses nothing more than simply filtering content” “after users of the system have made their content selections,” as alleged by Appellant.2 Contra Declaration ¶ 29, 30. Rather, we agree with the Examiner that Zacks teaches differentiated content is “inferred,” as understood by one of ordinary skill and consistent with the Specification. See Ans. 4, 7; Spec. ¶ 12 (“In some embodiments, content is pre-generated and loaded from a database . . . .[, and] a server selects, from a media database, the image or video to display to a viewer based on their demographics or inferred preferences.”); see also Spec. ¶¶ 45, 60, 79. Zacks discloses that “people in presentation space A can be classified as adults and children,” each having different associated viewing privileges (e.g., based on MPAA ratings). Zacks ¶ 93; see also Ans. 5; Zacks ¶ 88. Zacks further describes “the control system … determines that different content is to be presented to different portions of the presentation space A, based on the height of the people” which indicates their ages, so that “[c]ontent specific to each person is then presented via presentation system.” 2 Moreover, although we do not reach the issue of whether such filtering teaches or suggests the disputed limitations, we note Appellant does not respond to the Examiner’s finding that claim 1 does not preclude selection of content by a viewer using a content generation system. See Ans. 7. Appeal 2019-006526 Application 15/002,158 5 Zacks ¶ 97; see also Ans. 6; Zacks ¶ 96. We find Zacks’ display process— including determining that different content is presented to different people based on height or age—to teach or suggest the claimed method of generating content “inferred by the content-generation system based on the set of characteristics established for the associated viewer.”3 See Final Act. 6. Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1 is in error. We sustain this rejection and the rejections of claims 1–4, 6, 7, and 9–22, for which Appellant has not presented separate substantive arguments. See Appeal Br. 17, 18, 21. Dependent Claim 5 Claim 5 recites “[t]he method of claim 1 wherein determining a location further comprises using a model to predict a future location of a viewer based on the viewer’s behavior.” Appeal Br. 23. Appellant argues the Examiner errs in citing to Yuan for these limitations because Yuan’s “system is telling a viewer to move to a particular location.” Appeal Br. 19. Appellant contends Yuan’s movement directions neither are a “model” as claimed, nor are they based on anything “reasonably construed as a ‘behavior.’” Id. at 20. We are persuaded the Examiner’s rejection is in error. Yuan, as cited by the Examiner, teaches, “[i]f one or more viewers are not properly located 3 Separately, we note Zacks also discloses “signal processor 332 and/or controller 334 can automatically determine whether such persons are authorized to observe any content, to determine content for presentation to authorized persons and to determine viewing areas for such authorized persons.” Zacks ¶ 89 (emphasis added). Appeal 2019-006526 Application 15/002,158 6 . . . the auto stereoscopic display will . . . direct the viewers to move to a more suitable position.” Yuan ¶ 32; see Ans. 8, 9. This “suitable position” is based on the properties of the display or locations of other viewers; it is not a prediction based on the viewer’s behavior, as required by claim 5. See Yuan ¶¶ 32, 34. Accordingly, we agree with Appellant that the Examiner has not established the cited references teach or suggest all limitations of claim 5. We do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of dependent claim 5. DECISION SUMMARY Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1–4, 9, 10, 12–22 103 Karaoguz, Zacks 1–4, 9, 10, 12–22 5 103 Karaoguz, Zacks, Yuan 5 6, 7, 11 103 Karaoguz, Zacks, Itoh 6, 7, 11 Overall Outcome 1–4, 6, 7, 9– 22 5 TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE 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. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED IN PART