Sony Interactive Entertainment Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jun 30, 2021

2020000885 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 30, 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.
15/747,225 01/24/2018 Takayuki Shinohara 545-636 3808
27538 7590 06/30/2021
Dernier IP Law, LLC
89 Headquarters Plaza North
PMB 1469
Morristown, NJ 07960
EXAMINER
CERULLO, LILIANA P
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2621
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/30/2021 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):
info@gdiplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
________________ 

Ex parte TAKAYUKI SHINOHARA
________________

Appeal 2020-000885
Application 15/747,225
Technology Center 2600
________________

Before JOHNNY A. KUMAR, STACEY G. WHITE, and
JASON J. CHUNG, Administrative Patent Judges.

CHUNG, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals the Final Rejection
of claims 1–3 and 5–9.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
INVENTION
The invention relates to display video images on a video display
apparatus worn on the head of a user. Spec. ¶ 1. Claim 1 is illustrative of
the invention and is reproduced below with emphases denoting the disputed
limitations:

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. According to Appellant, Sony Interactive Entertainment
Inc. is the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 2.
2 Claim 4 was indicated as cancelled in the claims filed on April 29, 2019.
Appeal 2020-000885
Application 15/747,225

2
1. An information processing apparatus connected to a
video display apparatus worn on a head of a user, the information
processing apparatus comprising:
an acquisition block configured to acquire a direction of
the video display apparatus;
a target image display control block configured to display
a target image to be updated in conjugation with a change in a
direction of the video display apparatus onto the video display
apparatus; and
an enlarged image display control block configured to
display an enlarged image obtained by enlarging a part of the
target image onto the video display apparatus,
wherein the enlarged image display control block displays
the enlarged image by superimposing the enlarged image on the
target image with a size smaller than that of a display area of the
target image, and
wherein the enlarged image display control block displays,
as the enlarged image, an image obtained by enlarging an
enlarged target area that is a part of the target image, if a direction
of the video display apparatus matches a predetermined
reference direction, the enlarged image display control block
matches a center of the enlarged target area with a center of the
target image and, if a direction of the video display apparatus
shifts from the reference direction, shifts the center of the
enlarged target area to a position near an outer periphery of the
target image.
Appeal Br. 12 (Claims Appendix) (emphases added).

REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejects claims 1 and 5–9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over the combination of Sako (US 2008/0062297 A1;
published Mar. 13, 2008) and Inagaki (US 5,742,264; issued Apr. 21, 1998).
Final Act. 5–9.
Appeal 2020-000885
Application 15/747,225

3
The Examiner rejects claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over the combination of Sako, Inagaki, and Akifusa (US
2011/0304714 A1; published Dec. 15, 2011). Final Act. 9–10.
The Examiner rejects claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over the combination of Sako, Inagaki, and Takahashi (US
2015/0293362 A1; foreign application priority date Nov. 13, 2012). Final
Act. 10.
ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds Sako teaches an enlarged head AR2 of a human
that is superimposed on image AR1, which the Examiner maps to the
limitations “an enlarged image obtained by enlarging a part of the target
image” and “superimposing the enlarged image” recited in claim 1 (and
similarly recited in claims 6–9). Ans. 3 (citing Sako, Fig. 9B); Final Act. 5
(citing Sako, Fig. 9B). Moreover, the Examiner finds Inagaki teaches when
a viewer is facing the front, target object 224 such as clothing is overlaid
onto human 220, which the Examiner maps to the limitation “if a direction
of the video display apparatus matches a predetermined reference direction,
the . . . image display control block matches a center of the . . . target area
with a center of the target image” recited in claim 1. Ans. 4 (citing Inagaki,
25:15–27:46, Figs. 22A, 22B); Final Act. 6 (citing Inagaki, 25:15–27:46,
Figs. 21, 22A, 22B). In addition, the Examiner finds Inagaki teaches when
the viewer rotates their head to the left as the user faces the front, the image
appears at address E on the right on a liquid-crystal panel, which the
Examiner maps to the limitation “if a direction of the video display
apparatus shifts from the reference direction, shifts the center of the . . .
target area to a position near an outer periphery of the target image” recited
Appeal 2020-000885
Application 15/747,225

4
in claim 1. Ans. 4 (citing Inagaki, 25:15–27:46, Figs. 22A, 22B); Final Act.
6 (citing Inagaki, 25:15–27:46, Figs. 21, 22A, 22B). The Examiner
concludes that a person having ordinary skill in the art (hereinafter
“PHOSITA”) at the time of the invention would combine Sako and Inagaki
to obtain the benefit of rotating the image to match the background image
when a user rotates their head. Final Act. 6 (citing Inagaki, 27:3–9).
Appellant argues Sako fails to teach superimposing an enlarged image
on the target image such that a center of an enlarged target area thereof is
matched with a center of the target image because (1) Sako merely teaches
an enlarged portion AR2 is static and fixed at the periphery of the display
and (2) Inagaki merely teaches that the target image is not enlarged, but
rather a reduced element to fit the size of human 227. Appeal Br. 8; Reply
Br. 2–3. Appellant argues Sako fails to teach moving the superimposed
enlarged image from the center of the target image to a position near an
outer periphery because (1) Sako merely teaches an enlarged portion AR2 is
static and fixed at the periphery of the display and (2) Inagaki merely
teaches that the target image is not enlarged, but rather a reduced element to
fit the size of human 227. Appeal Br. 8; Reply Br. 2–3. Appellant argues
the Examiner engages in improper hindsight reasoning to reach the
conclusion that a PHOSITA would combine Sako and Inagaki. Appeal Br.
9; Reply Br. 3. We disagree with Appellant.
As an initial matter, one cannot show nonobviousness “by attacking
references individually” where the rejections are based on combinations of
references. In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (citing
In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981)). In this case, the Examiner
relies on the combination of Sako and Inagaki to teach the italicized
Appeal 2020-000885
Application 15/747,225

5
limitations on page 2 above.
In particular, Sako teaches an enlarged head AR2 (i.e., an enlarged
image) of a human (i.e., target image) that is superimposed on image AR1,
which teaches the limitations “an enlarged image obtained by enlarging a
part of the target image” and “superimposing the enlarged image” recited in
claim 1 (and similarly recited in claims 6–9). Ans. 3 (citing Sako, Fig. 9B;
Final Act. 5 (citing Sako, Fig. 9B); see also Ans. 3 (citing Inagaki, 9:12–19
(discussing magnification)).
Furthermore, Inagaki teaches when a viewer is facing the front (i.e., if
a direction of the video display apparatus matches a predetermined reference
direction), target object 224 such as clothing is overlaid onto human 220
(i.e., matches a center of the target area with a center of a target image),
which teaches the limitation “if a direction of the video display apparatus
matches a predetermined reference direction, the . . . image display control
block matches a center of the . . . target area with a center of the target
image” recited in claim 1. Ans. 4 (citing Inagaki, 25:15–27:46, Figs. 22A,
22B); Final Act. 6 (citing Inagaki, 25:15–27:46, Figs. 21, 22A, 22B). Also,
Inagaki teaches when the viewer rotates their head to the left as the user
faces the front (i.e., if a direction of the video display apparatus shifts from
the reference direction), the image appears at address E (i.e., shifts the center
of the target area to a position near an outer periphery of the target image) on
the right on a liquid-crystal panel, which teaches the limitation “if a direction
of the video display apparatus shifts from the reference direction, shifts the
center of the . . . target area to a position near an outer periphery of the target
image” recited in claim 1. Ans. 4 (citing Inagaki, 25:15–27:46, Figs. 22A,
22B); Final Act. 6 (citing Inagaki, 25:15–27:46, Figs. 21, 22A, 22B).
Appeal 2020-000885
Application 15/747,225

6
We disagree with Appellant’s impermissible hindsight argument.
Appeal Br. 9; Reply Br. 3. Appellant has not provided persuasive evidence
that combining the respective teachings of the references (as concluded by
the Examiner — Final Act. 6) would have been “uniquely challenging or
difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art,” or that such a combination
would have “represented an unobvious step over the prior art.” Leapfrog
Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
Nor has Appellant provided any objective indicia of non-obviousness,
which, as our reviewing court explains, “operate[] as a beneficial check on
hindsight.” Cheese Sys., Inc. v. Tetra Pak Cheese & Powder Sys., Inc., 725
F.3d 1341, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2013).
Appellant does not argue the claims separately with particularity.
Appeal Br. 7–9. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
(1) independent claims 1 and 6–93; and (2) dependent claims 2, 3, and 5
under 35 U.S.C. § 103.

3 Claim 7 is a method claim that recites two conditional limitations, which
are (1) “if a direction of the video display apparatus matches a
predetermined reference direction, the enlarged image displaying matches a
center of the enlarged target area with a center of the target image” and
(2) “if a direction of the video display apparatus shifts from the reference
direction, shifts the center of the enlarged target area to a position near an
outer periphery of the target image.” In the event of further prosecution, the
Examiner may want to evaluate claim 7 in light of Ex parte Schulhauser,
No. 2013-007847, 2016 WL 6277792 (PTAB Apr. 28, 2016) (precedential).
We note that these limitations are conditional, which means that only one of
these conditions need to be given patentable weight while the other
condition need not be given patentable weight. Ex parte Schulhauser, No.
2013-007847, 2016 WL 6277792 (PTAB Apr. 28, 2016) (precedential).
This only applies to the method claims.
Appeal 2020-000885
Application 15/747,225

7
We have only considered those arguments that Appellant actually
raised in the Briefs. Arguments Appellant could have made, but chose not to
make, in the Briefs have not been considered and are deemed to be waived.
See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).

CONCLUSION

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

AFFIRMED

Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 5–9 103 Sako, Inagaki 1, 5–9
2 103 Sako, Inagaki,
Akifusa
2
3 103 Sako, Inagaki,
Takahashi
3
Overall
Outcome
1–3, 5–9