THE BOEING COMPANY

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardNov 27, 2020

2019003602 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 27, 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. 15/635,292 06/28/2017 Brian Tillotson 17-0197-US- NP (800-217US) 7146 107112 7590 11/27/2020 The Small Patent Law Group LLC 225 S. Meramec, Suite 725 St. Louis, MO 63105 EXAMINER IMPERIAL, JED-JUSTIN ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2612 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 11/27/2020 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): docket@splglaw.com patentadmin@boeing.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte BRIAN TILLOTSON ____________________ Appeal 2019-003602 Application 15/635,292 Technology Center 2600 ____________________ Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, JEREMY J. CURCURI, and IRVIN E. BRANCH, Administrative Patent Judges. MacDONALD, 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 to reject claims 1–20. Appeal Br. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as The Boeing Company. Appeal Br. 4. Appeal 2019-003602 Application 15/635,292 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Claims 1 and 5 are illustrative of the claimed subject matter (emphasis, formatting, and bracketed material added): 1. A display adaptation system for a vehicle, the display adaptation system comprising: [A.] a display that is configured to show one or more features; [B.] a motion sensor that is configured to detect motion of the vehicle, wherein the motion sensor outputs a motion signal indicative of the motion of the vehicle; and [C.] a motion-compensating control unit in communication with the display and the motion sensor, [i.] wherein the motion-compensating control unit is configured to analyze the motion signal to determine the motion of the vehicle, and [ii.] wherein the motion-compensating control unit is configured to move the one or more features shown on the display based on the motion of the vehicle. 5. The display adaptation system of claim 1, further comprising[:] [D.] an impulse response determination control unit in communication with the motion-compensating control unit, [i.] wherein the impulse response determination control unit is configured to associate a plurality of impulse responses of one or more individuals with one or more motions of the vehicle, and [ii.] wherein the motion-compensating control unit is configured to move the one or more features shown on the display in relation to one or more of the plurality of impulse responses associated with the detected motion of the vehicle. Appeal 2019-003602 Application 15/635,292 3 REFERENCES2 The Examiner relies on the following references: Name Reference Date Zeng US 2012/0116662 A1 May 10, 2012 Kim US 2016/0140391 A1 May 19, 2016 Kusens US 2016/0324460 A1 Nov. 10, 2016 Lawrence US 2017/0064157 A1 Mar. 2, 2017 REJECTIONS A. § 102 - Lawrence The Examiner rejects claims 1–5, 8, 10–14, and 17–19 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lawrence. Final Act. 3–12. We select claims 1 and 5 as the representative claims for this rejection. To the extent that Appellant discusses claims 2–4, 8, 10–14, and 17–19, Appellant merely repeats the arguments (Appeal Br. 11–18) directed to claims 1 and 5. Appeal Br. 18–25. Such a repeated argument (or referenced argument) is not an argument for “separate patentability.” Thus, the rejection of these claims turns on our decisions as to claims 1 and 5. Except for our ultimate decision, we do not address the merits of this § 102 rejection of claims 2–4, 8, 10–14, and 17–19 further herein. B. § 103 The Examiner rejects claims 6, 7, 9, 15, 16, and 20, under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Lawrence in various combinations with Kim, Kusens, and Zeng. Final Act. 13–19. 2 All citations herein to patent and pre-grant publication references are by reference to the first named inventor only. Appeal 2019-003602 Application 15/635,292 4 To the extent that Appellant discusses claims 6, 7, 9, 15, 16, and 20, Appellant merely refers to the arguments directed to claim 1. Appeal Br. 25. Such a referenced argument (or repeated argument) is not an argument for “separate patentability.” Thus, the rejection of these claims turns on our decision as to claim 1. Except for our ultimate decision, we do not address the merits of the § 103 rejections of claims 6, 7, 9, 15, 16, and 20 further herein. OPINION We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s Appeal Brief and Reply Brief arguments. A. Claim 1 A.1. First Argument As to “a motion sensor that is configured to detect motion of a vehicle, wherein the motion sensor outputs a motion signal indicative of the motion of the vehicle” (Appeal Br. 11 (emphasis omitted)), Appellant raises the following arguments in contending that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated. See Appeal Br. 11–13. Lawrence discloses a system that tracks movement of a viewer’s eyes, face, and/or head in relation to a camera and a display. Lawrence does not track motion of a vehicle. Appeal Br. 11 (emphasis added). Lawrence discloses detecting motion of the “device,” but not the vehicle, in relation to motion jitter. . . . The device is moveable independent of a setting that contains the device. For example, a user may move the device. Appeal 2019-003602 Application 15/635,292 5 The device may fall off a surface. The device may be jostled by an individual. In short, while Lawrence discloses detecting motion of the device, there is nothing in Lawrence that expressly or necessarily describes, teaches, or suggests that the device motion sensor 610 detects motion of a vehicle. Appeal Br. 12 (emphasis added). Again, though, the motion sensor detects motion of the device, not the vehicle. Just because the device 110 is affixed to a vehicle platform does not necessarily mean that the motion of the vehicle is being detected. Further, motion of the device 110 within the vehicle is distinct from motion of the vehicle. Motion of the device 110 as detected by the “device motion sensor 610” cannot be used to accurately detect motion of the vehicle for a variety of reasons including that the device likely reacts differently to motion of a setting in which the device resides, a motion of the device does not necessarily correspond to motion of the vehicle, the device within the vehicle is able to move independently of the vehicle, whether or not affixed to a platform or not, and/or the like. Appeal Br. 12–13 (emphasis added). The Examiner responds: As noted, [Lawrence paragraph 26 and figure 1A] show that the device may be rigidly affixed to the vehicle platform such that the device motion jitter may be described by motion jitter vectors x1, y1, and z1, which are the motion jitter vectors of the vehicle. As such, the device motion jitter signal/data determined may also be viewed as the motion signal indicative of the motion of the vehicle. Ans. 5. We are unpersuaded by Appellant’s arguments. Contrary to Appellant’s arguments, we agree with the Examiner that motion of the device 110 within the vehicle is not distinct from motion of the vehicle. The “rigidly affixed” (Lawrence ¶ 26) premise of Lawrence’s Figure 1A Appeal 2019-003602 Application 15/635,292 6 precludes Appellant’s argued “[t]he device is moveable independent of a setting that contains the device.” Appeal Br. 12. A.2. Second Argument As to “a motion-compensating control unit that is configured to analyze the motion signal to determine the motion of the vehicle” (Appeal Br. 13 (emphasis omitted)), Appellant repeats the above arguments in contending that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated. See Appeal Br. 13–16. Again, we are unpersuaded by Appellant’s arguments for the reasons set forth above. Therefore, we agree with the Examiner’s determination that Lawrence anticipates claim 1. B. Claim 5 B.1. First Argument As to “an impulse response determination control unit” (Appeal Br. 16 (emphasis omitted)), again, Appellant repeats the above arguments in contending that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated. See Appeal Br. 16–18. Again, we are unpersuaded by Appellant’s arguments for the reasons set forth above. B.2. Second Argument Appellant raises the following argument in contending that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated. See Appeal Br. 16–18. Lawrence does not expressly or necessarily describe, teach, or suggest associating impulse responses of an Appeal 2019-003602 Application 15/635,292 7 individual with motions of a vehicle. Further, Lawrence does not expressly or necessarily describe, teach, or suggest moving features on a display in relation to impulse responses associated with detected motion of a vehicle. Appeal Br. 17. The Examiner responds: [A]s noted/shown previously in the Final Rejection, dated 06/27/2018, Lawrence is viewed to teach/suggest the impulse response determination unit configured to associate a plurality of impulse responses of one or more individuals with one or more motions of the vehicle and move the one or more features shown on the display in relation to one or more of the plurality of impulse responses associated with the detected motion of the vehicle in paragraph [0060] and corresponding Figure 6. Ans. 9. We are unpersuaded by Appellant’s argument. Contrary to Appellant’s argument, we agree with the Examiner that an impulse response determination unit configured to associate a plurality of impulse responses of one or more individuals with one or more motions of the vehicle . . . is shown by “tracked object jitter signal/data indicative of relative motion jitter between display device 600 and the device viewer.” Final Act. 6 (emphasis omitted). Further, that Lawrence determines an individual’s motions is reinforced at paragraph 26. Viewer 110 is likewise physically coupled to vehicle platform 105, for example sitting or standing in vehicle platform 105. The physical coupling between the vehicle and the display viewer’s head or eyes may be mathematically described by a “head/eye motion jitter” transfer function H2(s), relating the input X1 associated with motion jitter vectors x1, y1, and z1 to an output Y2 associated with motion jitter vectors x2 , y2, and z2. Transfer function H2(s) is generally not unity and can be expected to Appeal 2019-003602 Application 15/635,292 8 change over time as viewer 110 adjusts their physical coupling to vehicle platform 105. Lawrence ¶ 26. We agree with the Examiner’s determination that Lawrence anticipates claim 5. CONCLUSION The Examiner has not erred in rejecting claims 1–5, 8, 10–14, and 17– 19 as being anticipated by Lawrence under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1). The Examiner has not erred in rejecting claims 6, 7, 9, 15, 16, and 20 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1–5, 8, 10– 14, 17–19 102(a)(1) Lawrence 1–5, 8, 10– 14, 17–19 6 103 Lawrence, Kim 6 7 103 Lawrence, Zeng 7 9, 16, 20 103 Lawrence, Kusens 9, 16, 20 15 103 Lawrence, Kim, Zeng 15 Overall Outcome 1–20 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