VALVE CORPORATION

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jun 1, 2021

2020001519 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 1, 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.
15/258,551 09/07/2016 Yasser Malaika 930181.434 3269
155691 7590 06/01/2021
Seed IP Law Group/Valve (930181)
701 FIFTH AVE
SUITE 5400
SEATTLE, WA 98104
EXAMINER
NIRJHAR, NASIM NAZRUL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2482
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/01/2021 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):
USPTOeAction@SeedIP.com
pairlinkdktg@seedip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte YASSER MALAIKA and DAN NEWELL

Appeal 2020-001519
Application 15/258,551
Technology Center 2400

Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., DAVID M. KOHUT, and
IRVIN E. BRANCH, Administrative Patent Judges.

PER CURIAM

DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 2, 4–7, and 9–14.2 We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use “Appellant” to reference the applicant as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as “Valve
Corporation.” Appeal Br. 2.
2 Claims 3, 8, and 15–18 are canceled. Appeal Br. 23, 25.
Appeal 2020-001519
Application 15/258,551

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant’s Invention
Appellant’s invention relates to “sensor fusion techniques in
computerized eye-tracking applications[,] such as in head-mounted displays
for virtual reality.” Spec. ¶ 2. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of
argued subject matter (emphasis added).
1. An eye-tracking apparatus, comprising:
an eye-tracking camera subsystem that captures sequential
two-dimensional samples representing images of an observation
field at a first resolution level and at a first sample rate, wherein
said observation field comprises a portion of a person’s eye
comprising a pupil, and the eye-tracking camera subsystem
generates a camera-based eye position estimate;
an optical flow sensor subsystem comprising a plurality of
optical flow sensors, each pointed at a different subregion of
said observation field, wherein each of said optical flow
sensors captures sequential samples representing optical flow
within its corresponding subregion at a resolution level lower
than said first resolution level and at a sample rate faster than
said first sample rate, and the optical flow sensor subsystem
generates a plurality of optical-flow-based eye position
estimates;
a sensor fusion circuit that combines said camera-based eye
position estimate from said eye-tracking camera subsystem and
said optical-flow-based eye position estimates from the optical
flow sensor subsystem to generate a final eye position estimate;
and
a noise squelching system that:
[1] receives said camera-based eye position estimate
from said eye-tracking camera subsystem;
[2] determines that a particular subset of said plurality
of optical flow sensors is occluded at any given time
Appeal 2020-001519
Application 15/258,551

3
based on said received camera-based eye position
estimate from said eye-tracking camera subsystem; and
[3] ignores the particular subset of said plurality of
optical flow sensors determined to be occluded.
Appeal Br. 22.
Rejections
Claims 1, 2, 4–7, 9, and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Mallinson and Raffle. Final Act. 4–11.
Claims 11–14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Mallinson, Raffle, and Saarikko. Final Act. 11–13.

Name Reference Date
Saarikko US 2015/0185475 A1 July 2, 2015
Mallinson US 2016/0364881 A1 Dec. 15, 2016
Raffle US 2017/0090557 A1 Mar. 30, 2017

OPINION
As to the rejections of claims 1, 2, 4–7, 9–14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103,
Appellant addresses only claim 1 with particularity. Appeal Br. 17 et seq.
We are unpersuaded of error in the rejections of the independent claims and
accordingly sustain the rejections for claims 1, 2, 4–7, and 9–14.
A first dispute on appeal is whether the applied prior art teaches or
suggests claim 1’s noise squelching system. Reply Br. 3–4; see also
Appeal Br. 17. Specifically, Appellant argues:
[T]he Examiner [finds the emphasized features of the
above-reproduced claim 1] are disclosed in . . . Mallinson.
Appellant respectfully disagrees. . . .
Appeal 2020-001519
Application 15/258,551

4
Applicant concedes that the Mallinson reference discloses
“disregarding” of some measurements. However, such
disregarding of measurements based on excessive deviation in
measurement values is entirely different from [the emphasized
features of the above reproduced claim 1.] . . . [Mallinson’s
i]ndividual measurements are disregarded based on the values
of the measurements themselves, i.e., whether the
measurements deviate substantially from the previous eye
movement pattern and are therefore deemed to be errors. . . .
In contrast, the claimed subject matter ignores a particular
subset of optical flow sensors based on an eye position estimate
received from a separate eye-tracking camera subsystem, not
based on the analyzed values of the sensor data obtained from
the optical flow sensors. . . . [U]sing the known spatial
relationship between each of the optical flow sensors and the
user’s eye, the system can determine which particular subset of
optical flow sensors are occluded at a given time, and can
automatically ignore measurements from such sensors during
that time without having to analyze the actual measurement
data from those optical flow sensors. Mallinson does not teach
or suggest this feature.
Reply Br. 3–4 (citing Mallinson ¶ 36); see also Appeal Br. 17–19. We are
unpersuaded of error because we disagree with Appellant’s three
contentions.
First, Appellant contends the Examiner relies on Mallinson, alone,
teaching or suggesting the emphasized features of the above-reproduced
claim 1 (Reply Br. 3–4 (block-quoted above)), whereas the Examiner relies
on a combination of Mallinson’s and Raffle’s teachings (Ans. 14–15).
Specifically, the Examiner finds Mallinson teaches software that analyzes
images of an eye to estimate the pupil’s location. Id. at 14. The Examiner
finds Raffle teaches hardware that images an eye via multiple sensors
respectively corresponded to different sections of the eye and software that
Appeal 2020-001519
Application 15/258,551

5
determines the sensors are occluded by blinking of the eye. Id. at 14–17.
The Examiner finds Mallinson teaches to disregard an image that
substantially deviates from prior images and thereby, in combination with
Raffle’s teaching to differentiate between images and occlusions of an eye,
suggests to ignore images of occlusions when determining an eye pupil
location. Id. at 15 (citing Mallinson ¶ 36). In other words, the Examiner
proposes a combination of Mallinson’s and Raffle’s teachings that can:
differentiate between an image of an eye and an image of an eye occlusion
caused by blinking; and, when seeking to determine an eye pupil location,
ignores the images of occlusions (i.e., during a blink) because they
substantially differ from the images of the eye. Id. at 14–17. As Appellant
has not addressed the Examiner’s specific findings, we are not persuaded of
Examiner error.
Second, Appellant contends claim 1 requires the invention to
determine an occlusion of only some sensors (Reply Br. 3–4 (block-quoted
above)), e.g., as opposed to an occlusion of all pupil sensors that would be
caused by a blink. However, we find that claim 1 does not require the
invention to determine an occlusion of only some sensors. Rather, we find
that claim 1 requires the invention to “determine[] that a particular subset
. . . of optical flow sensors is occluded” and “ignore[] the particular subset . .
. of optical flow sensors.” A plain meaning of “subset” is “a set consisting
of elements of a given set that can be the same as the given set or smaller.”
SUBSET. Dictionary.com (emphasis added), available at https://
www.dictionary.com/browse/subset; see also SUBSET. Merriam Webster
Dictionary, available at https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/
subset (“a set each of whose elements is an element of an inclusive set”).
Appeal 2020-001519
Application 15/258,551

6
Thus, though the term “subset” often references a part of a set (e.g., {A} is a
subset of {A, B}), it may also reference an entire set (e.g., {A, B} is also a
subset of {A, B}). In turn, the Examiner has a reasonable basis to construe
the occluded “subset of said plurality of optical flow sensors” (claim 1) as an
entirety of the optical flow sensors. Thus, we agree with the Examiner’s
finding and are not persuaded of Examiner error.
Third, Appellant contends claim 1 requires the invention to entirely
disregard (i.e., never analyze the outputs of) occluded sensors based on data
received from the eye-tracking camera subsystem (Reply Br. 3–4
(block-quoted above)). However, we find that claim 1 does not require the
invention to entirely disregard the occluded sensors. Rather, we find that
claim 1 requires the invention to “ignore[] the . . . optical flow sensors.”
Thus, the Examiner has a reasonable basis to construe the claimed “ignores
the . . . optical flow sensors” as meaning the sensors: output data that is
analyzed by the eye-tracking camera subsystem (e.g., formed into images)
and determined by the subsystem to be outlier data; are thereby estimated by
the subsystem to be occluded; and are then consequently, based on their
estimated occlusion, “ignored” by discarding their output data (e.g., by
discarding the respective images). See supra 4–5 (explaining the
Examiner’s proposed combination of Mallinson’s and Raffle’s teachings).
Thus, we agree with the Examiner’s finding and are not persuaded of
Examiner error.
A second dispute on appeal is whether the applied prior art teaches or
suggests the claimed optical flow sensor subsystem. Appeal Br. 19.
Specifically, Appellant argues:
Claim 1 also recites “a plurality of optical flow sensors, each
pointed at a different subregion of said observation field[.]” . .
Appeal 2020-001519
Application 15/258,551

7
. [T]he Examiner asserts that Raffle provides this missing
limitation . . . at paragraphs [0026] and [0049]. . . .
. . . Raffle appears to disclose (1) multiple sensors that
correspond to one or more eye regions, and (2) a sensor
focusing on one of several regions associated with an eye.
However, Raffle does not teach or suggest the claimed
“plurality of optical flow sensors, each [of the optical flow
sensors] pointed at a different subregion of said observation
field.” Rather, Raffle is silent regarding the relative pointing
directions of each of a plurality of optical flow sensors.
Id. (original use of bracketed language); see also Reply Br. 4. We are
unpersuaded of error because Appellant does not provide sufficient evidence
or reasoning to show that the Examiner erred in how an artisan would have
understood Raffle’s teachings.
The Examiner finds Raffle would be understood as teaching that the
sensors can sense respective regions of an eye. See Ans. 14, 16–17; Final
Act. 8–9. We agree in view of Raffle’s statements that: a “sensor array”
(Raffle ¶ 25) may “capture sensor data corresponding to . . . eye regions” (id.
¶ 26) such as “the corners of the eye[] or other regions associated with an
eye” (id.); “sensors may be positioned in a manner that focuses upon a
subsection of the user’s eye” (id. ¶ 28); and “[t]he positioning of sensors . .
. may enable the [device] to extract information from an eye region” (id.
¶ 88). Raffle thereby conveys a sensor array (e.g., a line of sensors) that, as
image sensor arrays typically do, positions its sensors to image respective
sections of an overall field of view (i.e., that ascribes a sensor or group of
sensors to each section).
Appellant does not dispute that an artisan would have understood
Raffle in this manner, but rather argues that Raffle does not state “the
relative pointing directions of each of a plurality of optical flow sensors”
Appeal 2020-001519
Application 15/258,551

8
(above block quote). Raffle’s inclusion of such a statement is not
determinative of whether an artisan would have understood Raffle as
teaching sensors that image respective sections of an eye. See KSR Int’l Co.
v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (“[Obviousness] analysis need not
seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the
challenged claim[. A] court can take account of the inferences . . . a person
of ordinary skill in the art would employ.”). As such, we are not persuaded
that the Examiner’s finding is in error.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject
claims 1, 2, 4–7, and 9–14.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 2, 4–7,
9, 10 103 Mallinson, Raffle
1, 2, 4–7,
9, 10
11–14 103 Mallinson, Raffle, Saarikko 11–14
Overall
Outcome
1, 2, 4–7,
9–14

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