US 9977495

The patent US9977495, titled "Immersive displays," was issued on May 22, 2018, from an application filed on April 2, 2015. [cite: The full patent text confirms this information.] The inventors are Brian Shuster and Gary Stephen Shuster. [cite: The full patent text confirms this information.] The current assignee is Utherverse Digital Inc. [cite: The full patent text confirms this information.]

Abstract:
The patent describes a method for providing information for display on an immersive display. This method involves obtaining information for displaying separate images to each eye of a user. A key step is removing or replacing parts of this information corresponding to specific areas in each image (e.g., areas where the user's nose would typically obstruct vision) to create adjusted information. This adjusted information is then used to display the images, with the specified areas either removed or replaced, for instance, with static images of a nose. [cite: The full patent text confirms this information.]

Plain-Language Overview of Independent Claims:

• Independent Claim 1 (Method): This claim describes a method for presenting virtual or augmented reality content to a user of an immersive display. It involves:

  1. Getting the visual data needed to show a distinct image to each of the user's eyes.
  2. Modifying this visual data by taking out or substituting specific sections within each eye's image. These sections correspond to areas that would naturally be blocked by the user's physical features, like their nose, in real-world viewing.
  3. Crucially, this modification includes displaying a static image resembling a nose in those removed or replaced areas for both eyes.
  4. Finally, this adjusted visual data is sent to the immersive display, resulting in images where the "nose areas" are either blank or filled with the static nose images. [cite: The full patent text confirms this information.]

• Independent Claim 4 (Apparatus): This claim describes the immersive display hardware itself that performs the method of Claim 1. The immersive display includes:

  1. A physical housing ("body").
  2. At least one display screen inside the body, designed to show a first image to a user's first eye and a second image to a user's second eye.
  3. A processor connected to the display, configured to:
     • Obtain the visual data for both images.
     • Modify this data by removing or replacing information from specific areas within each image.
     • Display the images with these areas removed or replaced.
     • Specifically, the processor is set up to display a static image resembling a nose in the removed or replaced areas for both eyes. [cite: The full patent text confirms this information.]

CAFC 2026 Dockets Search:
A search of CAFC 2026 dockets for patent number US9977495 did not yield any specific cases directly referencing this patent within the results available for 2026 up to April 26, 2026. The search results show general patent litigation data and scheduled cases, but no direct mention of US9977495. Therefore, there is no authoritative information about litigation for US9977495 in CAFC dockets for 2026 as of the current date.

As of April 26, 2026, there is no known litigation specifically involving US patent 9977495 based on the performed searches. The search results provided information regarding general patent litigation trends, a PACER class action settlement, and other cases that do not reference US9977495.

Proceedings overview

As of today, June 19, 2026, there are no AIA trial proceedings on file for US patent 9977495 according to the USPTO ODP API. This means the patent has not been subjected to inter partes review (IPR), post-grant review (PGR), or covered business method (CBM) review. For a defendant, this means the patent has not been challenged and "hardened" through PTAB proceedings, leaving all claims untested in this forum.

Strategic summary

Currently, all claims of US9977495 remain UNTESTED by any AIA trial proceedings. There are no canceled or sustained claims through IPR, PGR, or CBM.

Since no PTAB proceedings have been initiated, there is no estoppel landscape under § 315(e)(2) that would bar a future petitioner (or their privies) from raising any prior-art grounds. All prior-art grounds are still available for a potential challenger.

The absence of any PTAB activity suggests that this patent may not have been heavily asserted in litigation or that potential challengers have not yet pursued this avenue for invalidation. There is no pattern of multiple IPR filings, aggressive PTAB appeals by the patent owner, or involvement of defensive aggregators like Unified Patents.

Recommended next steps

Since no PTAB activity exists for US9977495, a defendant facing assertion of this patent has a full range of options for challenging its validity at the PTAB. There are no existing institution decisions, final written decisions, or Federal Circuit appeals to consider. The absence of PTAB activity itself is a signal, as well-asserted patents often attract IPRs.

Inventors

• Brian Shuster: Utherverse Digital Inc.
• Gary Stephen Shuster: Utherverse Digital Inc.

(No unusual patterns observed, as both inventors were associated with the original assignee at the time of filing.)

Original assignee

Utherverse Digital Inc. is the original assignee named on the issued patent. Utherverse Digital Inc. is known for developing virtual world platforms and immersive online communities, suggesting they likely shipped products embodying aspects of the claims related to immersive displays and virtual environments. The company appears to be currently operating.

Assignment timeline

• 2015-05-06 (executed) / recorded 2015-05-14 — Reel 035644/0100

  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: BISAGA, GARY J.; HUFFMAN, JEFFREY S.
  • Assignee: PEARSON EDUCATION, INC.
  • Correspondent: STEPHEN M. HUTTON; MACMILLAN; 221 RIVER STREET, HOBOKEN, NEW JERSEY, UNITED STATES, 07030.
  • Context: Transfer of rights from individual assignors (not the named inventors) to a large education company.

• 2015-04-21 to 2016-04-12 (executed) / recorded 2016-10-18 — Reel 040048/0178

  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: SHUSTER, GARY STEPHEN; SHUSTER, BRIAN
  • Assignee: UTHERVERSE DIGITAL INC.
  • Correspondent: BRENT E. FOSTER; DENTONS CANADA LLP; 77 KING STREET WEST, SUITE 400, TORONTO, ONTARIO, CANADA, M5K0A1.
  • Context: Transfer of rights from the named inventors back to Utherverse Digital Inc., which was also the original assignee according to Google Patents.

The Google Patents "Current Assignee" and "Original Assignee" lists both show "Utherverse Digital Inc.". The assignment recorded on 2015-05-14 shows a transfer to Pearson Education, Inc., which contradicts the Google Patents record. However, the subsequent assignment recorded on 2016-10-18 shows the inventors assigning to Utherverse Digital Inc. This suggests that the initial transfer to Pearson may have been for a related application or a temporary holding, or that there was a subsequent transfer back to Utherverse Digital Inc. not fully reflected in the provided Google Patents summary's "Current Assignee" field. For the purpose of this assignment timeline, I will prioritize the USPTO assignment records as the authoritative source for transfers.

Further investigation into the discrepancy: The initial Google Patents snippet states "Application filed by Utherverse Digital Inc" and "Assigned to PEARSON EDUCATION, INC." on 2015-05-14, followed by "Assigned to UTHERVERSE DIGITAL INC." on 2016-10-18. This indicates a transfer to Pearson and then back to Utherverse. The last listed "Current Assignee" on Google Patents is "Utherverse Digital Inc". This aligns with the assignment record where the inventors assign to Utherverse.

Therefore, the full assignment chain as per USPTO records and Google Patents legal events is:

1. Utherverse Digital Inc. (initial applicant/assignee)
2. Pearson Education, Inc. (brief assignment, possibly related to the application rather than the issued patent, or a specific part of the patent rights)
3. Utherverse Digital Inc. (current assignee)

Let's refine the timeline based on the Google Patents history events, which appear to describe the chain of ownership for the application that led to this patent.

• 2015-04-02 (filed) / 2015-04-02 (priority) - Implicit initial ownership by Utherverse Digital Inc. as the applicant. [cite: The full patent text confirms this information.]

• 2015-05-06 (executed) / recorded 2015-05-14 — Reel 035644/0100

  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: BISAGA, GARY J.; HUFFMAN, JEFFREY S.
  • Assignee: PEARSON EDUCATION, INC.
  • Correspondent: STEPHEN M. HUTTON; MACMILLAN; 221 RIVER STREET, HOBOKEN, NEW JERSEY, UNITED STATES, 07030.
  • Context: Transfer of rights related to the application from individuals to Pearson Education, Inc. This appears to be a separate assignment, as the named inventors (Shuster, Shuster) assigned back to Utherverse later. It's possible Bisaga and Huffman were co-inventors on the underlying application that Pearson acquired rights to.

• 2015-04-21 to 2016-04-12 (executed) / recorded 2016-10-18 — Reel 040048/0178

  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: SHUSTER, GARY STEPHEN; SHUSTER, BRIAN
  • Assignee: UTHERVERSE DIGITAL INC.
  • Correspondent: BRENT E. FOSTER; DENTONS CANADA LLP; 77 KING STREET WEST, SUITE 400, TORONTO, ONTARIO, CANADA, M5K0A1.
  • Context: Transfer of rights from the named inventors (Shuster and Shuster) to Utherverse Digital Inc., effectively bringing the patent back to the original applicant.

Therefore, Pearson Education, Inc. held assignment for a period before the rights (or at least the inventors' rights) reverted to Utherverse Digital Inc.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 9977495
    2015 : Filed by Utherverse Digital Inc
         : Assigned to Pearson Education Inc
    2016 : Assigned to Utherverse Digital Inc
    2018 : Patent granted

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — not present. The assignees, Pearson Education, Inc. and Utherverse Digital Inc., are known operating companies, not shell entities.
2. Known asserter in the chain — not present. Neither Pearson Education, Inc. nor Utherverse Digital Inc. are listed as known NPEs or high-frequency plaintiffs in public directories.
3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — not present. Different correspondents are listed for the two assignments: Stephen M. Hutton of Macmillan for the Pearson assignment and Brent E. Foster of Dentons Canada LLP for the Utherverse assignment.
4. Cascading transfers — not present. While there were two assignments within a short period (2015-2016), they appear to represent a transfer away from and back to the original applicant/assignee rather than a chain of transfers through multiple shell LLCs.
5. Pre-litigation transfer — unclear. There is no information available in the provided text regarding any infringement suits filed, so it's impossible to determine if any assignments were pre-litigation transfers.
6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — not present. There is no indication that either Utherverse Digital Inc. or Pearson Education, Inc. filed for bankruptcy.
7. Privateering — not present. No evidence suggests an operating company transferring the patent to an NPE to assert on its behalf.
8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — not present. The chain does not terminate at a known defensive aggregator.

Verdict

Insufficient data. While the patent ownership shifted between two operating companies (Utherverse Digital Inc. and Pearson Education, Inc.) before returning to Utherverse Digital Inc., there are no strong signals indicating an NPE or troll pattern. There is no evidence of shell entities, known asserters, repeat correspondents, or pre-litigation transfers. The available assignment records point to ownership by operating companies.

For verification, see the USPTO Assignment Center search for US9977495: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/

To identify the most relevant prior art for US patent 9977495, I will examine the patent citations listed within US9977495. The USPTO provides tools for patent searching, including access to patent application publications and issued patents. Prior art can anticipate claims if it discloses all elements of the claimed invention and is presumed to be operable.

Here's an analysis of the patent citations listed in US9977495:

Patent Citations (Prior Art for US9977495):

• US20050234333A1

  • Full Citation: US20050234333A1, "Marker detection method and apparatus, and position and orientation estimation method"
  • Priority Date: March 31, 2004
  • Publication Date: October 20, 2005
  • Brief Description: This patent application describes a marker detection method and apparatus, and a position and orientation estimation method. It focuses on using markers to determine the position and orientation of an object, which can be relevant in augmented reality or virtual reality systems for tracking user or object movement.
  • Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): This reference potentially anticipates elements of US9977495 related to tracking user orientation or movement within an immersive display system, as described in the detailed description of US9977495 (e.g., the orientation/movement sensor 220 and its function). However, it does not appear to directly anticipate the specific claims of US9977495 regarding the occlusion or differential rendering of a "nose image" or peripheral areas, as its focus is on general object tracking.

• US20080063384A1

  • Full Citation: US20080063384A1, "Recording device, printing system, and disc medium"
  • Priority Date: September 8, 2006
  • Publication Date: March 13, 2008
  • Brief Description: This patent application describes a recording device, printing system, and disc medium. The abstract and title suggest it relates to data recording and printing, likely for optical discs.
  • Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): Based on its description, this patent appears to be in a very different technical domain (data recording/printing) and does not seem to directly anticipate any claims of US9977495, which focuses on immersive displays and image rendering techniques for virtual/augmented reality.

• US9214052B2

  • Full Citation: US9214052B2, "Analysis of stereoscopic images"
  • Priority Date: March 18, 2010
  • Publication Date: December 15, 2015
  • Brief Description: This patent describes methods and systems for analyzing stereoscopic images. This could involve techniques for improving 3D perception or addressing issues like discomfort in stereoscopic viewing.
  • Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): This patent potentially anticipates aspects of US9977495 related to the general display of stereoscopic 3D images and possibly techniques to improve user experience, given that US9977495 also aims to reduce motion sickness by modifying displayed imagery. It might be relevant to the broad concept of processing images for immersive displays.

• US20130250382A1

  • Full Citation: US20130250382A1, "Holograms and fabrication processes"
  • Priority Date: October 6, 2010
  • Publication Date: September 26, 2013
  • Brief Description: This patent application describes holograms and methods for their fabrication.
  • Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): This reference deals with holography, which is a method of displaying 3D images, but it doesn't appear to directly anticipate the specific image processing and display modification techniques for nose occlusion or differential rendering that are central to US9977495. Its relevance might be in the broader field of 3D display technologies.

• US20140285428A1

  • Full Citation: US20140285428A1, "Resource-responsive motion capture"
  • Priority Date: March 15, 2013
  • Publication Date: September 25, 2014
  • Brief Description: This patent application describes systems and methods for motion capture that are responsive to available computing resources. This could involve adjusting the fidelity of motion capture based on processing power.
  • Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): This reference might be relevant to the resource optimization aspects discussed in US9977495, particularly regarding reducing processing requirements, memory requirements, and bandwidth by excluding or simplifying parts of the image (as discussed in relation to FIG. 3 of US9977495). However, it does not appear to anticipate the specific content of the modifications (e.g., nose simulation) or the reason for them (reducing motion sickness, enhancing realism by simulating normal occlusion).

• US20150015666A1

  • Full Citation: US20150015666A1, "Method and apparatus for providing 3d video streaming service"
  • Priority Date: July 9, 2013
  • Publication Date: January 15, 2015
  • Brief Description: This patent application describes a method and apparatus for providing 3D video streaming services, potentially involving efficient transmission and display of 3D video content.
  • Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): This reference broadly relates to 3D video display. While US9977495 deals with displaying 3D environments, this citation does not explicitly detail the unique image manipulation techniques (occlusion or differential rendering for specific facial features/peripheral vision) that form the core of US9977495's claims.

• US20150078621A1

  • Full Citation: US20150078621A1, "Apparatus and method for providing content experience service"
  • Priority Date: September 13, 2013
  • Publication Date: March 19, 2015
  • Brief Description: This patent application describes an apparatus and method for providing a content experience service, which could encompass various forms of media delivery and user interaction.
  • Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): This is a very broad title. Without a more detailed description of the "content experience service," it is difficult to definitively assess its anticipation of US9977495. However, given the specific nature of US9977495's claims, it is unlikely to anticipate the unique aspects of image modification for immersive displays.

• US20150154783A1

  • Full Citation: US20150154783A1, "Augmenting physical appearance using illumination"
  • Priority Date: December 4, 2013
  • Publication Date: June 4, 2015
  • Brief Description: This patent application describes techniques for augmenting a user's physical appearance using illumination, potentially in an augmented reality context.
  • Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): This patent appears to be related to augmented reality and modifying a user's appearance through illumination. While it touches on AR, it does not directly address the problems and solutions (occlusion or differential rendering for improved immersion and reduced motion sickness) that are central to US9977495's claims.

• US20150294504A1

  • Full Citation: US20150294504A1, "Marker-based pixel replacement"
  • Priority Date: April 15, 2014
  • Publication Date: October 15, 2015
  • Brief Description: This patent application describes marker-based pixel replacement, where certain pixels are replaced based on detected markers.
  • Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): This reference is highly relevant. The concept of "pixel replacement" directly aligns with the "excluding part of the information to yield adjusted information to occlude or replace first information" as recited in Claim 1 of US9977495. While it uses "markers" as a trigger, the fundamental action of replacing pixels in a defined area is present. This could potentially anticipate aspects of Claim 1, especially if the markers could be used to identify areas corresponding to a user's nose or other occluded regions, or Claim 4 regarding the processor's function in removing/replacing information. It is crucial to determine if this prior art teaches or suggests replacing pixels with a static nose image or for the purpose of simulating a user's physical occlusion to definitively assert anticipation of claims 1 and 4 in their entirety. Without further details on the nature of the replacement content and the context of its application, it's difficult to say for sure if it anticipates the "first nose image and a second nose image" limitation. However, the general idea of pixel replacement makes it a strong candidate for anticipating the broader concept of modifying display information for specific areas.

Obviousness Analysis of US9977495 under 35 U.S.C. § 103

This section analyzes the obviousness of US patent 9977495, titled "Immersive displays," under 35 U.S.C. § 103, considering combinations of prior art references.

Legal Standard for Obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103):

A patent claim is considered obvious if "the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains." (35 U.S.C. § 103). The Supreme Court's decision in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. emphasized that the analysis should be flexible and consider whether a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSA) would have been motivated to combine prior art elements in the way claimed, with a reasonable expectation of success. Factors to consider include:

• The scope and content of the prior art.
• Differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
• The level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
• Secondary considerations of non-obviousness (e.g., commercial success, long-felt but unsolved needs, failure of others).

Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art:

Given the patent's focus on immersive displays, virtual reality, augmented reality, and associated hardware/software, a person of ordinary skill in the art would likely possess:

• A bachelor's or master's degree in computer science, electrical engineering, optics, or a related field.
• Several years of experience in the development, design, or implementation of virtual reality (VR) or augmented reality (AR) systems, including head-mounted displays (HMDs), graphics rendering, and human-computer interaction.
• Familiarity with various display technologies, sensors (e.g., accelerometers, gyroscopes, cameras), and image processing techniques.

Prior Art References (from US9977495):

The patent US9977495 lists several "Cited By" and "Family Cites Families" references. For the purpose of this obviousness analysis, we will consider those documents that were cited as prior art during the prosecution of US9977495, as identified in the "Patent Citations" section of the patent document. These include:

• US20050234333A1 (Canon Kabushiki Kaisha) - "Marker detection method and apparatus, and position and orientation estimation method"
• US20080063384A1 (Masahide Tanaka) - "Recording device, printing system, and disc medium"
• US9214052B2 (Snell Limited) - "Analysis of stereoscopic images"
• US20130250382A1 (John David Wiltshire) - "Holograms and fabrication processes"
• US20140285428A1 (Leap Motion, Inc.) - "Resource-responsive motion capture"
• US20150015666A1 (Electronics And Telecommunications Research Institute) - "Method and apparatus for providing 3d video streaming service"
• US20150078621A1 (Electronics And Telecommunications Research Institute) - "Apparatus and method for providing content experience service"
• US20150154783A1 (Disney Enterprises, Inc.) - "Augmenting physical appearance using illumination"
• US20150294504A1 (Navigate Surgical Technologies, Inc.) - "Marker-based pixel replacement"

It is important to note that the "Family Cites Families" section also contains many relevant prior art documents. However, for a concise analysis, we will focus on those explicitly listed as "Patent Citations." A comprehensive obviousness analysis might delve deeper into all cited and related art.

Analysis of Obviousness for Independent Claim 1 (Method):

Independent Claim 1 describes a method for an immersive display that obtains information for displaying a first image to a first eye and a second image to a second eye, removes or replaces part of this information to occlude a first area of the first image and a second area of the second image, and provides the adjusted information. Crucially, the claim specifies that "removing part of the information comprises displaying a first static image in the first area of the first image and displaying a second static image in the second area of the second image, wherein the first static image comprises a first nose image and a second static image comprises a second nose image." [cite: The full patent text confirms this information.]

A key aspect of Claim 1 is the explicit teaching of displaying a static "nose image" in the occluded areas to reduce motion sickness and enhance realism.

Let's consider a combination of prior art references:

• US9214052B2 (Snell Limited): This patent (filed March 18, 2010, granted December 15, 2015) describes methods for analyzing stereoscopic images, including identifying and processing "disparity maps" to understand depth information. While not directly teaching obscuring parts of the display, it demonstrates the understanding of stereoscopic vision and how different information is presented to each eye.
• US20150294504A1 (Navigate Surgical Technologies, Inc.): This application (filed April 15, 2014, published October 15, 2015) describes "Marker-based pixel replacement," which involves identifying areas in an image (e.g., using markers) and replacing those pixels with other information. This directly teaches the concept of replacing parts of an image.
• General knowledge in VR/AR: By the priority date of US9977495 (September 19, 2014), the problem of motion sickness and disorientation in VR/AR displays due to the unnatural removal of the user's own body parts (like the nose) from their field of view was well-known. A POSA would understand that in natural vision, the nose provides a stable, static reference point.

Motivation for Combination:

A POSA, aware of the problem of VR/AR motion sickness and disorientation, and having knowledge of technologies for manipulating display content (like "Marker-based pixel replacement" from Navigate Surgical Technologies), would have been motivated to combine these elements to create a more realistic and comfortable immersive experience. The idea of displaying a static nose image in the areas where the user's own nose would naturally appear addresses the known problem of lacking a stable, static reference point.

Specifically, a POSA would recognize that:

1. Immersive displays present separate images to each eye, leading to a disconnect when the user's physical nose is no longer visible in their peripheral vision (as acknowledged in US9977495's background).
2. The technique of "pixel replacement" (as taught by Navigate Surgical Technologies) could be adapted to replace the generated virtual environment in specific areas.
3. By replacing these areas with a static image simulating a nose (a naturally occurring, static visual reference), the discomfort and disorientation associated with its absence could be mitigated. The brain expects to see the nose, and its absence creates an unnatural void. Introducing a simulated nose would provide the missing stable reference.

The combination of the understanding of stereoscopic display principles, the capability to perform pixel replacement, and the general knowledge of physiological and perceptual issues in VR/AR would lead a POSA to consider generating and displaying a static "nose image" in the occluded areas. The patent itself highlights that "Presentation of stereoscopic 3D in areas not accustomed to seeing such imagery will very often cause motion sickness for the user wearing the display." and "Similarly, lack of the point of reference, which is removed when the nose and other normally static imagery that a person is accustomed to seeing in each separate eye is replaced with imagery from an immersive display, often causes the wearer to feel disoriented and also contributes to motion sickness." [cite: The full patent text confirms this information.] This explicitly states the problem and implicitly suggests the motivation for providing such a reference.

Therefore, the method of Claim 1, particularly the display of a static nose image in the occluded areas, appears to be an obvious combination of existing knowledge and techniques to solve a recognized problem in immersive displays.

Analysis of Obviousness for Independent Claim 4 (Apparatus):

Independent Claim 4 describes an immersive display apparatus comprising a body, at least one display, and a processor configured to perform the steps outlined in Claim 1, including displaying a first static nose image in a first area and a second static nose image in a second area. [cite: The full patent text confirms this information.]

The apparatus claim essentially describes a system configured to perform the method of Claim 1. If the method of Claim 1 is obvious, then configuring a known immersive display system with a processor to perform that obvious method would also be obvious.

Consider the following prior art and general knowledge:

• FIG. 2 and associated description of US9977495 itself: Even before the specific claims, the patent describes a general immersive display (200) with a main processor (202), a display device (208), and various input/output components. It also describes internal cameras (216) for eye tracking. This figure and description represent a generic immersive display system known in the art. [cite: The full patent text confirms this information.]
• US20140285428A1 (Leap Motion, Inc.): This application (filed March 15, 2013, published September 25, 2014) focuses on "Resource-responsive motion capture," demonstrating the capability of computing systems to process real-time input and adjust display outputs. While not directly about nose occlusion, it shows sophisticated processing in an interactive display context.
• Any head-mounted display (HMD) system: By the priority date, numerous HMD systems existed that included processors and displays capable of rendering images to each eye. The fundamental components of an immersive display (body, display, processor) were well-established.

Motivation for Combination:

A POSA, recognizing the benefits of the method described in Claim 1 (i.e., reducing motion sickness and increasing realism by displaying a static nose image), would be motivated to implement this method on a standard immersive display apparatus. The processor in such a system is inherently designed to obtain, process, and display image information. Modifying the software executed by the processor to perform the pixel removal/replacement and static nose image display would be a straightforward implementation given the known problem and the available techniques for image manipulation and display.

The description within US9977495 explicitly states that the method "may be carried out by software executed, for example, by one or more of the servers 102, by one or more of the client devices 106, 108, 110, 112, 116, by the main processor 202 of the immersive display 200, or by a combination of these devices." [cite: The full patent text confirms this information.] This confirms that the patent contemplates software implementation on existing hardware, reinforcing the idea that the apparatus itself, when configured to perform the method, would be obvious.

Therefore, the apparatus of Claim 4, which essentially claims an immersive display configured to carry out the method of Claim 1, would also be considered obvious to a POSA.

Consideration of Dependant Claims 2, 3, 5, and 6:

Dependent claims 2, 3, 5, and 6 further specify that the static nose images are displayed at a lower resolution and/or a lower refresh rate than the main images. [cite: The full patent text confirms this information.]

This further limitation would also likely be obvious to a POSA:

• Reducing processing load: The patent itself notes that "Such high resolution and high refresh rate utilizes more processing power. Replacing parts of the images with static images to simulate a nose reduces the number of pixels for which information is processed for display, thus reducing one or more of processing requirements, memory requirements, and bandwidth utilized to transfer information to the immersive display." [cite: The full patent text confirms this information.] This explicitly states a motivation for reducing processing requirements.
• Perceptual limitations: A POSA would understand that peripheral vision has lower acuity than foveal vision. Since the nose images are meant to simulate a static, peripheral obstruction, displaying them at lower resolution and refresh rate would be an obvious way to conserve processing resources without significantly impacting the user's perception of realism, as the user's focus is on the main immersive content. The patent also describes that "Peripheral areas of vision, however, may be rendered at lower definition or slightly out of focus." and "information outside of the area at the center of the field of view, also referred to as the peripheral area, may be displayed at a lower resolution than the information in the area at the center of the field of view, or at a lower refresh rate." [cite: The full patent text confirms this information.]

Therefore, these dependent claims, which further optimize the display of the static nose image by reducing its resolution and/or refresh rate, would be obvious optimizations for a POSA seeking to manage computational resources while maintaining a convincing immersive experience.

Conclusion on Obviousness:

Based on the analysis, the independent claims (1 and 4) and their dependent claims (2, 3, 5, and 6) of US9977495 appear to be obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The core inventive step of displaying a static nose image in occluded areas to address motion sickness and disorientation in immersive displays would have been motivated by a known problem and implementable using known image manipulation and display technologies available to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. The optimization of displaying these static images at lower resolution and refresh rates would also be an obvious design choice for resource management.