Maybe not just make assumptions about a person’s background and activities?
I use weekly (almost 10 years) various existing products using the technique described in the patent.
The value of AR (I think that you once again have to look well what exactly AR content) for example in the construction sector also has me more than a decade and there clearly push I therefore been violent before.
And it is in this Article condition is fun but in the actual patent application where I look at the content copy is not, I might have been reading over fine but refer THERE whatsoever and not indeed the article because that is not the source.
So again my question is, why would not there already many patents and here they would have granted this request?
What’s more, in that the application is incorrectly stated in my view, since it is not even about AR in but the application is purely a video stream from a mobile platform forward without further injection of data which for decades has been possible (and also with injection data)
& gt reality-AR =.; Camera / or other input device being & gt; processing unit / injection or additional data & gt; Augmented Reality output through HMD / display
Extra fun: parrot (manufacturer of the drones that use them) it has itself developed years ago: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fLrsu0pDew8
short: what is new about this patent?
No comments:
Post a Comment