Apple granted knockout patent for head-mounted personal display

“Apple invented a video headset back in 2006 and was granted a patent for it in September 2009,” Jack Purcher reports for Patently Apple. “Since that time Apple has added a few inventions to keep their project evolving over time (one, two), with the most recent mention of a headset being noted in a patent application relating to hidden audio sensors.”

“Over the weekend we covered a patent that Apple acquired from PrimeSense regarding an advanced headset to add to Apple’s patent portfolio on head mounted displays,” Purcher reports. “Today, the US Patent and Trademark Office officially published a knockout granted patent for a detailed head mounted head display that resembles the Oculus Rift which is the buzz of the gaming world at the moment.”

Purcher reports, “Apple’s patent makes it clear that gaming is one of the main entertainment options for this device. It’s also designed to be a personal display system so that you could enjoy full HD widescreen experiences on the go with your iPhone or at Home with your Apple TV. Without a doubt, it’s the surprise granted patent of the year.”

Much more, including Apple’s patent application illustrations and diagrams, in the full article here.

8 Comments

    1. Hopefully there isn’t and won’t be any patent conflict between the two, despite the very obvious similarities. Unlike many of Apple’s recent patent battles, this time they *don’t* have a released product they can point to as prior art. Sure, they could still go after Occulus or others after they do release a product by pointing at these patents that predate it, but suing a successful startup for releasing a product before they do will drive even more people away from Apple.

        1. Here in the real world, things are not as black and white as you make them out to be. In patents, implementations matter, and if Occulus used different methods than what Apple’s patents described to tackle similar problems, then they do not conflict.

      1. Unless I’m mistaken, Apple only sues companies that steal their inventions. Carmack seems more like an entrepreneur and innovator. I imagine that these two devices are on a parallel path and if there is any overlapping IP, Occulus and Apple will cross license. Google, Samsung and MSFT are simply parasites. Whole different story.

  1. They really want to use the phrase, “Knockout Head” and “knockout granted patent”.
    WTH does that mean anyway?

    What is being “knocked out”
    No explanation in the article – maybe it’s a gamer thing I don’t know about?
    Most likely it seems you put it on and you get knocked out. Sounds great.

Add Your Feedback

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.