Apple Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Aug 19, 2021

2021001414 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 19, 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.
16/259,771 01/28/2019 Christopher WILSON P30949USC1/77770000438201 1003
150004 7590 08/19/2021
DENTONS US LLP - Apple
4655 Executive Dr
Suite 700
San Diego, CA 92121
EXAMINER
TARKO, ASMAMAW G
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2482
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/19/2021 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):
dentons_PAIR@firsttofile.com
patent.docket@dentons.com
patents.us@dentons.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte CHRISTOPHER WILSON, GUILLAUME BARLIER,
SEBASTIAN BAUER, AURELIO GUZMAN,
BEHKISH J. MANZARI, NICOLE R. RYAN,
NICOLAS SCAPEL, MARCO TRIVERIO, and
GIANCARLO YERKES
Appeal 2021-001414
Application 16/259,771
Technology Center 2400
Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR. and
ERIC B. CHEN, Administrative Patent Judges.
SAADAT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2021-001414
Application 16/259,771
2

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–30. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).2
We AFFIRM.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to avatar creation and editing. Spec. ¶ 2.
Claim 1, reproduced below, illustrates the claimed subject matter (disputed
limitations in italics):
1. An electronic device, comprising:
one or more cameras;
a display;
one or more processors; and
memory storing one or more programs configured to be
executed by the one or more processors, the one or more
programs including instructions for:
displaying a first user interface that includes
instructions for capturing image data of a face of a user of the
electronic device, wherein the first user interface includes a
representation of a face in a respective region of the display;
while displaying the first user interface, detecting
the occurrence of a condition that corresponds to initiation of
capturing image data of a user of the electronic device;

1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Apple Inc.
Appeal Br. 3.
2 An oral hearing was held for this appeal on July 21, 2021.
Appeal 2021-001414
Application 16/259,771
3
in response to detecting the occurrence of the
condition that corresponds to initiation of capturing image data
of a user of the electronic device, displaying on the display a
second user interface that includes:
a representation of a face of the user that is
based on image data of the face of the user captured by the one
or more cameras of the electronic device, wherein the
representation of the face of the user is displayed within the
respective region of the display; and
a progress indicator entirely surrounding
the representation of the face of the user; and
while displaying the representation of the face of
the user and the progress indicator entirely surrounding the
representation of the face of the user, detecting movement of
the face of the user and updating the representation of the face
of the user based on the image data of the face of the user
captured by the one or more cameras of the electronic device
and indicating an amount of image data captured with the
progress indicator by updating the progress indicator through
a plurality of progress states that correspond to different
amounts of captured image data.
Appeal Br. 26 (Claims App.).
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Hare US 2016/0284123 A1 Sept. 29, 2016
Vetter US 2017/0236298 A1 Aug. 17, 2017
REJECTION
Claims 1–30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Vetter and Hare. Final Act. 4–9.
Appeal 2021-001414
Application 16/259,771
4
OPINION
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s
arguments that the Examiner errs. We are unpersuaded by Appellant’s
arguments, and we adopt as our own (1) the pertinent findings and reasons
set forth by the Examiner in the Action from which this appeal is taken
(Final Act. 4–9; Ans. 4–10) and (2) the corresponding reasons set forth by
the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer (Ans. 11–14) in response to
Appellant’s Appeal Brief. We concur with the applicable conclusions
reached by the Examiner and emphasize the following.
CLAIM 1
The Rejection
With respect to independent claim 1, the Examiner relies on Vetter as
disclosing the recited device components configured for performing the
steps of displaying the first interface, detecting a condition corresponding to
capturing image data, displaying the second interface that displays a face of
the user and a progress indicator, and detecting the movement of the face
and indicating the amount of captured data through a plurality of progress
states. Final Act. 4–5 (citing Vetter ¶¶ 29, 46, 47, 56–59, 72–78, 85–90,
104, 191, 200, Fig. 1, 4a–7). The Examiner finds Hare discloses the recited
“a progress indicator entirely surrounding the representation of the face of
the user” and “while displaying the representation of the face of the user and
the progress indicator entirely surrounding the representation of the face of
the user.” Final Act. 6 (citing Hare Figs. 5–15). The Examiner states the
rationale for combining the references is “to have better, accurate and
effective representation of the user to create a useful and compliant image of
the users face.” Id.
Appeal 2021-001414
Application 16/259,771
5
Appellant’s Arguments
Appellant refer to Figures 6I and 6J, as well as paragraphs 167, 172,
173, 180, and 191 of the instant application to describe the “in response to
capturing the first image data, the electronic device 600 updates a display of
a progress indicator (e.g., an indicator around the view finder 616 graphical
element), where display of the progress indicator is based on the amount of
avatar image data captured.” Appeal Br. 10–11. More specifically,
Appellant asserts that “[a]s depicted in Figure 6J, while device 600 captures
image data, the electronic device 600 updates the avatar creation interface
615 to instruct the user to reposition the user’s face to obtain further image
data.” Id. at 11 (citing Spec. ¶ 173). Appellant contends that the Examiner’s
proposed combination of Vetter and Hare does not teach or suggest the
recited features of claim 1. Appeal Br. 16.
With respect to Vetter, Appellant asserts that the cited portions of the
reference in Figures 4B and 5A–5E show circle 33 having the function of
“aiding the user in positioning his or her face within circle 34.” Id. at 16–17.
According to Appellant, “[a] person of skill in the art, having reviewed
Vetter, would understand that a user viewing Figures 4B and 5A–5E of
Vetter cannot ascertain the amount of data that has been captured by the
camera 5 by viewing the various locations of the circle 33.” Id. at 17. With
respect to the teachings of Hare, Appellant asserts that “[t]he visual framing
element 440 disclosed by Hare does not provide any indication as to the
progress of the scan taught by Hare. Rather, similar to the circle 33 as
taught by Vetter, the only function that the visual framing element 440
serves is to aid the user in properly aligning his or her face within the client
device 110.” Appeal Br. 21. Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), we focus our
analysis on the argued limitations related to the recited “progress indicator”
Appeal 2021-001414
Application 16/259,771
6
and “indicating an amount of image data captured with the progress
indicator by updating the progress indicator through a plurality of progress
states that correspond to different amounts of captured image data.”
Claim Construction
“Claim construction is a question of law that may involve underlying
factual questions.” Amgen Inc. v. Amneal Pharm. LLC, 945 F.3d 1368, 1375
(Fed. Cir. 2020) (citing Teva Pharm. USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., 574 U.S.
318, 332 (2015)). Claim terms in a patent application are given the broadest
reasonable interpretation consistent with the Specification, as understood by
one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Crish, 393 F.3d 1253, 1256 (Fed. Cir.
2004). Our reviewing court states that “the words of a claim ‘are generally
given their ordinary and customary meaning.’” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415
F.3d 1303, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (citations omitted). However,
the broadest reasonable interpretation differs from the broadest possible
interpretation. In re Smith Int’l, Inc., 871 F.3d 1375, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
The correct inquiry in giving a claim term its broadest reasonable
interpretation in light of the specification is “an interpretation that
corresponds with what and how the inventor describes his invention in the
specification, i.e., an interpretation that is ‘consistent with the
specification.’” Id. at 1382–83 (quoting In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054
(Fed. Cir. 1997)).
Regarding the recited “progress indicator,” Appellant’s disclosure
provides the following:
In accordance with some embodiments the electronic
device, in response to capturing the first image data, updates a
display of a progress indicator (e.g., an indicator around the view
finder graphical element or a bar indicator), wherein the display
of the progress indicator is based on the amount of avatar image
Appeal 2021-001414
Application 16/259,771
7
data captured. In some examples, the progress indicator
indicates progress towards achieving a target amount of image
data for generating an avatar.
Spec. ¶ 191 (emphasis added); see also Hearing transcript 5–6. Regarding
the way a display of a progress indicator is updated, Appellant’s disclosure
provides that “[i]n some embodiments, the processing unit 806 is further
configured to, in response to capturing the first image data, update (e.g.,
using updating unit 822) a display of a progress indicator, wherein the
display of the progress indicator is based on the amount of avatar image data
captured.” Spec ¶ 210.
Additionally, we find Appellant’s Figures 6E–6G show element 616
as the view finder and element 617 as the placeholder avatar, which are used
to capture the user’s image in alignment with the with the placeholder. See
Spec. ¶¶ 166–170. Feedback is also provided to the user in the form of
instructions 620 and 621 instructing how the user should adjust the user’s
position relative to the image capturing device. Spec. ¶ 168. Similarly,
additional feedback instructions 622 and 623 are provided to the user for
further adjusting the user’s position before “sufficient image data” is
captured for creating the avatar. Spec. ¶¶ 171–174.
Given these related descriptions, we conclude that a broad but
reasonable interpretation of the claim 1 limitations “progress indicator” and
“indicating an amount of image data captured with the progress indicator by
updating the progress indicator through a plurality of progress states that
correspond to different amounts of captured image data” would encompass a
target area for placing the user image and feedback instructions for the user
to follow and adjust the user’s position with respect to the camera.
Therefore, we are not persuaded that Appellant’s disclosure supports the
Appeal 2021-001414
Application 16/259,771
8
narrower interpretation of a “progress indicator” as a representation other
than the image area and the instructional messages to the user for moving
with respect to the camera. See Appeal Br. 17–19; see also Reply Br. 5–9.
Discussion
With respect to the disclosure of “a progress indicator” in Vetter, we
agree with the Examiner that using circles 33 and 34, along with
instructional messages 41 and 42, to bring the user’s image within a desired
area provides an indicator that updates the progress of image capturing
process through a series of messages that correspond to different states of
images capturing. Ans. 12. Similar to Appellant’s disclosure, which
describes capturing the user’s image in a specific position inside viewfinder
616 based on the feedback instructions provided to the user for adjusting the
user’s relative position, see Spec. ¶¶ 160–174, Vetter’s circles 33 and 34,
coupled with the dialog boxes containing instructions for adjusting the user
position with respect to the camera, guide the user through a number of
progress states before the final image is captured. See e.g., Vetter Abstract,
¶¶ 87–90, 104, Figs. 4a–4c, 5a–5e. See Ans. 28–29.
The Examiner finds the recited “progress indicator entirely
surrounding the representation of the face of the user” is taught by Hare as
explained below:
Hare was cited to teach the surrounding progress indicator.
Figures 4A and 5 of Hare clearly show that the progress of
capturing a face, must “fit face inside window below” which
refers to frame 440. Frame 440 surrounds the entire face thus
meeting the entirely surrounding the representation of the face of
the user, as required in the claims. Hare then goes on to teach
the capturing process which gets updated from “fit face inside
window below” to “move your face closer” to “hold still”. This
progress indication entirely surrounds the face when you include
the frame 440. See Hare 66–70.
Appeal 2021-001414
Application 16/259,771
9
Ans. 11. Additionally, Hare provides notifications to the user for adjusting
the user’s position until the amount of captured image data within a frame
that surrounds the face satisfies the condition in which the face image
occupies a predetermined portion of the frame. See Hare ¶¶ 60–61, Figs. 5–
6. As found by the Examiner, Hare discloses the recited progress indicator
as “the progress of capturing a face, must ‘fit face inside window below’
which refers to frame 440” and the recited “updating the progress” as “[the]
progress gets updated with ‘move your face closer’ (fig 5) and then to ‘hold
still’ (fig 6).” Ans. 12 (citing Hare Figs. 4A, 5, 6).
We are unpersuaded by Appellant’s argument that “[a] person of skill
in the art would not understand the updating of the notification interface
element 430, as taught by Hare, to correspond to different amounts of
captured image data.” See Reply Br. 6. As discussed above, the disclosure
of framing element 440 that surrounds the user’s face and interface 420 that
provides instructional messages to the user for positioning the user’s face
within the framing element indicate the amount of captured image data by
updating the progress state as different amounts of image data is captured
based on the portion of the user face that is placed within the framing
element. See Hare ¶¶ 61–63, Figs. 5, 6. Similarly, one of ordinary skill in
the art would have determined the progress state corresponding to the
amount of captured image data based on Vetter’s instructional messages that
guide the user to move and position more of the user’s face image data in
circle 34. See Reply Br. 7.
CLAIM 3
Appellant argues the patentability of claim 3 based on its dependency
from claim 1 and further contends the Examiner erred in reading the
authentication limitation on Vetter’s pop-up message 41 because “[p]op-up
Appeal 2021-001414
Application 16/259,771
10
message 41 does not authenticate the identity of the user, rather pop-up
message 41 is more accurately characterized as a step the user must
complete as part of the setup process for the device.” Appeal Br. 22–23.
Appellant further asserts Vetter’s “pop-up message 41 helps the device
better understand the positional orientation of the user while the user is using
the device” and before displaying pop-up message 41, “the user’s identity is
not identified as part of the set up process of the device, as a result, the
device does not have a baseline for authenticating the user’s identity
against.” Id. at 24.
With respect to the recited “detecting successful authentication,” we
are also unpersuaded of Examiner’s error by Appellant’s arguments. See id.
at 22–23. As explained by the Examiner, Vetter was relied on as disclosing
a displayed question to the user in a pop-up message when the device is
started for the first time. See Final Act. 6–7 (citing Vetter ¶ 72, Fig. 4a);
Ans. 13. The Examiner also correctly finds that Hare discloses detecting
access by an authorized user before the image capturing process is started.
Ans. 13–14 (citing Hare ¶ 44, Fig. 1). Contrary to Appellant’s argument that
Vetter’s pop-up message is silent with respect to the user’s authentication,
see Reply Br. 11, the Examiner’s rejection relies on the combination of
Vetter with Hare. See Final Act. 4, 6. In other words, Appellant’s
contentions focus on the references separately and ignore the fact that the
proposed rejection is based on the combination of providing pop-up
messages to the user of Vetter with verifying the user’s authentication of
Hare, where the verification of the user’s access is provided in a pop-up
message at the start of the image capturing process. See Ans. 13–14. Each
reference must be read, not in isolation, but for what it fairly teaches in
combination with the prior art as a whole. In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322,
Appeal 2021-001414
Application 16/259,771
11
1333 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“[T]he test for obviousness is what the combined
teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill
in the art.” (citing In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981)). Based on
the proposed combination, the resulting process would allow the system of
Vetter to include user’s successful authentication message in a pop-up
message. In fact, it is not necessary that the features of one cited reference
be directly insertable into the other reference. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d at
425; In re Merck & Co. Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
CONCLUSION
As discussed herein, Appellant’s arguments have not persuaded us
that the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Vetter and Hare
teaches or suggests the disputed claim limitations. We therefore sustain the
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims 1 and 3, as well as claims 2 and 4–30
not argued separately.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–30 103(a) Vetter, Hare 1–30

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