DELL PRODUCTS L.P.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

May 5, 2021

2020000038 (P.T.A.B. May. 5, 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.
14/691,819 04/21/2015 Karthik Krishnakumar DC-104734.01 5010
154702 7590 05/05/2021
Zagorin Cave LLP (Dell)
4101 Parkstone Heights Drive
Suite 350
Austin, TX 78746
EXAMINER
GYAWALI, BIPIN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2625
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/05/2021 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):
USPTO@dockettrak.com
docket279@atxiplaw.com
rholland@atxiplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte KARTHIK KRISHNAKUMAR,
MICHIEL SEBASTIAAN EMANUEL PETRUS KNOPPERT,
ROCCO ANCONA, ABU S. SANAULLAH, and MARK R. LIGAMERI
____________

Appeal 2020-000038
Application 14/691,819
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before ERIC B. CHEN, JAMES B. ARPIN, and MICHAEL J. ENGLE,
Administrative Patent Judges.

ARPIN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
final rejection of claims 1–20, all of the pending claims. Final Act. 2.2 We

1 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42.
Appellant identifies the real party-in-interest as Dell Products L.P. Appeal
Br. 1.
2 In this Decision, we refer to Appellant’s Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.,” filed
May 22, 2019) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed September 30, 2019); the
Final Office Action (“Final Act.,” mailed January 8, 2019), Advisory Action
(“Adv. Act.,” filed March 15, 2019), and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,”
mailed August 2, 2019); and the originally-filed Specification (“Spec.,” filed
April 21, 2015). Rather than repeat the Examiner’s findings and Appellant’s
contentions in their entirety, we refer to these documents.
Appeal 2020-000038
Application 14/691,819
2

have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant’s claimed systems and methods “relate[] in general to the
field of information handling system end user interaction management, and
more particularly to an information handling system immersed user
environment.” Spec. ¶ 1. In particular, projected images initiated in
response to user inputs are monitored
to determine calibration deviations, such as by comparing the
distance between where a user makes an input and where the
input is projected. Calibration is performed to align the
projected outputs and detected inputs. The calibration may
include a coordinate system anchored by its origin to a physical
reference point of the projection surface, such as a display mat
or desktop edge.
Id., Abstr. (emphasis added).
For example, the Specification’s Figure 10 is reproduced below.

“Figure 10 depicts an example of an end user writing the word ‘how’ on a
desktop and disorientation that may happen when projected written visual
Appeal 2020-000038
Application 14/691,819
3

images vary from pen locations determined by a three dimensional camera.”
Id. ¶ 20. Thus, the Specification notes:
As is illustrated by Figure 10, an end user writing the word
“how” on a desktop will experience disorientation when
projected written visual images 124 vary from pen locations 122
determined by a three dimensional camera. To maintain detected
and projected input locations within a desired deviation, a
camera detects the tip of a pen (or finger or other writing/input
utensil) where an annotation is made and the projected
annotation to determine a deviation. A calibration engine
converts the deviation linear distance into a number of pixels
using DPI values obtained from the projectors EDID/DID and
corrects deviations that exceed a threshold by changing the
projected position.
Id. ¶ 68 (emphasis added). Consequently, the Specification discloses
creation of a first visual image depicting the detected output of the finger
touch and a second visual image of the projected image of the output
including the finger. See Appeal Br. 7 (Claims App.) (claim 1 reproduced
below).
As noted above, claims 1–20 are pending. Claims 1, 9, and 18 are
independent. Appeal Br. 7 (claim 1), 8–9 (claim 9), 11 (claim 18) (Claims
App.). Claims 2–8 depend directly or indirectly from claim 1, claims 10–17
depend directly or indirectly from claim 9, and claims 19 and 20 depend
directly from claim 18. Id. at 7–12.
Appeal 2020-000038
Application 14/691,819
4

Claim 1, reproduced below with disputed limitations emphasized, is
representative.
1. An information handling system having a user interface
presented at a projection surface, the information handling
system comprising:
a processor operable to process information for
presentation to a user;
memory interfaced with the processor and operable to
store the information;
a graphics system interfaced with the processor and
memory, the graphics system operable to generate pixel
information to create visual images at one or more display
devices;
a projector interfaced with the graphics system and
operable to project the pixel information as the visual images at
the projection surface;
a detection device interfaced with the graphics system and
operable to detect end user inputs made at the projection surface,
the end user inputs including at least a finger touch made with a
finger at the projection surface, the detection device providing a
location of the finger touch to the graphics system, the graphics
system creating a visual image output at the location of the finger
touch; and
a calibration engine interfaced with the graphics system
and detection device, the calibration engine operable to analyze
a visual image captured of the projection surface and including
the finger to compare the location of the finger touch based upon
the finger in the visual image with a location of the visual image
output created by the graphics system to determine a calibration
deviation and to initiate calibration of the projector relative to the
projection surface if the calibration deviation exceeds a
threshold.
Id. at 7 (emphases added). Each of claims 9 and 18 recites limitations
corresponding to the disputed limitations of claim 1. See id. at 8–9, 11.
Appeal 2020-000038
Application 14/691,819
5

REFERENCES AND REJECTIONS
The Examiner relies upon the following references:
Name3 Number Published Filed
Battiti WO 00/75860 A1 Dec. 14, 2000 June 8, 1999
Cunningham US 2012/0035934 A1 Feb. 9, 2012 Aug. 3, 2011
Lyons US 2016/0378258 A1 Dec. 29, 2016 Feb. 28, 2014
The Examiner rejects:
1. claims 1–3, 9–12, and 18 as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over the
combined teachings of Battiti and Cunningham (Final Act. 3–6); and
2. claims 4–8, 13–17, 19, and 20 as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over
the combined teachings of Battiti, Cunningham, and Lyons (id. at 6–
10).
We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues
identified by Appellant, and in light of the contentions and evidence
produced thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010)
(precedential). The Examiner and Appellant focus their findings and
contentions on claim 1; so do we. See Appeal Br. 5–6; Ans. 4. Because we
determine that reversal of the rejection of independent claim 1, as well as of
independent claims 10 and 18, is dispositive, except for our ultimate
decision, we do not discuss the merits of the rejections of claims 2–8, 10–17,
19, and 20 further herein. We address the rejections below.

3 All citations are to the first named inventor only.
Appeal 2020-000038
Application 14/691,819
6

ANALYSIS
1. Nonobviousness of Claim 1 over Battiti and Cunningham
As noted above, the Examiner rejects independent claim 1 as obvious
over the combined teachings of Battiti and Cunningham. Final Act. 3–4. In
particular, the Examiner finds Battiti teaches or suggests all of the
limitations of claim 1, except “Battiti does not explicitly disclose to initiate
calibration of the projector relative to the projection.” Id. at 4. The
Examiner finds, however, that Cunningham teaches or suggests this missing
limitation and a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art would have had
reason to combine the teachings of Battiti and Cunningham to achieve the
systems of claim 1. Id.
Regarding the disputed limitations of claim 1, the Examiner finds
Battiti teaches or suggests, “the graphics system creating a visual image
output at the location of the finger touch,” as recited in claim 1. Final Act. 4
(citing Battiti, 22:16–28, Fig. 7). In particular, Battiti discloses, “figure 7
shows determination of the active writing point in the system of the
invention.” Battiti, 7:8–9. Battiti explains, “in an application the interaction
is mediated through the moving finger of the operator, and the optical
sensors 3, 5 are thus capable of distinguishing the intensity (or the color - in
the case of color-sensitive optical sensors) of the finger against the
background of surface 7.” Id. at 22:18–22 (emphasis added). Consequently,
Battiti teaches or suggests distinguishing between the moving finger and the
surface touched.
The Examiner further finds,
the calibration engine operable to analyze a visual image
captured of the projection surface and including the finger to
compare the location of the finger touch based upon the finger in
Appeal 2020-000038
Application 14/691,819
7

the visual image (Fig. 8 element “IMAGE2”) with a location of
the visual image output created by the graphics system (Fig. 8
element “IMAGE1”) to determine a calibration deviation and to
initiate calibration of the projector relative to the projection
surface (Pages 25-26).
Final Act. 4.
Battiti’s Figure 8 is reproduced below.

Figure 8 depicts “one way of eliminating interference between motion of the
active writing point and motion of the projected image.” Battiti, 7:10–12.
Battiti explains:
Active point AP is identified (through the determination of the
low-intensity point with the highest y coordinates or of the
moving point with the highest coordinates) whilst the optical
sensors may not distinguish between images of a physical object
(i.e. the writing point) and images projected by projector 6 (the
projected light beam impinging onto active surface 7). The
system may thus be possibly misled in the identification of the
Appeal 2020-000038
Application 14/691,819
8

active point, by considering as the active point one of the points
of the writing projected.
Id. at 24:23–32 (emphasis added). Thus, Battiti discloses that imaging of
what is generated by the finger touch on a surface may interfere with
determining the active point at which the finger touches the surface.
As depicted in Battiti’s Figure 8, Battiti allegedly solves this
interference problem by creating and projecting two images: one image
relatively consistently and the other only while the image is captured by the
optical sensors. Id. at 25:23–26:3. Battiti explains, “Essentially,
interference between the writing point and the image written by projector 6
may be dispensed with [by] decoupling the written image from the image
used to determine active point AP.” Id. at 25:23–26. Thus,
Image1 contains the trace of the writing trajectory, while Image2
contains a pixel matrix with uniform intensity values. Two
synchronization signals determine the projection by projector 6
of the two images in two different time frames.
Image1 is projected most of the times, while Image2 is projected
only while the image is being captured by optical sensors 3 and 5.
Given the uniformity of image 2, the brevity of its permanence on
active surface 7 and the characteristics of temporal integration
of the human visual system, the user will see in a conscious way
only Image1.
Id. at 25:29–26:3 (emphasis added). Therefore, Battiti projects two images
at different times, one of semi-permanence, which shows the trace and the
tracing finger for the observer to perceive (i.e., Image1) and one only from
time to time with just the tracing finger (i.e., Image2), so that the optical
sensors may detect the active point without trace interference. Adv. Act. 2
(“Battiti projects Image1 most of the time (Fig. 8). However, Battiti clearly
suggests projecting Image2, an image of a tracer member F on the projecting
surface, to determine the active point from time to time ([25:27–26:8]).
Appeal 2020-000038
Application 14/691,819
9

And, Battiti uses this image of the tracer to determine the active point.”).
Appellant contends the Examiner errs in finding Battiti teaches or
suggests the disputed limitations of claim 1. Appeal Br. 3–5. We agree with
Appellant.
As discussed above, Appellant recognizes:
Battiti teaches that displayed output can be mistaken as an input
device, creating a feedback loop that presents incorrect output
images. To avoid this problem, Battiti teaches decoupling the
written image from the image used to determine the active point.
It is this decoupling that the Examiner references in the response
to arguments and advisory action. To achieve decoupling at page
25, line 34 - page 26, line 3, Battiti shuts off presentation of the
output by the projector when detecting an input device with the
sensors.
Id. at 5 (emphasis added). Thus, Appellant contends that, contrary to
claim 1’s recitations, “Battiti has no way to compare a location of a visual
image output with a finger touch since the output is not projected during
calibration.” Id.; see Reply Br. 1 (“To avoid [the interference] problem,
Battiti removes the drawn line when determining the position of the writing
point. Battiti therefore cannot calibrate a position of a finger by the position
of a line drawn due to the finger.”). In particular, Battiti does not teach or
suggest the disputed limitations “because during calibration Battiti removes
‘the visual image output created by the graphics system’ as an output of a
touch position.” Appeal Br. 5 (emphasis added). We agree with Appellant.
In the Answer, the Examiner responds, “Battiti clearly contemplates
comparing the current location of the tracer member F as shown in Image 2
with the last ‘written’ point as shown in Image 1. Only then, it can achieve
a controlled and continuous writing of a trajectory.” Ans. 4 (emphasis
added; citing Battiti, 5:8–14, 15:24–16:9, Fig. 7). Although the Examiner
Appeal 2020-000038
Application 14/691,819
10

may be correct that Battiti and the systems of claim 1 seek to achieve a
similar goal, namely, continuity between the trace and the tracing finger,
Appellant persuades us that Battiti seeks to achieve this goal in a different
way than is recited in claim 1.
Consequently, we are persuaded the Examiner errs in finding Battiti
teaches or suggests the disputed limitations of claim 1, and we do not sustain
the obviousness rejection of claim 1.
2. The Remaining Claims
As noted above, Appellant challenges the rejection of independent
claims 9 and 18 for substantially the same reasons as claim 1. Appeal Br. 5–
6; Reply Br. 1–2. Consequently, we also are persuaded that the Examiner
errs in rejecting claims 9 and 18 for substantially the same reasons set forth
above with respect to claim 1. Therefore, we do not sustain the obviousness
rejection of claims 9 and 18.
Each of claims 2–8, 10–17, 19, and 20 depends directly or indirectly
from independent claim 1, 9, or 18. Appeal Br. 7–12 (Claims App.).
Moreover, the Examiner does not find that Lyons supplies the disputed
limitations that we are persuaded are missing from the Examiner’s
combination of the teachings of Battiti and Cunningham. See, e.g., Final
Act. 4. Thus, because we are persuaded the Examiner errs with respect to
the obviousness rejection of claim 1, as well as of claims 9 and 18, we also
are persuaded the Examiner errs with respect to the obviousness rejections of
claims 2–8, 10–17, 19, and 20. Consequently, we do not sustain the
rejections of claims 2–8, 10–17, 19, and 20.
Appeal 2020-000038
Application 14/691,819
11

DECISIONS
1. The Examiner errs in rejecting claims 1–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
obvious over the combined teachings of Battiti and Cunningham,
alone or in combination with Lyons.
2. Thus, on this record, claims 1–20 are not unpatentable.
CONCLUSION
We reverse the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–20.
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35
U.S.C. §
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–3, 9–12,
18
103 Battiti, Cunningham

1–3, 9–12,
18
4–8, 13–17,
19, 20
103 Battiti, Cunningham,
Lyons
4–8, 13–17,
19, 20
Overall
Outcome
1–20

REVERSED