Ex Parte Ascar et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 22, 201612345519 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 22, 2016) Copy Citation 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. 12/345,519 12/29/2008 Seif Ascar 236898-352175 7900 44200 7590 12/23/2016 HONIGMAN MILLER SCHWARTZ & COHN LLP 350 East Michigan Avenue Suite 300 Kalamazoo, MI 49007-3800 EXAMINER MA, WING ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2456 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/23/2016 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte SEIF ASCAR and AHMED A. MOUSSA Appeal 2016-001045 Application 12/345,5191 Technology Center 2400 Before STEPHEN C. SIU, JOHNNY A. KUMAR, and JOHN D. HAMANN, Administrative Patent Judges. HAMANN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants file this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 22—37. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. 1 According to Appellants, they are the real parties in interest. Br. 3. Appeal 2016-001045 Application 12/345,519 THE CLAIMED INVENTION Appellants’ claimed invention relates to “visual content interaction analytics.” Spec. 11. Claim 22 is illustrative of the subject matter of the appeal and is reproduced below. 22. A method, comprising: receiving, by one or more processors, data streams from a plurality of remote devices via a network, the data streams corresponding to a visual content displayed by the remote device, each data stream containing video data captured by an image device associated with a respective remote device of the plurality of remote devices and interaction data indicating interactions of a user of the remote device with respect to the visual content; for each data stream: transforming, by the one or more processors, the video data into eye-gaze data indicating coordinates representing a geometric eye-gaze direction and position corresponding to the user of the remote device; and analyzing, by the one or more processors, the eye-gaze data and the interaction data to determine one or more values indicating viewing behavior of the user when interacting with the visual content based on the eye-gaze data and the interaction data; generating, by the one or more processors, an analytics report associated with the visual content based on the values corresponding to the plurality of video streams; and providing, by the one or more processors, the analytics report for display. REJECTIONS ON APPEAL (1) The Examiner rejected claims 22—24, 26—28, 30-32, and 34—36 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Jung et al. (US 2009/0112617 Al; published Apr. 30, 2009) (hereinafter “Jung”) and Edwards (US 2004/0156020 Al; published Aug. 12, 2004). 2 Appeal 2016-001045 Application 12/345,519 (2) The Examiner rejected claims 25 and 33 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Jung, Edwards, and McAfee et al. (US 2009/0222550 Al; published Sept. 3, 2009) (hereinafter “McAfee”). (3) The Examiner rejected claims 29 and 37 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Jung, Edwards, and Fedorovskaya et al. (US 2007/0201731 Al; published Aug. 30, 2007) (hereinafter “Fedorovskaya”). ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’ contentions that the Examiner erred. In reaching our decision, we consider all evidence presented and all arguments made by Appellants. We disagree with Appellants’ arguments and we incorporate herein and adopt as our own the findings, conclusions, and reasons set forth by the Examiner in (1) the July 18, 2014 Final Office Action (“Final Act.” 2—8), (2) the September 30, 2014 Advisory Action (“Adv. Act.” 2—3), and (3) the August 28, 2015 Examiner’s Answer (Ans. 2—9). We highlight and address, however, specific findings and arguments below for emphasis. Eve-gaze direction and position data Appellants argue the combination of Jung and Edwards, and Jung in particular, fails to teach or suggest “transforming ... the video data into eye- gaze data indicating coordinates representing a geometric eye-gaze direction and position corresponding to the user of the remote device,” as recited in claim 22, and similarly recited in claim 30. Br. 10—12. Specifically, Appellants argue Jung instead teaches determining eye movement data comprising scanpaths (i.e., a series of fixations and saccades), rather than 3 Appeal 2016-001045 Application 12/345,519 “coordinates representing geometric eye-gaze direction and position.” Br. 12 (citing Jung H 115, 123; Fig. 1); see also Jung 1123 (“Eye movements are typically divided into fixations, when the eye gaze pauses in a certain position, and saccades, when the eye gaze moves to another position.”). The Examiner finds, and we agree, the combination of Jung and Edwards, and Jung in particular, teaches or suggests the disputed limitation. See Ans. 8—9. Specifically, the Examiner finds, and we agree, Jung teaches or suggests capturing video data of a user’s interaction with an application and detecting eye-gaze data (e.g., eye or pupil movement data) coordinates corresponding to eye-gaze direction and position with respect to displayed locations. See id. (citing Jung || 37, 56, 60 (finding Jung teaches detecting eye gaze position data when detecting attention to a displayed advertisement and detecting eye gaze direction data when detecting eye movements toward the advertisement), 117 (finding Jung teaches detecting eye gaze position), 139 (finding Jung teaches detecting eye gaze position and direction), 200 (finding Jung teaches user data includes video capture data from a monitoring device)); see also Final Act. 3^4; Adv. Act. 2 (citing Jung || 36, 37,91, 117, 198-200; Fig. 1). Additionally, we also find Appellants’ arguments largely state the disputed limitation is not taught by Jung without sufficiently explaining why Jung fails to disclose the disputed limitation. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv); see also In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[W]e hold that the Board reasonably interpreted Rule 41.37 to require more substantive arguments in an appeal brief than a mere recitation of the claim elements and a naked assertion that the corresponding elements were not found in the prior art.”). 4 Appeal 2016-001045 Application 12/345,519 Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 22 and 30. CONCLUSION Based on our findings above, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 22 and 30. We also sustain the Examiner’s rejections of claims 23— 29 and 31—37 for which Appellant did not provide separate arguments for their patentability. DECISION We affirm the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejections of claims 22— 37. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv). AFFIRMED 5 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation