Ex Parte Blythe et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 27, 201311188397 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 27, 2013) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte MICHAEL M. BLYTHE and WYATT HUDDLESTON ____________________ Appeal 2010-006792 Application 11/188,397 Technology Center 2600 ____________________ Before THU A. DANG, JAMES R. HUGHES, and GREGORY J. GONSALVES, Administrative Patent Judges. DANG, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2010-006792 Application 11/188,397 2 I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of claims 1-4 and 6-28 (App. Br. 2). Claim 5 has been canceled (id.). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. A. INVENTION Appellants’ invention is directed to an interactive display system and method of detecting regions of interest within an image taken of the Graphical User Interface (GUI) where user input is expected; wherein, regions of interest may be fixed or change depending upon various criteria such as prior user inputs (Spec. 1:10-16, 2:29-3:5, and 6:31-7:15). B. ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM Claim 1 is exemplary: 1. A method comprising: using a computer-executable program to process information pertaining to an object detected at or near a display to determine a predicted location of the object in the future; and using the predicted location to capture an image of a region of interest on the display that includes the predicted location. C. REJECTIONS The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Palmer US 5,734,736 March 31, 1998 Appeal 2010-006792 Application 11/188,397 3 Haigh US 2005/0285941 A1 December 29, 2005 Dehlin US 2006/0010400 A1 January 12, 2006 Lee US 2007/0092109 A1 April 26, 2007 Claims 1-4, 7, 8, 10, 11, 18-25, and 28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Dehlin. Claims 6, 9, and 12-17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Dehlin in view of Lee. Claim 26 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Dehlin in view of Haigh. Claim 27 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Dehlin in view of Palmer. II. ISSUE The dispositive issue before us is whether the Examiner has erred in determining that the Dehlin teaches “using the predicted location to capture an image of a region of interest on the display that includes the predicted location” (claim 1, emphasis added). III. FINDINGS OF FACT The following Findings of Fact (FF) are shown by a preponderance of the evidence. Dehlin 1. Dehlin discloses an interactive display table having an Infra- Red (IR) (digital) video camera 68 which is mounted to a frame 62 below the display surface 64a in a position appropriate to receive IR light that is Appeal 2010-006792 Application 11/188,397 4 reflected from any touch object or hover object disposed above display surface 64a (¶ [0050]). The interactive display table executes an algorithm to determine which (if any) of the objects detected in the image produced by an IR video camera corresponds to a user’s finger or hand on or above the display surface, where a moving finger/hand is likely to appear; and if the path traced by the finger/hand matches a stored path (¶ [0080]). 2. An Image Processing Module (IPM) filters and analyzes the input image for each connected component on the table to determine whether it is a finger/hand touching or hovering over the display surface to provide a gesture input, wherein, the module filters out distracter objects which are objects that may appear and disappear rapidly over several frames of images produced by the IR video camera (Fig. 12, step 1202; ¶ [0081]). 3. The process includes a step for predicting the next location of a moving object using an object prediction module; wherein, tracking and detection corresponding movement of the object enable the path of the object to be accurately reconstructed when identifying a gesture (Fig. 12, step 1204; ¶ [0082]). IV. ANALYSIS Claims 1-4, 7, 8, 10, 11, 18-25, and 28 Appellants contend that “Dehlin does not disclose limiting the imaging of a screen to a subportion of the display at all” (App. Br. 8). Appellants assert that “[t]o the extent that Dehlin predicts a possible location for an object, that location is not used to limit the scanning or imaging process” (id.). Appeal 2010-006792 Application 11/188,397 5 However, the Examiner notes that the language of claims 1, 11, and 18 “in no way explicitly, implicitly, or inherently limits the image captured to only a region of interest that includes the predicted location” (Ans.15-16). The Examiner finds that from Dehlin’s disclosure, “it is clear the image captured does not correspond to the entire area of the display but corresponds to the areas where touching or hovering objects are present thereby reflecting the IR light which is captured by the camera” (Ans. 18). Thus, “Dehlin discloses determining a predicted location of the object in the future and capturing an image of a region of interest on the display that includes the predicted location and performing image comparison using an imaged region of interest less than the available area of display, even when the object is no longer detected” (Ans. 18-19). Appellants’ argument that “Dehlin does not disclose limiting the imaging of a screen to a subportion of the display at all” is not commensurate in scope with the specific language of claim 1 (App. Br. 8). In particular, claim 1 does not recite such “limiting the imaging of a screen to a subportion of the display” as Appellants argue. We give the claim its broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the Specification. See In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (citations omitted). Claim 1 does not define what “region of interest” means, includes, or represents other than it is on the display that includes the predicted location. The Specification discloses that the “regions of interest” are those regions where user input is expected (Spec. 3: 1-5). We also note that claim 1 does not define how “the predicted location” is used to capture the image. We find such “using the predicted location” language to merely represent a statement of intended use of data. Appeal 2010-006792 Application 11/188,397 6 An intended use will not limit the scope of the claim because it merely defines a context in which the invention operates. Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica, Inc. v. Schering-Plough Corp., 320 F.3d 1339, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Thus, we conclude that claim 1 merely requires a method that is capable of using data to capture an image. Accordingly, we give “using the predicted location to capture an image of a region of interest on the display that includes the predicted location” its broadest reasonable interpretation as capturing an image of any region on the display where user input is expected, as consistent with the Specification and as specifically defined in claim 1. Dehlin discloses an interactive display table having a digital video camera under the display surface that senses when an object has touched the surface or hovers over the surface (FF 1). During the process of determining the gesture input, the IPM filters out distracter objects (FF 2). The process further includes a step for predicting the next location of the object using an object prediction module (FF 3). We find further that the steps of sensing gesture input and filtering out distracter objects comprises capturing an image of a region where user input is expected. We find that this process which includes predicting the next location denotes that the interactive display table is capable of using data relative to the next predicted location of an object. That is, we find that Dehlin’s interactive display table and gesture input process comprises “using the predicted location to capture an image of a region of interest on the display that includes the predicted location” (claim 1). Accordingly, we find that Appellants have not shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) over Dehlin. Appeal 2010-006792 Application 11/188,397 7 Further, independent claims 11 and 18 having similar claim language and claims 2-4, 7, 8, 10, 19-25, and 28 (depending from claims 1 and 18) which have not been argued separately, fall with claim 1. Claims 6, 9, and 12-17 Appellants contend that “Lee cannot be considered to be within the same field of art of the present invention” (App. Br. 12). Appellants make similar arguments to that of claim 1 supra that “Lee does not disclose ‘to limit capturing of the image to a region of interest,’ as recited in claim 12 or ‘to image a subportion of the display corresponding to the region of interest,’ as recited in claim 15” (App. Br. 14). However, the Examiner finds that “Lee, . . . Dehlin, and the present invention are all within the field of object tracking” (Ans. 21). Although Appellants attack the Lee reference as being non-analogous art, we agree with the Examiner since the patent reference is in the field of object tracking, is “within the field of the inventor’s endeavor,” and hence is analogous. In re Deminski, 796 F.2d 436, 442 (Fed.Cir.1986) (quoting In re Wood, 599 F.2d 1032, 1036 (CCPA 1979)). As noted supra, we find that Dehlin teaches all the features of claim 1 having similar claim limitations to that of independent claims 12 and 15. We therefore affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claim 6, 9, and 12-17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 for the same reasons expressed with respect to claim 1, supra. Claims 26 and 27 Appellants argue that claims 26 and 27 are patentable over the cited prior art for the same reasons asserted with respect to claim 18 (App. Br. 17 and 19). Appellants contend that neither Haigh nor Palmer is “related to Appeal 2010-006792 Application 11/188,397 8 receiving user input at all, much less receiving user input through a graphical user interface” (App. Br. 16 and 18). However, the Examiner finds that “Haigh, Palmer, Dehlin, and the present invention are all within the field of object tracking” (Ans. 21). Although Appellants attack the Haigh and Palmer references as being non-analogous art, we agree with the Examiner since both references are in the field of object tracking. As noted supra, however, we find that Dehlin teaches all the features of parent claim 18. We therefore affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claim 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Dehlin in view of Haigh and of claim 27 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Dehlin in view of Palmer for the same reasons expressed with respect to claim 18, supra. V. CONCLUSION AND DECISION The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1-4, 7, 8, 10, 11, 18-25, and 28 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) and claims 6, 9, 12-17, 26, and 27 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) are affirmed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED llw Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation