Ex Parte Cohen-solal

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jun 29, 2009

09896199 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 29, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________

Ex parte ERIC COHEN-SOLAL
_____________

Appeal 2008-005770
Application 09/896,199
Technology Center 2600
______________

Decided:1 June 30, 2009
_______________

Before KENNETH W. HAIRSTON, ROBERT E. NAPPI, and BRADLEY
W. BAUMEISTER Administrative Patent Judges.

NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, begins to run from the decided date
shown on this page of the decision. The time period does not run from the
Mail Date (paper delivery) or Notification Date (electronic delivery).
Appeal 2008-005770
Application 09/896,199
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the rejection
of claims 1 through 18 and 20 through 24.
We reverse.
INVENTION
The invention is directed towards a device that allows the picture in
picture on a television display to be repositioned or resized. The invention
allows a user to use voice commands and gestures to control the picture in
picture. See pages 1 and 3 of Appellant’s Specification. Claim 1 is
reproduced below:
1. A video display device comprising:
a display configured to display a primary image and a picture-
in-picture image (PIP) overlaying the primary image; and
a processor operatively coupled to the display and configured to
receive a first video data stream for the primary image, to receive a
second video data stream for the PIP, to recognize an audio command
related to a PIP display characteristic, the processor, upon recognizing
the audio command, activates an image acquisition component that is
configured to recognize a user hand gesture related to manipulating
the PIP display characteristic, the processor manipulates the PIP
display characteristic according to the audio command and the hand
gesture.

REFERENCES
Inagaki US 5,999,214 Dec. 7, 1999

Cox US 6,154,724 Nov. 28, 2000

VLADIMIR I. PAVLOVIC ET AL., “INTEGRATION OF AUDIO/VISUAL
INFORMATION FOR USE IN HUMAN-COMPUTER INTELLIGENT INTERACTION,”
IMAGE PROCESSING, 1997 PROCEEDINGS IEEE, 121-124.

2

Appeal 2008-005770
Application 09/896,199

REJECTIONS AT ISSUE
The Examiner has rejected claims 1 through 18, and 20 through 242
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Inagaki in view of
Pavlovic and Cox. The Examiner’s rejection is on page 3 through 10 of the
Answer.3
ISSUES
Appellant argues on pages 6 through 12 of the Brief4 that the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 through 18, and 20 through 24 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) is in error. Appellant argues that the references do not
suggest activating an image recognition component after recognizing an
audio command as claimed. Brief 8. Appellant argues that Cox, which the
Examiner relies upon for the teaching of voice activation of gesture
commands, teaches in response to a voice command, activating a wand
which senses gestures and not an image acquisition component as claimed.
Brief 9.5
Thus, Appellant’s contentions present us with the following issue: has
Appellant shown that the Examiner erred in finding that the combination of
the references teaches a video display device in which an image acquisition

2 Claims 22 through 24 are not identified in the statement of the rejection;
however they are addressed in the rationale supporting the rejection.
Therefore we consider these claims to also be included in the rejection.
Note: Appellant in the arguments on page 6 of the Brief also recognized
claims 22 through 24 as being included in the rejection.
3 Throughout the opinion we refer to the Answer mailed January 11, 2008.
4 Throughout the opinion we refer to the Brief dated January 19, 2007.
5 Appellant presents additional arguments. However as the issue raised by
this argument is dispositive of the case we only address the issue raised by
this argument.
3

Appeal 2008-005770
Application 09/896,199
component which recognizes hand gestures, is activated by an audio
command as claimed?

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
A rejection based on § 103 must rest upon a factual basis rather than
conjecture or speculation. “Where the legal conclusion [of obviousness] is
not supported by the facts it cannot stand.” In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011,
1017 (CCPA 1967). See also In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988.

FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Inagaki teaches a video conference system. Abstract.
2. Inagaki’s system includes a movable camera, which has a plurality of
preset panning positions, at which the camera captures an image of a
participant. Col. 5, ll. 15-20.
3. Inagaki’s system captures a still image of each participant and stores it
in memory. These still images are displayed in a picture in picture
display along with one video image of a selected participant. Col. 7,
ll. 42-61, Figs 8A, 8B, 9A, and 9B.
4. In one embodiment, the participant to be displayed in video is
determined based upon a voice direction detection unit which
determines which of the participants in the conference is speaking.
Based upon that determination the camera pans to the selected
participant and video of that participant is displayed. Col. 12, ll. 1-25.
5. Pavlovic teaches integration of audio and video in human to computer
interaction. Pavlovic teaches that individuals prefer to use hand
gestures in combination with speech when working in a virtual
environment. Pavlovic, section 1, Introduction, page 121.
4

Appeal 2008-005770
Application 09/896,199
6. Pavlovic teaches that the human operator’s gestures are captured via a
video image from a camera that is processed to determine the
gestures. Pavlovic, section 2.1, Visual Module, Figure 2, page 122.
7. Cox teaches a three dimensional virtual reality system with a gesture
input interface. Abstract.
8. Cox’s system allows the user to utilize voice commands and three
dimensional spatial tracked gesture inputs. Col. 2, ll. 51-56.
9. Cox teaches that the gestures of the user are observed by using
magnetically tracked gloves or a hand held tracking device (a wand)
which is held by the user and has several buttons. Col. 3, l. 9, col. 4,
ll. 4-7.
10. In one embodiment of Cox’s system, menus may be activated by
voice commands to enable additional functions of the gesture input
device. Col. 3, ll. 6-10.

ANALYSIS
Appellant’s arguments have persuaded us that the Examiner erred in
rejecting claims 1 through 18 and 20 through 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Independent claim 1 recites a processor which receives audio signals and
“upon recognizing the audio command, activates an image acquisition
component that is configured to recognize a user hand gesture related to
manipulating the PIP display characteristic.” Independent claims 11, 15, 20,
and 21 similarly recite that there is an activation of an image acquisition
component that determines a gesture of a user upon determining that the
received audio command is recognized. Thus, the scope of the independent
claims includes that the process, whereby an image is acquired to recognize
gestures, is activated by receipt of an audio command.
5

Appeal 2008-005770
Application 09/896,199
In rejecting claims 1, 11, 15, 20, and 21, the Examiner finds that
Inagaki teaches a video display device with a picture in picture image
overlaying a primary image and that Inagaki teaches that the image is
controlled from voice indication. Answer 3 and 4. Further, the Examiner
finds that Inagaki does not teach upon recognizing the audio command
activating an image acquisition component. Answer 3 and 4. We find
ample evidence to support these findings. Facts 1-4. The Examiner finds
that Pavlovic demonstrates a system that uses audio commands and related
gestures to control a graphical object. Answer 4. Similarly, we find ample
facts to support these findings. Fact 5. The Examiner finds that it is an
obvious design choice to choose whether to enter a voice command first and
then a gesture command. The Examiner cites Cox as evidence of the design
choice. Answer 5. We disagree with the Examiner’s reasoning.
Initially, we note that the claims are narrower than the voice command
having to be received before the gesture as stated by the Examiner. Rather,
as discussed above the claim recites that the image acquisition which
interprets the video is actuated by the voice command. The teachings of
Cox are directed to a system which allows a user to use voice commands and
gestures in a three dimensional data structure. Facts 7 and 8. The user’s
gestures are captured by a magnetically tracked glove or a hand held
tracking device (referred to as a “wand”). Fact 9. Cox does not teach that
the gesture input device is achieved by image acquisition (although Pavlovic
does, Fact 6). Further, Cox does not teach that the acquisition of the gesture
from the gesture input device is activated by a voice command. Rather, Cox
teaches that menus in the image system are voice activated which enables
additional functions to be input by gestures. Fact 10. The Examiner’s
rationale on page 5 of the Answer directed to a gesture control of menus is
6

Appeal 2008-005770
Application 09/896,199
similarly not persuasive as it discusses the actuation of a command that
requires cursor control and not actuation of an image acquisition component
as claimed. Thus, we do not find that Cox provides evidence or suggests
that the teachings of Inagaki and Pavlovic should be modified such that the
input device which recognizes gestures is activated by receipt of an audio
command. Accordingly, we will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
claims 1 through 18, and 20 through 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

ORDER
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1 through 18 and 20
through 24 is reversed.

7

Appeal 2008-005770
Application 09/896,199
REVERSED

ELD

PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS
P.O. BOX 3001
BRIARCLIFF MANOR, NY 10510
8