Ex Parte Girod

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jul 21, 2003

08984602 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 21, 2003)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written for
publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 16
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte BERND GIROD
____________
Appeal No. 2001-2293
Application No. 08/984,602
____________
ON BRIEF
____________
Before BARRY, LEVY, and BLANKENSHIP, Administrative Patent Judges.
BLANKENSHIP, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1-17, which are all the claims in the application.
We reverse.
Appeal No. 2001-2293
Application No. 08/984,602
-2-
BACKGROUND
The invention is directed to a user interface system that detects the presence
and position of a source of modulated light. Representative claim 1 is reproduced
below.
1. A method for tracking within frames of digital video data movement of a
light source that emits light modulated different from a frequency of the frames of
digital video data, comprising the steps of:
determining presence of the light as a function of relative luminances of
portions of a frame of digital video data and difference luminances between the
portions of the frame and corresponding portions of a previous frame;
storing coordinates and associated codes for selected portions of the
frame, the codes indicative of relative luminances and difference luminances of
the selected portions, and the selected portions having the greatest relative
luminances and difference luminances; and
determining a position of the light within a frame as a function of the
relative luminances, the difference luminances, and coordinates and associated
codes of the selected portions of the frame relative to coordinates and
associated codes of selected portions of the previous frame.
The examiner relies on the following references:
Iura et al. (Iura) 5,617,312 Apr. 1, 1997
(filed Nov. 18, 1994)
Siio 5,943,042 Aug. 24, 1999
(filed Oct. 5, 1995)
Claims 1-17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Iura and Siio.
We refer to the Final Rejection (Paper No. 8) and the Examiner’s Answer (Paper
No. 13) for a statement of the examiner’s position and to the Brief (Paper No. 12) and
Appeal No. 2001-2293
Application No. 08/984,602
-3-
the Reply Brief (Paper No. 14) for appellant’s position with respect to the claims which
stand rejected.
OPINION
Appellant asserts that the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection relying on the references of
Iura and Siio is erroneous because, inter alia, there is no evidence of a teaching or
suggestion for making the proposed combination. (Reply Brief at 3-4.)
The rejection submits that “Iura fails to particularly disclose the source is emitting
a modulated light “ as specified in the independent claims. (Final Rejection at 3.) The
rejection concludes that it would have been obvious to “modify the modulated light (36)
of Siio into the light source (801) of the pen (603) of Iura for the same purpose of
emitting light modulated different from a frequency of the frames so that a camera of
Iura is easily to detect [sic] the modulated light and the video images.” (Id. at 3-4.)
“Doing so would allow the light source emitting the modulated light to prevent
interference caused by light from other sources.” (Id. at 4.)
Siio discloses a wireless mouse 16 (Fig. 3A) having an LED 36 actuated by an
operation button 34. According to the reference, the light can “transmit a specific ID.”
The ID is shown as element D4 in Figure 3B. Col. 3, ll. 51-67. In the embodiment
depicted in Figure 3A, terminal 28 has a “light-receiving part” 40 for reception of light
from mouse 16. Col. 4, ll. 1-6. The system uses the mouse ID for bringing up particular
objects, on monitor 42, that are linked to a specific ID. Col. 4, l. 49 - col. 5, l. 7.
Appeal No. 2001-2293
Application No. 08/984,602
-4-
In the embodiment shown in Figures 5A, 5B, and 6, described in columns 6
through 8 of the reference, a projector 118 operates as a substitute for a computer
monitor screen by projecting a picture onto board 110. A camera 114, in combination
with a computer, determines the position of pointing device 16. As in the first
embodiment, pointing device 16 comprises an operation button 34 and an LED 36. The
pointing device contains an identifier which corresponds to an object stored on the
computer.
However, the examiner has not pointed to support in the evidence before us
(e.g., in the references applied against the claims) for the asserted reasons for
combining the teachings so as to meet the terms of the instant claims. The offered
reasons for the combination appear to arise from appellant’s teachings in the instant
specification (e.g., p. 9, l. 20 - p. 10, l. 4), rather than from the prior art. The
“modulation” of the light in Siio is for providing an identifier for a particular pointing
device. See Siio col. 4, ll. 49-54 and col. 6, ll. 48-53; Fig. 3B. The proposed
combination thus appears to be based on improper hindsight reconstruction of
appellant’s invention, rather than setting forth a case for prima facie obviousness based
on objective teachings of the prior art.
Moreover, even if there were suggestion from the prior art to combine the
references as contemplated by the rejection, we agree with appellant that not all
limitations of the instant claims are taught by Iura and Siio.
Appeal No. 2001-2293
Application No. 08/984,602
-5-
Instant claim 17 requires means for determining presence of the modulated light
as a function of relative luminances of portions of a frame of digital video data and
difference luminances between the portions of the frame and corresponding portions of
a previous frame. In appellant’s embodiment of the invention, separate non-linear
filters (A and B; Fig. 4) are used to (1) determine relative luminances within a frame and
(2) analyze differences in luminance between frames, consistent with the separate
requirements of the claim.
The rejection (Final Rejection at 2-3) relies on material in columns 3 and 4 of
Iura for the means for determining presence of the light, using relative and difference
luminances. However, the description at column 3, line 45 through column 4, line 65 of
the reference (and the more pertinent teachings at column 5, line 55 through column 6,
line 8) details comparison of differences in coordinates with respect to different frames
for generating displacement signals to emulate signals generated by movement of a
pointing device (e.g., a mouse), rather than using difference in luminance between
different frames to determine presence of light.
Independent claims 1, 2, and 16 contain similar limitations to those of claim 17
that we find lacking in the references.
Claim 3, the remaining independent claim, requires a first detection circuit to
detect presence of modulated light having a first modulation frequency, and a second
detection circuit to detect modulated light having a second modulation frequency. The
rejection (Final Rejection at 3) relies on Iura Figure 1, elements 105 and 107, 109 as
Appeal No. 2001-2293
Application No. 08/984,602
-6-
teaching the respective first and second circuits. Image signal processing circuit 105
processes digital image signals to produce video signals. Iura col. 3, ll. 45-59.
Microcomputer 107 calculates the difference between coordinates in different cycles
(i.e., frames), and computer apparatus 109 moves a cursor accordingly. Id. at col. 2, l.
65 - col. 3, l. 4 and col. 4, ll. 32-65. Thus, while Iura may teach “circuits,” the rejection
falls short in showing disclosure or suggestion of all the claimed elements, thus failing
to set forth a convincing case for unpatentability of the claimed subject matter.
Since the burden of setting forth a prima facie case for obviousness has not
been met with respect to any of the independent claims, we do not sustain the section
103 rejection of claims 1-17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Iura and
Siio.
Appeal No. 2001-2293
Application No. 08/984,602
-7-
CONCLUSION
The rejection of claims 1-17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
REVERSED
LANCE LEONARD BARRY )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
STUART S. LEVY ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
HOWARD B. BLANKENSHIP )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Appeal No. 2001-2293
Application No. 08/984,602
-8-
CRAWFORD PLLC.
1270 NORTHLAND DRIVE SUITE 390
MENDOTA HEIGHTS MN , MN 55120