Ex Parte Hauke et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 25, 2016

12795267 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 25, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
121795,267 06/07/2010
60601 7590 08/25/2016
Muncy, Geissler, Olds & Lowe, P,C,
4000 Legato Road
Suite 310
FAIRFAX, VA 22033
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Rudolf HAUKE
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
1038/0lOlPUSl 1607
EXAMINER
PATEL, SANJIV D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2697
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
08/25/2016 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 RUDOLF HAUKE and JENS-UWE BAEUERLE
Appeal2014-008393
Application 12/795,267
Technology Center 2600
Before JOHN A. EV ANS, MELISSA A. RAAP ALA, and
MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges.
EV ANS, Administrative Patent Judge
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants1 seek our review2 under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner's final rejection of Claims 1-25. Claims Appendix (App. Br. 23).
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 The Appeal Brief identifies Almeva AG, as the real party in interest. App.
Br. 2.
2 We have considered in this Decision only those arguments Appellants
actually raised in the Briefs. Any other arguments which Appellants could
have made but chose not to make in the Briefs are deemed to be waived. See
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
Appeal2014-008393
Application 12/795,267
STATEMENT OF THE CASE3
The Invention
The claims relate to an interaction arrangement for interaction
between at least one screen arranged behind a transparent pane and at least
one pointer object located in front of the pane. See Abstract.
An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of
exemplary Claim 1, 4 which is reproduced below with disputed limitations
emphasized and some paragraphing added:
1. An interaction arrangement configured to interact
between at least one screen arranged behind a transparent pane
and at least one pointer object located in front of the pane, the
arrangement comprising:
at least two cameras arranged behind the pane;
a deflection unit associated with each of the cameras;
wherein an optical path from an interaction area in a vicinity of
and in front of the pane is directed into the camera via the
deflection unit;
a computing unit connectable to each of the cameras, the
computing unit configured to determine a position of the
pointer object that is guided so as to be visible for at least two
3 Rather than repeat the Examiner's positions and Appellants' arguments in
their entirety, we refer to the following documents for their respective
details: Appellants' Appeal Brief filed February 24, 2014 ("App. Br.");
Reply Brief filed July 21, 2014 ("Reply Br."); Examiner's Answer mailed
May 20, 2014 ("Ans."); the Specification filed June 7, 2010 ("Spec."), and
Final Office Action mailed April 23, 2013 ("Final Act.").
4 See App. Br. 8.
2
Appeal2014-008393
Application 12/795,267
of the cameras; and
a narrowband infrared light source configured to
illuminate the interaction area with infrared light having a grid
pattern,
wherein, at least one optical path from a waiting area in
front of the pane, which is further away from the pane than the
interaction area, is directed through or past the deflection unit
into the camera such that a person located in the waiting area is
at least partly in a visibility range of the camera, and
wherein content displayed on a screen is modified as a
function of a gesture and a characteristic of the person that has
been determined.
References and Rejections
The Examiner relies upon the following prior art as follows:
Tognazzini, et al.
Rekimoto, et al.
Maggioni
Tomasi, et al.
Trest
Cordelli
Dehlin
Bell
Harris
us 5,731,805
US 2001/0012001 Al
US 2001/0020933 Al
US 2003/0218760 Al
US 2010/0036717 Al
US 2005/0206610 Al
US 2006/0007124 Al
US 2008/0062123 Al
US 8,081,158 B2
Mar. 24, 1998
Aug. 9, 2001
Sept. 13, 2001
Nov. 27, 2003
Priority Dec. 29, 2004
Sept. 22, 2005
Jan. 12,2006
Mar. 13, 2008
(Filed Oct. 31, 2007)
Dec. 20, 2011
(Filed Aug. 6, 2007)
1. Claims 1, 4--8, 15, 18, 20-23, and 25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Maggioni, Bell, Trest, and
Tomasi. Final Act. 2-8.
3
Appeal2014-008393
Application 12/795,267
2. Claims 2, 3, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Maggioni, Bell, and Trest. Final Act. 8-12.
3. Claims 9 and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Maggioni, Bell, Trest, Tomasi, and Rekimoto.
Final Act. 12-14.
4. Claims 11-13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Maggioni, Bell, Trest, Tomasi, Rekimoto, and
Harris. Final Act. 14--16.
5. Claim 14 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Maggioni, Bell, Trest, Tomasi, Rekimoto, and
Tognazzini. Final Act. 16-17.
6. Claims 16 and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Maggioni, Bell, Trest, Tomasi, and Cordelli. Final
Act. 17-18.
7. Claim 24 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Maggioni, Bell, Trest, Tomasi, Rekimoto, and
Dehlin. Final Act. 18-20.
ANALYSIS
CLAIMS 1, 4--8, 15, 18, 20-23, AND 25: OBVIOUSNESS OVER
MAGGIONI, BELL, TREST, AND TOMASI
The Examiner finds Maggioni fails to disclose a narrowband, infrared
light source having a grid pattern. Final Act. 3. The Examiner finds Bell
teaches a narrowband, infrared light source having a grid pattern. Id. at 4.
4
Appeal2014-008393
Application 12/795,267
Appellants argue Bell teaches a random dot pattern, but not a grid
pattern. App. Br. 10. The Examiner finds Bell affirmatively teaches a grid
pattern. Ans. 4--5 (citing Bell, i-f 56).
Appellants reply Bell teaches away from a grid by disclosing "[u]sing
a grid [pattern] can cause some difficulty because different sections of the
pattern are identical, causing the displaced pattern to often look like the non-
displaced pattern." Reply Br. 2 (citing Bell, i-f 56). Appellants argue "a
reference teaches away 'when a person of ordinary skill, upon reading the
reference ... would be led in a direction divergent from the path that was
taken by the applicant'." App. Br. 11; Reply Br. 3 (citing Fluor Tee, Corp.
v. U.S. Patent and Trademark Offzce5 (Fed. Cir. 2012)(citing In re Gurley,
27 F.3d 551, 553 (Fed. Cir. 1994))).
We find Bell affirmatively teaches random dot patterns:
While many different kinds of patterns can be used, a high-
resolution random dot pattern has certain advantages for both 2-
D and 3-D vision. Due to the randomness of the dot pattern,
each significantly sized section of the dot pattern is highly
unlikely to look like any other section of the pattern.
Bell, i-f 56. However, in agreement with Appellants, we find Bell
specifically teaches away from the use of a grid pattern:
Using a regular pattern such as a grid can cause some difficulty
because different sections of the pattern are identical, causing
the displaced pattern to often look like the non-displaced
pattern.
5 I.e., Fluor Tee Corp., v. Kappas, 2012-1295 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 12, 2012).
5
Appeal2014-008393
Application 12/795,267
Id. The Bell reference "teaches away" because it actually criticizes,
discredits, and otherwise discourages the claimed "grid pattern" solution.
See In re Fulton, 391F.3d1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004); see also KSR Int'!.
Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007)(citing U.S. v. Adams, 383 U.S.
39, 40 (1996)) ("The [Adams] Court relied upon the corollary principle that
when the prior art teaches away from combining certain known elements,
discovery of a successful means of combining them is more likely to be
nonobvious."). Accordingly, the Examiner has not established the cited
references teach the narrowband infrared light source having a grid pattern
recited in independent claim 1, and by virtue of dependency, claims 4--8, 15,
19, 20-23, and 25.
CLAIMS 2, 3, AND 19: OBVIOUSNESS OVER MAGGIONI, BELL, AND TREST
Appellants advance similar contentions in support of these claims.
The Examiner finds independent Claim 2 is similar in scope to independent
Claim 1 and the arguments made for Claim 1 apply to Claim 2. Ans. 6.
Claim 2 recites limitations substantially similar to the disputed limitation of
claim 1. For the reasons stated above, we do not sustain the rejection of
claim 2 and its dependent claims 3 and 19.
CLAIMS 9 AND 10: OBVIOUSNESS OVER MAGGIONI,
BELL, TREST, TOMASI, AND REKIMOTO
Claims 9 and 10 depend from Claim 1. The Examiner does not apply
Rekimoto to the limitations argued in context of Maggioni and Bell.
6
Appeal2014-008393
Application 12/795,267
Therefore, we do not sustain the rejection of these claims for the reasons
stated above.
CLAIMS 11-14, 16, 17, AND 24
Appellants contend Claims 11-14, 16, 17, and 24 are patentable in
view of their arguments advanced in favor of Claim 1. App. Br. 21-22.
These claims from claim 1. For the same reasons reasons as for Claim 1, we
do not sustain this rejection ..
DECISION
The rejection of Claims 1-25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is REVERSED.
REVERSED
7