Ex Parte Heald

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 28, 2017

13456184 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 28, 2017)

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.
13/456,184 04/25/2012 Arthur D. Heald AQ-149141US 4811
135080 7590
RGIP LLC
1103 TWIN CREEKS
STE. 120
AT .TEN, TX 75013
EXAMINER
COHEN, YARON
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2696
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/30/2017 ELECTRONIC
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.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
michele. zarinelli @ gmail .com
patentpatent @ gmail. com
candace.l.guzman@gmail.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ARTHUR D. HEALD
Appeal 2017-001950
Application 13/456,184
Technology Center 2600
Before MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, IRVIN E. BRANCH, and
MICHAEL M. BARRY, Administrative Patent Judges.
BARRY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Non-Final
Rejection of claims 1—20, which are all pending claims. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 Appellant identifies AMX LLC as the real party in interest. App. Br. 2.
Appeal 2017-001950
Application 13/456,184
Introduction
Appellant states the “disclosure relates to touchless user input
commands being identified and processed to perform tasks and related
functions.” Spec. 12. Appellant’s Specification identifies that “known
touchless user input technology has a limited capability to identify a hand,
finger and/or palm movement and distinguish such a hand movement over
other types of hand movements” which has resulted in “limited growth in the
types of applications that can be integrated with hand or user input gesture
commands in general.” Id. 13.
Claim 1 is representative of the claims on appeal and is reproduced
below with disputed limitations emphasized in italics'.
1. A method of detecting an input gesture command
comprising:
obtaining at least one digital image from a digital camera
of a pre-defmed controlled movement area;
comparing, via a processor, the at least one digital image
to at least one pre-stored background image previously obtained
from the digital camera of the same pre-defmed controlled
movement area;
identifying a plurality of gridpoints identified on the at
least one digital image which correspond to a user’s body part
identified from the at least one digital image, wherein the
plurality of gridpoints comprises a plurality of upper gridpoints
which are above a lower plurality of gridpoints;
pairing the plurality of gridpoints with a center point of a
surface area defined by a first portion of the user’s body part
and utilizing the center point and the remaining plurality of
gridpoints as a basis for identifying the user’s appendages
connected to the user’s arm;
identifying the upper gridpoints as the appendages of the
user’s body part and the lower gridpoints as comprising at
2
Appeal 2017-001950
Application 13/456,184
least the center point of the user’s first portion and a gridpoint
beneath the center point of the user’s first portion identifying
the user’s arm;
identifying, via the processor, at least one pixel
difference between the at least one digital image and the at least
one pre-stored background image; and
designating, via the processor, the at least one digital
image as having a detected input gesture command.
App. Br. 51 (Claims App’x) (disputed requirements emphasized).
Rejections and References
Claims 1, 3—6, 8, 10-13, 15, and 17—20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as obvious over the combination of Chiang (US 2010/00159981
Al; June 24, 2010) and Gokturk (US 2011/0291926 Al; Dec. 1, 2011).
Non-Final Act. 4—12.
Claims 2, 7, 9, 14, and 16 stand rejected under § 103(a) as obvious
over the combination of Chiang, Gokturk, and Park (US 2001/0008415 Al;
July 19, 2001). Non-Final Act. 12—13.
ISSUES
Based on equivalent limitations recited in independent claims 1, 8,
and 15, Appellant presents the same arguments of Examiner error for each of
those claims. See App. Br. 11—18, 14—31, 38-45, 51, 53—56. Appellant
offers no argument of Examiner error for dependent claims 2—7, 9—14, and
16—20 separate from the arguments presented for the independent claims.
See App. Br. 18—24, 31—38, 45^49. Accordingly, we select claim 1 as
representative of all claims. 37 C.F.R. 41.37(c)(l)(iv); In reLovin, 652 F.3d
1349, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (sustaining requirement for an appellant to
3
Appeal 2017-001950
Application 13/456,184
make separate substantive arguments for separate review on appeal of
individual claims).
Based on Appellant’s arguments, the issue is whether the Examiner
errs in finding the combination of Chiang and Gokturk teaches or suggests
the disputed limitations of claim 1. See App. Br. 11—18.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s
contentions of reversible error. We disagree with Appellant’s conclusions.
Instead, we adopt the Examiner’s findings and reasons as set forth in the
rejection from which this appeal is taken and as set forth in the Answer. We
highlight the following for emphasis.
In finding the combination of Chiang and Gokturk teaches or suggests
the disputed limitations, the Examiner finds Chiang teaches “identifying a
plurality of gridpoints . . . which correspond to a user’s body part. . .
comprising] a plurality of upper gridpoints,” and “identifying the upper
gridpoints as the appendages of the user’s body part,” as recited. Non-Final
Act. 5 (citing Chiang | 52, Figs. 8A—B, 9A—B). The Examiner finds the
remainder of the disputed limitations would have been obvious to an
ordinarily skilled artisan in view of the teachings of Gokturk in combination
with the teachings of Chiang. Non-Final Act. 6—8 (citing, inter alia,
Gokturk Figs. 1, 6, H 21, 37, 81, Chiang 153).
Appellant argues the Examiner errs because there is “mere mentioning
of such portions of those claim terms in the references (i.e., arm, center
point, etc.)” and the rejection is deficient “without more information
regarding the approach used in such references.” App. Br. 12—13 (emphasis
omitted). Appellant specifically submits “Gokturk mentions an ‘arm’
4
Appeal 2017-001950
Application 13/456,184
without any details as to how the arm or fingers are identified and/or any
details regarding midpoints in general.” Id. at 13.
Appellant’s arguments are unpersuasive. The Examiner finds
Chiang’s Figure 9 A shows a set of three gridpoints associated with two
fingers and a thumb, which correspond to the recited “upper . . . plurality of
gridpoints.” Non-Final Act. 5. We agree with the Examiner that the recited
requirement for “identifying the upper gridpoints as the appendages of the
user’s body part” reads on Chiang’s determination that these gridpoints are
located on the extended fingers of a hand. Non-Final Act. 5 (citing Chiang
Figs. 8A—B, 9A; see also Chiang 152 (determining a hand is “open” when
color variations indicate there is space between the extended fingers).
Appellant contends, in Chiang, “[tjhere are no multiple sets of points
including lower points, upper points, center points, etc., and certainly no
distinction between fingers, a hand, a center portion of the body part and/or
an arm.” App. Br. 13. According to Appellant Chiang “merely outlines the
user’s hand and offers no explanation how points could be used at various
degrees and with various identification methods to discover more parts of
the user’s body.” Id. at 14.
We agree with Appellant that Chiang does not disclose multiple sets
of gridpoints, i.e., both an upper and lower plurality of gridpoints, as recited.
The Examiner does not, however, rely on Chiang alone for this requirement.
As the Examiner explains:
Both Chiang and Gokturk teach gesture recognition systems
that identify the position of a user’s hand. Chiang uses three
points on the tips of the user’s fingers to identify the hand.
Gokturk uses a point in the center of the user’s hand as the
primary identification point. It would be obvious to combine
the two references such that both sets of points are used, in
5
Appeal 2017-001950
Application 13/456,184
order to that much more reliably and precisely locate the
position of the user’s hand.
Ans. 3.
We agree with the Examiner. Each reference cited by the Examiner
must be read, not in isolation, but for what it fairly teaches in combination
with the prior art as a whole. See In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091,
1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The relevant inquiry is whether the claimed subject
matter would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art in light
of the combined teachings of the references. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425
(CCPA 1981). By its disclosure of identifying the center of a hand by
averaging the coordinates of multiple points on a hand, Gokturk teaches a
plurality of gridpoints that includes a “lower plurality of gridpoints,” as
recited. Gokturk | 81. As discussed above, Chiang teaches of an “upper
plurality of gridpoints” that identify the appendages (fingers and thumb).
From the combination of Chiang and Gokturk, the ordinarily skilled artisan
would have understood the gridpoints of Gokturk include both an upper
plurality above a hand’s center point, such as those of Chiang, along with a
lower plurality of gridpoints below the hand’s center point.
Regarding “pairing the plurality of gridpoints with a center point of a
surface area defined by a first portion of the user’s body part,” as recited, we
agree with the Examiner that “[a]s Gokturk’s perimeter points are being
averaged to yield a center point, the perimeter points are being paired with
the center point.” Ans. 5. We also agree with the Examiner that the
combination of Chiang and Gokturk teaches the recited requirement for
“utilizing the center point and the remaining plurality of gridpoints as a basis
for identifying the user’s appendages connected to the user’s arm.” Chiang
not only teaches using the upper plurality of gridpoints to determine a hand
6
Appeal 2017-001950
Application 13/456,184
position “for efficiency, because they are already determined,” but also
broadly teaches “[ojther points on the object could also be used, or even the
full object.” Chiang | 53. As the Examiner finds and we agree, “when
combining Chiang with Gokturk, the center point would be the basis for
identifying the user’s hand. The remaining plurality of gridpoints are being
used as well since the center point is calculated based on the average of
these other coordinate points in the hand.” Non-Final Act. 7.
Thus, Appellant does not persuade us “that it is not obvious to
estimate a center point as in Gokturk or identify perimeter points as in
Chiang and arrive at the claimed subject matter of claim 1.” Reply Br. 5.
Instead, we find the Examiner has sufficiently “articulated reasoning with
some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.”
In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (cited with approval in KSR
Inti Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007)
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a). For the reasons discussed in the Issues section above, we
also, therefore, sustain the rejection of claims 2—20.
DECISION
We affirm the rejection of claims 1—20 under § 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
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
7