Ex Parte Katz et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 29, 2019

15060533 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 29, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
15/060,533 03/03/2016 Itay Katz
22852 7590 01/31/2019
FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER
LLP
901 NEW YORK A VENUE, NW
WASHINGTON, DC 20001-4413
UNITED ST A TES OF AMERICA
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.
11968. 00 ll -02000 4474
EXAMINER
CHOWDHURY, AFROZA Y
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2628
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/31/2019 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):
regional-desk@finnegan.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte IT A Y KATZ and AMNON SHENFELD
Appeal2018-006571
Application 15/060,533
Technology Center 2600
Before JOHNNY A. KUMAR, JASON J. CHUNG, and
NORMAN H. BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judges.
KUMAR, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL 1
1 Appellants have filed related Appeals in copending applications-U.S.
Patent Application No. 14/345,592; U.S. Patent Application No. 15/096,674;
U.S. Patent Application No. 15/090,527; U.S. Patent Application No.
15/256,481; and U.S. Patent Application No. 15/144,209. Br. 3.
Appeal2018-006571
Application 15/060,533
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellants2 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 57----65, 67-75, and 77-85. Claims 1-56, 66, and 76 have been
cancelled. Br. 31, 33, and 35. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Illustrative Claim
Illustrative claim 57 under appeal reads as follows:
57. An augmented reality device having a plurality of operation
modes, comprising:
at least one processor configured to:
receive, from an image sensor, image information
associated with a real world scene;
output, to a display, visual data associated with the
received image information to enable a user to view the visual
data, and view at least a portion of the real world scene in a see-
through area of the display;
detect, in the image information, a predefined gesture
performed by the user; and
change an operation mode of the augmented reality
device from a first operation mode to a second operation mode
associated with the detected predefined gesture, wherein the
change in operation mode comprises a change in an operation
mode of the image sensor.
Rejections on Appeal
Claims 57----62, 64, 65, 67-69, 71, 72, 74, 75, 77-79, and 81-85 are
rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ota
2 Appellants identify eyeSight Mobile Technologies Ltd., as the real party in
interest (Br. 2).
2
Appeal2018-006571
Application 15/060,533
(US 2013/0050069 Al, published Feb. 28, 2013) in view of Abernethy et al.
(US 2011/0296163 Al, published Dec. 1, 2011).
Claims 63, 70, 73, and 80 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
I03(a) as being unpatentable over Ota, Abernethy, and in further view of
Vadhavana et al. (US 2012/0062602 Al, published Mar. 15, 2012).
Appellants ' Contentions
1. Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 57
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 because:
Ota and Abernethy, alone or in combination, fail to disclose or
suggest "change an operation mode of the augmented reality
device from a first operation mode to a second operation mode
associated with the detected predefined gesture, wherein the
change in operation mode comprises a change in an
operation mode of the image sensor," as recited in claim 57,
and similarly recited in independent claims 72 and 82.
Br. 11-19.
2. Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 64
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 because:
Ota and Abernethy, alone or in combination, fail to disclose "wherein
the change in operation mode comprises a change in one or
moregestures to be identified," as recited in claim 64.
Br. 19-21.
3. Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 65
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 because:
Ota and Abernethy, alone or in combination, fail to disclose "wherein
the change in operation mode comprises a change in one or more
3
Appeal2018-006571
Application 15/060,533
algorithms that are active in a gesture detection module," as
recited in claim 65.
Br. 21-24.
4. Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 71
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 because:
Ota and Abernethy, alone or in combination, fail to disclose "wherein
the change from the standby mode to the active mode is associated
with an availability of visual data associated with the real world scene
for output on a display of the augmented reality device," as recited in
claim 71.
Br. 24--27.
5. Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 63
and 70 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 because:
Ota, Abernethy, and Vadhavana, alone or in combination, fail to
disclose "wherein the change in operation mode comprises a change
in a number of frames per second of the received image information
being analyzed," as recited in claim 63, and similarly recited in claim
70.
Br. 27-30.
Issue on Appeal
Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 57----65, 67-75, and 77-85 as
being obvious?
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants'
arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants'
conclusions. Except as noted herein, we adopt as our own; (1) the findings
and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which the appeal is
4
Appeal2018-006571
Application 15/060,533
taken (Final Act. 6-31 ), and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the
Examiner's Answer (Ans. 2-10) in response to the Appellants' Appeal
Brief. We concur with the conclusions reached by the Examiner. We
highlight the following.
agree,
As to Appellants' above contention 1, the Examiner finds, and we
Note: it is well known in the art that mode before 'playback'
must be 'stand by' or 'stop' mode; therefore, there is a
change of operation mode; 'playback' is interpreted as
'second operation mode' and 'stand-by' mode is interpreted as
'first operation mode');
Note: user touches a virtual 3D reference point in the space and
touching button can change mode of operation; therefore, using
broadest reasonable interpretation, it is interpreted that
operation mode of image sensor can be changed based on the
detected predefined gesture).
Abernethy reference is used to emphasize changing operation
mode. Abernethy teaches the change in operation mode
comprises a change in an operation mode of the image sensor
(Fig. 1 b(5): second sensor 5 includes image capture device 6a,
[0019]. ..
Ans. 3-5 (citing Ota ,r,r 26, 28, 41, 48, 50, and 51; Abernethy ,r,r 19, 23, and
51 ( emphasis omitted).
As to Appellants' contentions 2 through 5 regarding claims 63, 64, 65,
70, and 71 (Br. 19-30), the Examiner has rebutted each of those arguments
supported by sufficient evidence. (Ans. 6-10). Therefore, we adopt the
Examiner's findings and underlying reasoning, which are incorporated
herein by reference. We see no error in these unrebutted findings.
5
Appeal2018-006571
Application 15/060,533
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's § 103 rejection of claims 57,
63---65, 70-72, and 82, as well as the remaining claims not separately argued.
We observe no Reply Brief is of record to rebut the Examiner's
findings and responses to Appellants' arguments about the disputed features.
Therefore, in the absence of persuasive rebuttal evidence or argument to
persuade us otherwise, we adopt the Examiner's findings and underlying
reasoning, which are incorporated herein by reference. Consequently, we
sustain the rejection of claims 57---65, 67-75, and 77-85.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's rejections of claims 57---65, 67-75, and 77-
85 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § I03(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
6