Ex Parte Kim

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 3, 2016

13805286 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 3, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/805,286 12/03/2013
86636 7590 03/04/2016
BRUNDIDGE & STANGER, P.C.
2318 MILL ROAD, SUITE 1020
ALEXANDRIA, VA 22314
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
SeungilKim
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.
2325.737BS 5063
EXAMINER
YANG, WEI WEN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2667
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
03/04/2016 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 SEUNGIL KIM 1
Appeal 2016-002374
Application 13/805,286
Technology Center 2600
Before KRISTEN L. DROESCH, KAMRAN JIV ANI,
MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges.
DROESCH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant seeks review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner's
final rejection of claims 1-3, 6-16, and 19-26.2 We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 Appellant indicates the real party-in-interest is Empire Technology
Development LLC. App. Br. 3.
2 Claims 4, 5, 17, and 18 have been cancelled.
Appeal 2016-002374
Application 13/805,286
The disclosed invention relates to methods and systems for a position-
setup scheme for gesture-based game systems to provide players with
information on positions during play, while reducing the risk of player
collision. Spec. i-fi-12-3, 25-26.
Representative claim 1, reproduced from the Claim Appendix of the
Appeal Brief, reads as follows:
1. A method performed under control of a gesture-based
game system, comprising:
capturing, by an image capture unit, an image of a first
player and an image of a second player;
cropping, from the image of the first player and the image of
the second player, a sub-image of at least part of the first player
and a sub-image of at least part of the second player,
respectively, in a first predetermined size and a second
predetermined size based, respectively, at least in part on a
preset position of the first player and a preset position of the
second player;
determining \vhether to adjust the sub-image of at least part
of the first player and the sub-image of at least part of the
second player;
responsive to a determination to adjust the sub-image of at
least part of the first player and the sub-image of at least a part
of the second player, adjusting the sub-image of at least part of
the first player and the sub-image of at least part of the second
player; and
merging the adjusted sub-image of at least part of the first
player and the adjusted sub-image of at least part of the second
player into an output image.
REJECTION
Claims 1-3, 6-16, and 19-26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Yee (US 2010/0277411 Al, published Nov. 4, 2010),
2
Appeal 2016-002374
Application 13/805,286
Tardif (US 2011/0300929 Al, published Dec. 8, 2011), and Lutnick (US
2008/0300055 Al, published Dec. 4, 2008).
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejection in light of Appellant's
arguments in the Appeal Brief presented in response to the Final Office
Action and the arguments in the Reply Brief presented in response to the
Examiner's Answer. We agree with Appellant's arguments. We highlight
and address specific findings and arguments for emphasis below.
The Examiner relies on Lutnick for teaching or suggesting
"cropping ... based, respectively, at least in part on a preset position of the
first player and a preset position of the second player," (the cropping based
on a preset position limitation) as recited in claim 1, and recited similarly in
independent claims 13 and 21. Final Act. 3--4, 8-9; Ans. 5, 11. Specifically,
the Examiner finds Lutnick teaches "cropping image data from the region of
interest in a predetermined size based on the position of the target
person/body part relative to Camera AD 101." Final Act. 4, 9; Ans. 5, 11
(both citing Lutnick i-fi-1413--414). The Examiner contends Lutnick teaches
the apparent distance between two emitters could provide an indication of
distance from the game device, and that each emitter could represent the first
player and the second player. Final Act. 4, 9; Ans. 5---6, 11-12 (citing
Lutnick i-fi-f 129-130). The Examiner also asserts "a preset position of the
first player" and "a preset position of a second player" are not defined. Ans.
10; see id. at 11-12. The Examiner further finds "based on a preset position
of the player" is met by "c5, or D105 relative to Camera A DIOI." Id. at 12
(citing Lutnick Figs. 14a, 14b, 15).
3
Appeal 2016-002374
Application 13/805,286
We agree with Appellant's argument that the Examiner's Answer
appears to newly interpret a "preset position" as simply a position. See
Reply Br. 2. We further agree the Examiner's Answer improperly gives no
patentable weight to the feature "preset" and interprets "a preset position" as
merely a "position." See id. at 3. The term preset is not defined explicitly in
Appellant's Specification, and we observe the ordinary and customary
meaning of "preset" is "set in advance."3 The Final Rejection and Answer
do not provide supporting evidence sufficient to demonstrate that Lutnick
teaches or suggests the cropping is based on at least a position of the player
set in advance. We further agree with Appellant that Lutnick's disclosure of
deriving the position of the player is relevant to showing that Lutnick does
not teach a preset position of the player. Reply Br. at 3--4 (citing Lutnick
i-fi-1342, 364, 374, 399, 413--415); see also App. Br. 12-13 (citing Lutnick
i-fi-1342--443, 364, 377-379, 399, 413--415, Fig. 14c). The teachings of Yee
and Tardif, as applied by the Examiner, do not remedy the deficiencies of
Lutnick. See Final Act. 5-9; Ans. 2---6.
For these reasons, we are constrained to reverse the Examiner's
rejection of claims 1-3, 6-16, and 19-26.
DECISION
We REVERSE the rejection of claims 1-3, 6-16, and 19-26.
REVERSED
3 See, e.g., http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/preset?s=t (last accessed
Feb. 22, 2016).
4