Ex Parte Kurzweil

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 31, 2013

10735294 (P.T.A.B. May. 31, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte RAYMOND C. KURZWEIL
____________________

Appeal 2011-006159
Application 10/735,294
Technology Center 3700
____________________

Before JOHN C. KERINS, STEFAN STAICOVICI, and
EDWARD A. BROWN, Administrative Patent Judges.

BROWN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2011-006159
Application 10/735,294

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Raymond C. Kurzweil (Appellant) appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a)
from the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-23. App. Br. 2. An oral hearing
was conducted on May 7, 2013. We have jurisdiction over this appeal under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 1, 9, and 15 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1 is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter and is reproduced below.
1. A virtual encounter system comprising,
a mannequin having life-like features, the
mannequin comprises:
a body;
a camera coupled to the body, the
camera for sending first video signals over a
communications network; and
a microphone coupled to the body, the
microphone for sending first audio signals
over the communications network; and
a set of goggles including a display to render
electrical signals representative of second video
signals received from the communications network
and a transducer to transduce electrical signals
representative of second audio signals received
from the communications network, the respective
second video signals and second audio signals at
least partially reflect views and sound of a location
different from a location of the mannequin in real-
time.

Appeal 2011-006159
Application 10/735,294

3
REJECTIONS
Appellant requests review of the following rejections:1
Claims 1-4, 7-10, 13-17, and 21-23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Abbasi (US 6,786,863 B2; iss. Sep. 7, 2004),
Choy (US 6,695,770 B1; iss. Feb. 24, 2004), and Piccionelli (US 7,124,186
B2; iss. Oct. 17, 2006).
Claims 5, 6, 11, 12, and 18-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Abbasi, Choy, Piccionelli, and Gutierrez (US
5,111,290; iss. May 5, 1992).

ANALYSIS
Claims 1-4, 7-10, 13-17, and 21-23 – Abbasi, Choy, and Piccionelli
Claim 1 is directed to a virtual encounter system comprising, inter
alia, “a mannequin having life-like features, the mannequin comprises[] a
body.” The Examiner found that Abbasi discloses a mannequin having life-
like features and which comprises “a simulated human body part 55,” a
camera 35a-b “coupled to the body,” and a microphone 40a-b “coupled to
the body.” Ans. 3-4.
We understand that the Examiner found Abbasi’s “mannequin”
comprises either one of the mechanical surrogates 50, 55 in combination
with its respective video camera 35A, 35B and microphone 40A, 40B. See

1 The Examiner also provisionally rejected claims 1-20 on the ground of
non-statutory, obviousness-type double patenting over claims 1-23 of
Application No. 10/735,595, claims 1-26 of Application No. 10/734,618,
claims 1-21 of Application No. 10/734,616, and claims 1-20 of Application
No. 10/734,617. See Office Action dated Jan. 8, 2010 at pp. 2-3. Appellant
indicates that these rejections are not appealed. App. Br. 6. We summarily
sustain these rejections.
Appeal 2011-006159
Application 10/735,294

4
Abbasi, col. 4, ll. 37-43; fig. 1. Abbasi states “[t]he mechanical surrogates
can comprise replicas of human anatomical components.” See Abbasi, col.
4, ll. 43-44 (emphasis added). The mechanical surrogates 50, 55 depicted in
Figure 1 are human lip surrogates. Figure 2 of Abbasi pictorially depicts a
human lip surrogate. See also Abbasi, col. 4, ll. 47-48.
Appellant contends that Abbasi does not disclose a mannequin. Reply
Br. 2. The Patent and Trademark Office gives claim limitations their
broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, reading
the claim language as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the
art. See In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir.
2004). Figure 1 of Appellant’s application depicts mannequins 12a and 12b.
See Spec. 3, ll. 19-27. The illustrated mannequins 12a and 12b both have
life-like features, and include a head with eyes and ears, a trunk, arms, legs,
hands, and feet. See also Spec. figs. 2A, 2B. An ordinary meaning of
“mannequin” is “a form representing the human figure used esp. for
displaying clothes.” Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary 756 (11th ed.
2003). We find that the appearance of the mannequins 12a and 12b is
consistent with this ordinary meaning. We also note that Figure 2A is
described as “a view of a left side of a head of a mannequin,” and Figure 2B
is described as “a view of a right side of the head of the mannequin.” See
Spec. 2, ll. 27-30. We also find that these descriptions of Figures 2A and 2B
are consistent with the head forming only a portion of the full “mannequin.”
Each of the “mannequins” shown in Figure 1 of Abbasi, as found by
the Examiner, merely includes lips and a separate camera and microphone.
The lip surrogate shown in Figure 2 of Abbasi includes only a portion of a
head. The “mannequins” are not of “a form representing the human figure.”
Appeal 2011-006159
Application 10/735,294

5
The “mannequins” also do not include “a body,” as called for by claim 1.
Accordingly, we agree with Appellant that the Examiner’s finding that
Abbasi discloses a mannequin is not supported by a preponderance of the
evidence.
The Examiner relied on Choy and Piccionelli for teachings in regard
to the “set of goggles” recited in claim 1. Ans. 4-5. As such, the
Examiner’s application of Choy and Piccionelli does not cure the
deficiencies of Abbasi. Thus, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1 and
its dependent claims 2-4, 7, 8, and 21.
Independent claim 9 is directed to a method of having a virtual
encounter, comprising, inter alia, “sending first audio signals over a
communications network, the first audio signals being produced from a
microphone coupled to a mannequin having life-like features,” and “sending
first video signals over the communications network, the first video signals
being produced from a camera coupled to the mannequin.” Emphasis added.
The Examiner’s findings (Ans. 3-5) for claim 9 are the same as those
discussed supra in regard to the rejection of claim 1. Accordingly, we do
not sustain the rejection of claim 9, and its dependent claims 10, 13, 14, and
23, for reasons similar to those discussed for claim 1.
Independent claim 15 is directed to a virtual encounter system
comprising, inter alia, “a mannequin having life-like features, the
mannequin having a human-like body.” The Examiner’s findings (Ans. 3-5)
for claim 15 are the same as those discussed supra in regard to the rejection
of claim 1. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 15, and its
dependent claims 16, 17, and 22, for reasons similar to those discussed for
claim 1.
Appeal 2011-006159
Application 10/735,294

6
Claims 5, 6, 11, 12, and 18-20 – Abbasi, Choy, Piccionelli, and Gutierrez
Claim 5 depends from claim 1 and recites that “the body includes an
eye socket and the camera is positioned in the eye socket,” and claim 6 also
depends from claim 1 and recites that “the body includes an ear canal and
the microphone is positioned within the ear canal.” The Examiner relied on
Gutierrez for its teachings regarding a mannequin comprising a video
camera in the eye socket, and a microphone concealed in the mannequin
body. Ans. 7. The Examiner concluded that it would have been obvious to
modify the placement of the “mannequin” camera and microphone described
in the combination of Abbasi and Choy by concealing the camera and
microphone within the “mannequin” in the eye socket and ear canal,
respectively. Id. at 7-8.
For the reasons discussed supra in regard to the rejection of claim 1,
we disagree with the Examiner that Abbasi discloses a “mannequin,” as
claimed. The Examiner’s application of Gutierrez to the rejection of claims
5 and 6 does not cure the deficiencies of Abbasi. For example, the
mechanical surrogates of the “mannequins” shown in Figures 1 and 2 of
Abbasi do not include an eye or an ear. As such, the Examiner did not
adequately explain how Abbasi’s camera 35a or 3b-b and microphone 40a or
40-b could be relocated to an eye or ear of the “mannequin.” Accordingly,
we do not sustain the rejection of claims 5 and 6.
Claims 11 and 12 depend from claim 9, and claims 18-20 depend
from claim 15. Claims 11 and 12 and 18-20 recite similar limitations as
claim 5 or 6. The Examiner’s findings for claims 11, 12, and 18-20 (Ans. 7-
8) are the same as those discussed supra in regard to the rejection of claims
Appeal 2011-006159
Application 10/735,294

7
5 and 6. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 11, 12, and
18-20, for reasons similar to those discussed for claims 5 and 6.

DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-23 is reversed.

REVERSED

Klh