Ex Parte Lev et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 26, 2016

12242092 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 26, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/242,092 09/30/2008
22879 7590 09/28/2016
HP Inc,
3390 E. Harmony Road
Mail Stop 35
FORT COLLINS, CO 80528-9544
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Jeff Lev
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.
82239398 8175
EXAMINER
PATEL, SANJIV D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2697
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/28/2016 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):
ipa.mail@hp.com
barbl@hp.com
yvonne.bailey@hp.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JEFF LEV, EARL MOORE, and JEFF PARKER
Appeal2014-002761
Application 12/242,092 1
Technology Center 2600
Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, KEVIN C. TROCK, and
AARON W. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judges.
TROCK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Introduction
Appellants seek review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 1-21. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
1 Appellants indicate the Real Party in Interest is the Hewlett-Packard
Development Company, LP. App. Br. 4.
Appeal2014-002761
Application 12/242,092
Invention
The disclosure relates to a two-dimensional (2D) or three dimensional
(3D) input to a computer system based on monitoring distortions to a
structured light pattern. Spec. i-f 13.
Exemplary Claim
Exemplary claim 10 is reproduced below with disputed limitations
emphasized.
10. A method for a computer system, comprising:
generating a structured light pattern;
detecting changes to the structured light pattern reflected
by an object in the structured light pattern, wherein the changes
characterize three dimensional shape of the object;
identifYing a gesture in three dimensions based on the
detected changes to the structured light pattern reflected by
three dimensions of the object;
correlating the gesture with a function of the computer
system; and
performing the function.
Rejections
Claims 1-5, 7, and 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Macneille et al. (US 2008/0063239 Al;
Mar. 13, 2008) and Bell (US 2006/0139314 Al; June 29, 2006).
Claim 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Macneille, Bell, and Nishimura et al. (US 7,176,881 B2;
Feb. 13, 2007).
Claim 9 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Macneille, Bell, and Gard (US 5,990,865; Nov. 23, 1999).
2
Appeal2014-002761
Application 12/242,092
Claims 10, 12, 14, 17, 18, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Tomasi et al. (US 2003/0218760 Al;
Nov. 27, 2003) and Hassebrook et al. (US 2008/0279446 Al; Nov. 13,
2008).
Claims 11, 16, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Tomasi, Hassebrook, and Macneille.
Claim 13 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Tomasi, Hassebrook, and Fenster et al. (US 6,334,847 Bl;
Jan. 1, 2002).
Claims 15 and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Tomasi, Hassebrook, and Banerjee et al. (US
2004/0130566 Al; July 8, 2004).
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections and the evidence of
record in light of Appellants' arguments that the Examiner has erred. We
disagree with Appellants' arguments and conclusions. We adopt as our
own: ( 1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action
from which this appeal is taken, and (2) the findings and reasons set forth in
the Examiner's Answer. We concur with the conclusions reached by the
Examiner and further highlight specific findings and argument for emphasis
as follows.
Independent Claims 10 and 18
Appellants contend the Examiner erred because the combination of
Tomasi and Hassebrook fails to teach or suggest "detecting changes to the
structured light pattern reflected by an object in the structured light pattern,"
3
Appeal2014-002761
Application 12/242,092
and "identifying a gesture in three dimensions based on the detected changes
to the structured light pattern reflected by three dimensions of the object," as
recited in claim 10, and similarly recited in claim 18. App. Br. 12-13; Reply
Br. 2-3. Appellants argue detecting a pattern, as taught by Tomasi, is
different from detecting changes to a pattern. App. Br. 12. Appellants also
argue Tomasi teaches identifying a gesture in two dimensions rather than
identifying a gesture in three dimensions. App. Br. 13.
The Examiner finds, however, and we agree, Tomasi teaches:
"The gesture 540 may be referenced by a starting point 542 and
an ending point 546. One or more images of the object
intersecting the structured light to contact surface 508 at the
starting point 542 are captured. When the object contacts surface
508 at starting point 542, the contact is identified as valid input.
Successive images are captured of the object as it is traced over
the monitored region 510 to form gesture 540. Between the
starting point 542 and the ending point 546, successive images
are captured of the object at a plurality of intermediate
positions 544 .... "[Flor each image of the light pattern formed
by the object intersecting the structured light and contacting
surface 508, a geometric characteristic of the light pattern is
measured. The measured characteristic is used to determine a
coordinate of the object at different points on gesture 540,
including at the starting point 542 and the ending point 546."
Ans. 2-3 (quoting Tomasi iii! 124-125).
Ans. 3
The Examiner explains, and we agree, that Tomasi makes clear that:
[S]uccessive images of an object intersecting a structured light
pattern are captured as the object moves through the structured
light pattern. Further, since a coordinate position is determined
in each captured image based on a geometric characteristic of the
light pattern, it necessarily follows that Tomasi et al.
contemplates "detecting changes to a structured light pattern
reflected by an object" as recited in claims 10 and 18.
4
Appeal2014-002761
Application 12/242,092
The Examiner further finds, and we also agree:
Hassebrook et al. affirmatively discloses . . . "Structured light
measurement techniques provide a useful means by which data
about a 3D surface may be acquired without contacting the
surface, and used for a wide variety of engineering and industrial
applications." Moreover, [Hasse brook] Figs. 10-12 contemplate
capturing a hand movement (See i-f[i-f] [0063]-[0071]; i-f[i-f] [0064]
and [0070] disclose capturing movement of a hand). Hence, it
follows that Hassebrook et al. (in addition to Tomasi et al. as
articulated in the substantive rejection to the claims)
contemplates that the detecting changes to the structured light
pattern reflected by an object in the structured light pattern
characterize a three dimensional shape of the object.
Ans. 3--4 (citing Hassebrook Figs. 10-12; i1i17, 63-71).
Accordingly, we are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments that the
Examiner erred in finding the combination of Tomasi and Hassebrook
teaches or suggests "detecting changes to the structured light pattern
reflected by an object in the structured light pattern," and "identifying a
gesture in three dimensions based on the detected changes to the structured
light pattern reflected by three dimensions of the object," as recited in claim
10, and similarly recited in claim 18. Therefore, we sustain the Examiner's
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of independent claims 10 and 18.
Independent Claim 1
Appellants contend the Examiner erred because the combination of
Macneille and Bell fails to teach or suggest "wherein the processor receives
images of the structured light pattern from the camera and identifies a user
gesture based on distortions to the structured light pattern," as recited in
claim 1. App. Br. 17-20. Appellants argue a TOF (time of flight) camera,
as taught by Bell, detects distance information for each pixel of its image by
5
Appeal2014-002761
Application 12/242,092
timing how long it takes an invisible light pulse to travel from an illuminator
next to the camera to the object being imaged and then back to the camera.
App. Br. 18. Thus, Appellants argue, the cited portions of Bell teach
identification of a user gesture via a TOP camera, but fail to teach
identification of a user gesture based on distortions to a structured light
pattern as recited by claim 1. Id.
One cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually
where, as here, the rejections are based on combinations of references. In re
Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). The Examiner uses Bell to teach a
processor identifying a user gesture based on a camera captured image of an
object. Final Act. 3. The Examiner uses Macneille to teach identifying
objects based on distortions to a projected light pattern. Id. Therefore, the
Examiner finds, and we agree, it is the combination of Macneille and Bell
which teaches a "processor receives images of the structured light pattern
from the camera and identifies a user gesture based on distortions to the
structured light pattern." Final Act. 2-3.
Appellants also argue the combination of Macneille and Bell is
improper because "[d]etection of user gestures presents a significantly
different problem from that of detecting large objects, such as vehicles, as
taught by Macneille." App. Br. 18. Consequently, Appellants argue, one
skilled in the art would not consider the teaching of Macneille for use in
identifying a user gesture. Id. Appellants also argue that while the use of
stripes by Macneille may be suitable for the identification of vehicles, such
patterns are unsuitable for the identification of user gestures. App. Br. 19.
Appellants argue one skilled in the art would recognize that the system of
Macneille is not suitable for generating a light pattern for identifying
6
Appeal2014-002761
Application 12/242,092
gestures in a computer system. Id. One skilled in the art, Appellants also
argue, would immediately appreciate the deficiencies of directing a laser
towards a user of a computer system for gesture identification, and would
consequently not consider application of the system of Macneille for
identifying user gestures in a computer system. Id.
In identifying a reason that would have prompted a person of ordinary
skill in the relevant field to combine the prior art teachings, the Examiner
must show some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to
support the legal conclusion of obviousness. KSR Int 'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007).
The Examiner finds that:
Macneille et al. discloses a base object detection system
upon which the claimed invention is an improvement. Bell
discloses a comparable object detection system which has been
improved in the same way as the claimed invention. Hence, it
would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the
art at the time of invention to add the teachings of Bell to that of
Macneille et al. for the predictable result of expanding the uses
and applications of an object detection system.
Final Act. 3 (citing Bell i-f 54 ).
Appellants' argument, that the use of stripes by Macneille would be
unsuitable for the use of gestures, is not supported by the evidence. The
Specification explains that "a structured light pattern refers to a
predetermined pattern or grid of lines and/ or shapes." Spec. i-f 13. Stripes,
such as those used by Macneille, would be a "pattern of lines" as described
by the Specification.
Appellants also argue that there are "deficiencies of directing a laser
towards a user of a computer system for gesture identification, and would
consequently not consider application of the system of Macneille for
7
Appeal2014-002761
Application 12/242,092
identifying user gestures in a computer system." App. Br. 19. Again,
Appellants' argument is not supported by the evidence, as Appellants' own
Specification describes the use of lasers:
[T]he light source may be a laser diode that creates a strong
signal in a narrow band of frequencies. In some embodiments,
the camera has a filter that passes the frequency of the laser diode
and rejects other frequencies (a narrow band-pass filter). In this
manner, the structured light pattern and distortions thereof are
easily identified.
Spec. ,-r 13.
Appellants have not demonstrated why the reason to combine
Macneille and Bell articulated by the Examiner is erroneous or why a person
of ordinary skill in the art would not have reached the conclusions reached
by the Examiner. See DyStar Textilfarben GmbH & Co. Deutschland KG v.
C.H. Patrick Co., 464 F.3d 1356, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ("[T]he proper
question is whether the ordinary artisan possesses knowledge and skills
rendering him capable of combining the prior art references.").
Accordingly, we are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments that the
Examiner erred finding the combination of Macneille and Bell teaches or
suggests "wherein the processor receives images of the structured light
pattern from the camera and identifies a user gesture based on distortions to
the structured light pattern," as recited in claim 1. Therefore, we sustain the
Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of independent claim 1.
8
Appeal2014-002761
Application 12/242,092
Dependent Claims 2-9, jj-j/, and j9-2j
As noted above, we have considered Appellants' arguments with
respect to dependent claims 2-9, 11-17, and 19-21. App. Br. 13-17, 20-22;
Reply Br. 4. We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments that the
Examiner erred in rejecting these claims. We concur with the conclusions
reached by the Examiner with respect to these claims and highlight the
following issue for emphasis.
With respect to dependent claim 14, Appellants contend Tomasi and
Hassebrook do not teach or suggest "controlling a camera to selectively
capture infrared light images," as recited in the claim. App. Br. 13-14;
Reply Br. 4 (emphasis added). Tomasi, however, in describing the basic
method for determining an object's placement, explains in its disclosure:
The wavelength of the structured light is one that is detectable by
a light detecting device. In an embodiment, the light beams are
infrared, but detectable by a suitably configured light detecting
device.
Tomasi i-f 48 (emphasis added).
Therefore, we are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments that the
Examiner erred in finding the combination of Tomasi and Hassebrook
teaches or suggests "controlling a camera to selectively capture infrared light
images of the structured light pattern and visible light images of an object
within the structured light pattern," as recited in dependent claim 14.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejections
of dependent claims 2-9, 11-17, and 19-21.
9
Appeal2014-002761
Application 12/242,092
DECISION
We AFFIRM the Examiner's rejections of claims 1-21.
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
10