Ex Parte Lynch

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 23, 2014

11537532 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 23, 2014)

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.
11/537,532 09/29/2006 Thomas W. Lynch 114671-156486 1569
25943 7590 04/24/2014
Schwabe Williamson & Wyatt
PACWEST CENTER, SUITE 1900
1211 SW FIFTH AVENUE
PORTLAND, OR 97204
EXAMINER
BADER, ROBERT N.
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2614
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/24/2014 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 THOMAS W. LYNCH
____________

Appeal 2011-007432
Application 11/537,532
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO, ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, and
LARRY J. HUME, Administrative Patent Judges.

RUGGIERO, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection
of claims 1, 2, 6-10, 16, 17, 21-26, and 28-30. Claims 3-5, 11-15, 18-20,
and 27 have been canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellant and the Examiner,
we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed Nov. 24, 2010), the Answer (mailed Feb.
17, 2011), and the Reply Brief (filed Mar. 16, 2011) for the respective
Appeal 2011-007432
Application 11/537,532

2
details. We have considered in this decision only those arguments Appellant
actually raised in the Briefs. Any other arguments which Appellant could
have made but chose not to make in the Briefs are deemed to be waived. See
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).

Appellant’s Invention
Appellant’s invention relates to modulating facial expressions in
accordance with a facial model and, in response to acquired data, forming a
rendered face having a facial expression. The facial expression is displayed
on an electronic display and conveys or represents the acquired data. See
generally Spec. ¶ 0001.

Representative claim 1 is illustrative of the invention and reads as
follows:
1. A method, comprising:
determining, by a digital device, a transformation matrix
having one or more values that correspond to data, wherein the
data is indicative of one or more operating conditions of a
computing system;
altering, by the digital device, a facial model matrix,
stored in a storage device, from a first state to a second state
based, at least in part, on the transformation matrix, wherein the
facial model matrix is altered via linear transformation of the
facial model matrix using the transformation matrix, and
wherein the first state corresponds to an expressionless face;
and
rendering on a display device, by the digital device, a
representation of an expressive face in accordance with the
facial model matrix of the second state, wherein the rendered
representation of the expressive face includes one or more
facial expressions that represent the data.

Appeal 2011-007432
Application 11/537,532

3
The Examiner’s Rejection
The Examiner’s Answer cites the following prior art references:
Belfer US 5,649,086 July 15, 1997
Mathes US 2006/0031476 A1 Feb. 9, 2006
Clark US 2007/0061385 A1 Mar. 15, 2007
(filed May 6, 2004)

Claims 1, 2, 6-10, 16, 17, 21-26, and 28-30, all of the appealed claims,
stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Mathes
in view of Clark and Belfer.

ANALYSIS
Appellant contends, with respect to the obviousness rejection of
representative independent claim 1, that Belfer does not overcome what the
Examiner (Ans. 4) has identified as the deficiency in the Mathes/Clark
combination.1 According to Appellant, while Belfer teaches changing a
facial image through user manipulation of a parameter, there is no teaching
or suggestion of a “transformation matrix” or a “facial model matrix” as
claimed. App. Br. 13; Reply Br. 2-3. In Appellant’s view, Belfer may
discuss the alteration of multiple facial characteristics, but this alteration is
performed with reference to only a single parameter (“surprise/disgust” or
“sad/happy”) and, therefore, does not teach a transformation matrix. Id.

1 Appellant argues rejected claims 1, 2, 6-10, 16, 17, 21-26, and 28-30
together as a group. See App. Br. 22. Although Appellant nominally
provides separate arguments for independent claims 16 and 26, the
arguments are identical to those presented for independent claim 1.
Accordingly, we select claim 1 as representative. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
Appeal 2011-007432
Application 11/537,532

4
We do not agree with Appellant. As explained by the Examiner, even
though the claim language (“one or more values”) does not require a
transformation matrix having multiple parameters, even a single parameter
would correspond to a transformation matrix, i.e., a 1x1 matrix. Ans. 13.
Further, we find Appellant’s arguments unpersuasive of error in the
Examiner’s determination that a single parameter in Belfer creates a set of
change characteristics that corresponds to a 1x5 transformation matrix. Id.
(citing Belfer, col. 6, ll. 13-24 and Table 3).
Also, contrary to Appellant’s contention (App. Br. 13-14; Reply
Br. 2-3), we find no error in the Examiner’s determination (Ans. 14) that
Belfer performs a linear transformation on the facial model matrix as
claimed. We further note Belfer describes the linear adjustment of
characteristic values over the ranges indicated in Table 4 (col. 6, ll. 35-41),
as well as the application of a linear relationship to map changes in the
hierarchical parent-child relationship parameters (col. 10, ll. 25-30).
We also find, Appellants’ arguments (App. Br. 14-16; Reply Br. 4) to
the contrary notwithstanding, the Examiner’s stated position (Ans. 6, 7, 15,
and 16) provides a valid articulated line of reasoning with a rational
underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness for the
proposed combination of Belfer with Mathes/Clark. See KSR Int’l Co. v.
Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). We agree with the Examiner’s
finding that the increased expressive capability of the facial synthesis
method taught by Belfer would be recognized by the artisan as an obvious
enhancement of the static icon representations of Mathes/Clark.
Appeal 2011-007432
Application 11/537,532

5
In view of the above discussion, we sustain the Examiner’s
obviousness rejection of representative independent claim 1, as well as the
rejection of claims 2, 6-10, 16, 17, 21-26, and 28-30 which fall with claim 1.

CONCLUSION OF LAW
Based on the analysis above, we conclude that the Examiner did not
err in rejecting claims 1, 2, 6-10, 16, 17, 21-26, and 28-30 for obviousness
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 2, 6-10, 16, 17,
21-26, and 28-30 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)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

msc