Ex Parte Mahaffey et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jul 29, 2004

09464841 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 29, 2004)

-1–
The opinion in support of the decision being entered
today was not written for publication and is not
binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 15
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES

Ex parte, ROBERT B. MAHAFFEY, LAWRENCE F. WEISS, RICHARD S.
SCHWERDTFEGER and FREDERIK C. M. KJELDSEN

Appeal No. 2003-1558
Application No. 09/464,841

ON BRIEF

Before THOMAS, KRASS and GROSS, Administrative Patent Judges.
KRASS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal from the final rejection of
claims 2-9, 13 and 15.
The invention pertains to hands-free user input to a
computer system. In particular, display data is provided to a
display device dependent upon the proximity of a user’s face to a
camera.
Appeal No. 2003-1558
Application No. 09/464,841
-2–
Independent claim 2 is reproduced as follows:
2. A computer system, comprising:
a camera producing image signals representing a first image
and a second image of a user’s face, wherein the first image
precedes the second image in time;
a display device; and
a processing system coupled to receive the image signals
wherein the processing system is configured to:
analyze the first and second images to determine the
proximity of the user’s face to the camera; and
provide display data to the display device dependent upon
the proximity of the user’s face to the camera.
The examiner relies on the following references:
Davis, Jr. et al. (Davis) 5,839,000 Nov. 17, 1998
Koizumi et al. (Koizumi) 6,259,470 Jul. 10, 2001
(filed Dec. 18, 1997)
Claims 2, 8 and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as
anticipated by Koizumi, while claims 3-7, 13 and 15 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Koizumi in
view of Davis.
Reference is made to the briefs and answer for the
respective positions of appellants and the examiner.
Appeal No. 2003-1558
Application No. 09/464,841
-3–
OPINION
We REVERSE.
Anticipation is established only when a single prior art
reference discloses, expressly or under the principles of
inherency, each and every element of a claimed invention as well
as disclosing structure which is capable of performing the
recited functional limitations. RCA Corp. v. Applied Digital
Data Sys., Inc., 730 F.2d 1440, 1444, 221 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed.
Cir.); cert. dismissed, 468 U.S. 1228 (1984); W.L. Gore and
Assoc., Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1554, 220 USPQ 303,
313 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984).
Independent claim 1 requires, inter alia, an analysis of
first and second images “to determine the proximity of the user’s
face to the camera” and providing “display data to the display
device dependent upon the proximity of the user’s face to the
camera.”
The examiner purports to find these elements in Koizumi at
column 7, line 32 through column 8, line 6; and at column 2,
lines 15-23 and column 7, line 63+, respectively. In particular,
the examiner appears to be relying on the “aspect ratio” of
Appeal No. 2003-1558
Application No. 09/464,841
-4–
Koizumi as reading on the claimed determination of proximity of a
user’s face to the camera, as well as the claimed “display data.”
We find the examiner’s analysis to be erroneous. The
“aspect ratio” of Koizumi is not a determination of the proximity
of a user’s face to a camera. Rather, it refers to changing
certain aspects of the virtual camera so as to provide close and
long range video conferencing scenarios (column 7, lines 32-35).
There is no determination of the proximity of a user’s face to
the camera in Koizumi, and there is clearly no such determination
based on first and second images.
With regard to providing display data, no “aspect ratio” is
displayed by Koizumi (though Koizumi may employ this “aspect
ratio” to determine what to display). Accordingly, the “aspect
ratio” of Koizumi cannot be the claimed “display data.”
In the answer, the examiner appears to alter his stance and
finds that the image displayed is the claimed “display data.” We
find this to also be in error because claim 2 requires the
“display data” to be provided “dependent upon the proximity of
the user’s face to the camera” and this proximity determination
is based on an analysis of first and second images. Clearly, the
claimed “display data” is something more than merely one of the
images provided by the camera. It would make no sense to analyze
Appeal No. 2003-1558
Application No. 09/464,841
-5–
images to determine proximity of a user’s face to a camera and
then merely display the user’s face, or one of the images of the
user’s face, because the same face would be displayed regardless
of proximity. Because such a reading makes little or no sense,
and it is clear from the specification that the “display data”
comprises something other than an image taken by the camera
(e.g., see page 11 which recites “a file structure, a GUI, a Web
document, or a map represented by tree 36)”, we will construe the
claimed “display data” as something other than the camera image.
As such, the examiner’s reading of a camera image as the
claimed “display data” is flawed.
Since Koizumi does not teach or suggest an analysis of first
and second images to determine the proximity of a user’s face to
a camera and does not teach or suggest providing display data
dependent upon the proximity of the user’s face to the camera, we
will not sustain the rejection of independent claim 2, or of
claims 8 and 9, dependent thereon, under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).
Moreover, we also will not sustain the rejection of
dependent claims 3-7, 13 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 because
these claims depend from independent claim 2 and Davis, the
reference relied on by the examiner for a showing of a zooming
Appeal No. 2003-1558
Application No. 09/464,841
-6–
feature, does not provide for the deficiencies of Koizumi, noted
supra.
Accordingly, the examiner’s decision is reversed.
REVERSED
JAMES D. THOMAS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
)
ERROL A. KRASS ) BOARD OF PATENT
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
ANITA PELLMAN GROSS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
EK/RWK
Appeal No. 2003-1558
Application No. 09/464,841
-7–
CONLEY ROSE, P.C.
P.O. BOX 684908
AUSTIN, TX 78768