Ex Parte Rambo et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Apr 18, 2012

10438237 (B.P.A.I. Apr. 18, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte DARWIN RAMBO and PHILIP HOUGHTON
____________________

Appeal 2010-000867
Application 10/438,237
Technology Center 2600
____________________

Before DEBRA K. STEPHENS, BRUCE R. WINSOR and
JUSTIN T. ARBES, Administrative Patent Judges.

STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2010-000867
Application 10/438,237

2
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) (2002) from a final
rejection of claims 1, 2, 4-14, and 16-39. Claims 3 and 15 have been
cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
Introduction
According to Appellants, the invention relates to two-way visual
communication systems using multiple imaging devices to improve eye
contact perception (Spec. 3, [0007]).

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Exemplary Claims
Claims 1 and 34 are exemplary claims and are reproduced below:

1. A two-way visual communication system comprising:

a visual display device for displaying, at a first location, an
image represented by a first signal received from a remote second
location;

an imaging device having a field of view directed at a user of
the visual display device, the imaging device producing a second
signal for transmission to the remote second location, the second
signal representing an image of the user; and

Appeal 2010-000867
Application 10/438,237

3
at least one image processor, at the first location, enabling
analysis of the first signal to determine a location of a facial feature in
the image represented by the first signal, and enabling modification of
the second signal based upon the determined location of the facial
feature in the image represented by the first signal, wherein the at
least one image processor encodes the modified second signal at the
first location for transmission to the remote second location.

34. The two-way visual communication system of claim 1, wherein
the modification of the second signal based upon the determined
location of the facial feature in the imaged represented by the first
signal comprises a closed loop optimization of the modification at the
first location.

Prior Art
Andersson 5,500,671 Mar. 19, 1996
Koizumi 6,259,470 B1 Jul. 10, 2001
Hein 6,466,250 B1 Oct. 15, 2002
Valliath 2004/0130614 Jul. 8, 2004
Harada 7,023,464 B1 Apr. 4, 2006
Cosatto 7,136,818 B1 Nov. 14, 2006
Zitnick, C. Lawrence, “Manipulation of Video Eye Gaze and Head
Orientation for Video Teleconferencing,” Microsoft Research, June 16,
1999.

Rejections
(1) Claims 1, 2, 4, 6-14, 16, and 18-39 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Koizumi, Valliath, Cosatto,
Andersson, and Harada.
Appeal 2010-000867
Application 10/438,237

4
(2) Claim 5 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Koizumi, Valliath, Cosatto, Andersson, Harada, and
Zitnick.
(3) Claim 17 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Koizumi, Valliath, Cosatto, Andersson, Harada, and Hein.

GROUPING OF CLAIMS

Based upon Appellants’ arguments, we select representative claim 1
to decide this appeal for the group consisting of claims 1, 2, 4, 6-14, and 18-
33. (See App. Br. 9-18). We address claim 17 separately.
Based upon Appellants’ arguments, we select representative claim 34
to decide this appeal for the group consisting of claims 34-39. (See App. Br.
18-19).
Based upon Appellants’ arguments, we address claim 5 separately.
(See App. Br. 19-20).
We have only considered those arguments that Appellants actually
raised in the Briefs. Arguments Appellants could have made but chose not
to make in the Briefs have not been considered and are deemed to be
waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(2009).

ISSUE 1
35 U.S.C. § 103(a): claims 1, 2, 4, 6-14, 16, and 18-33
Appellants assert their invention is not obvious over Koizumi,
Valliath, Cosatto, Andersson, and Harada because none of the references
Appeal 2010-000867
Application 10/438,237

5
teach or suggest “enabling analysis of the first signal to determine a location
of a facial feature in the image represented by the first signal, and enabling
modification of the second signal based upon the determined location of the
facial feature in the image represented by the first signal” and that “the
second signal representing an image of the user” as recited in claim 1 (App.
Br. 8-18). Specifically, Appellants contend Valliath does not teach or
suggest modifying the signal representative of Participant 1 based upon the
analysis of the signal representative of Participant 2 or even based upon a
determined location of a facial feature in the image represented by the first
signal (App. Br. 10-11). Appellants also argue the specification of Valliath
does not describe what Block 295 illustrates (Reply Br. 3).
Issue 1: Has the Examiner erred in finding the combination of
Koizumi, Valliath, Cosatto, Andersson, and Harada would have taught or
suggested (i) “enabling analysis of the first signal to determine a location of
a facial feature in the image represented by the first signal, and enabling
modification of the second signal based upon the determined location of the
facial feature in the image represented by the first signal” and (ii) “the
second signal representing an image of the user” as recited in claim 1?

ANALYSIS
We agree with the Examiner and adopt as our own the findings and
reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Answer in response to the Appeal
Brief (Ans. 8 -18). With respect to the claims argued by Appellants, we
highlight and address specific findings and arguments for emphasis as
follows.
Appeal 2010-000867
Application 10/438,237

6
We disagree with Appellants that blocks 290 and 295 of Figure 1 of
Valliath and the description of these blocks in paragraph 30 are
contradictory. We further emphasize Valliath teaches or suggests a “signal
representing an image of the user” and does not require the image to be a
photographic image.
We also emphasize Appellants appear to be arguing that individually,
each of Valliath, Cosatto, Andersson, and Harada do not disclose the
features of claim 1. However, the Examiner rejects claim 1 over the
combined teachings of Koizumi, Valliath, Cosatto, Andersson, and Harada,
and what the combined teachings would have suggested to one of ordinary
skill in the art. One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references
individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references.
See In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Lastly we agree with the Examiner that a virtual representation is
indeed a “signal representing an image of the user” as recited.
Accordingly, we find Appellants have not persuaded us of error in the
Examiner’s finding that the combination of Koizumi, Valliath, Cosatto,
Andersson, and Harada would have taught or suggested (i) “enabling
analysis of the first signal to determine a location of a facial feature in the
image represented by the first signal, and enabling modification of the
second signal based upon the determined location of the facial feature in the
image represented by the first signal” and (ii) “the second signal
representing an image of the user” as recited in independent claim 1 and
commensurately recited in independent claims 8, 18, 21, 26, and 29. The
dependent claims were not separately argued. Therefore, the Examiner did
Appeal 2010-000867
Application 10/438,237

7
not err in rejecting claims 1, 2, 4, 6-14, 16, and 18-39 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for obviousness over Koizumi, Valliath, Cosatto,
Andersson, and Harada.

Claim 17
Claim 17 depends from independent claim 8, and was not separately
argued. Thus, claim 17 falls with claim 8. Accordingly, the Examiner did
not err in rejecting claim 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Koizumi, Valliath, Cosatto, Andersson, Harada, and Hein.

ISSUE 2
35 U.S.C. § 103(a): claims 34-39
Appellants assert their invention is not obvious over Koizumi,
Valliath, Cosatto, Andersson, and Harada because the Examiner has not
explained where and how Figure 1 of Harada or the cited portion of Harada
teaches or suggests “a closed loop optimization of the modification at the
first location” as recited in claim 34 (App. Br. 18; Reply Br. 4).
Specifically, Appellants contend processing at a local location is not a
“closed loop,” and “resolution reducing,” “defocusing,” and “deformation”
are not “optimization” (Reply Br. 4).
Issue 2: Has the Examiner erred in finding Harada would have taught
or suggested “the modification … comprises a closed loop optimization of
the modification at the first location” as recited in claim 34 and
commensurately recited in claims 35-39?

Appeal 2010-000867
Application 10/438,237

8
ANALYSIS
We agree with the Examiner that Harada discloses optimization of the
image modification prior to transmission to a remote location (Ans. 17).
However, we agree with Appellants’ argument that Harada does not disclose
a closed loop (Reply Br. 4)
Accordingly, we find Harada does not disclose the disputed limitation.
The Examiner has not shown Koizumi, Valliath, Cosatto, and Andersson,
taken alone or in proper combination, cures the deficiency. Therefore, the
Examiner erred in finding the combination of Koizumi, Valliath, Cosatto,
Andersson, and Harada teaches or suggests “the modification of the second
signal … comprises a closed loop optimization of the modification at the
first location” as recited in claim 34 and similarly recited in claims 35-39. It
follows the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 34-39 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for obviousness over Koizumi, Valliath, Cosatto,
Andersson, and Harada.

ISSUE 3
35 U.S.C. § 103(a): claim 5
Appellants assert their invention is not obvious over Koizumi,
Valliath, Cosatto, Andersson, Harada, and Zitnick because Zitnick does not
teach or suggest “wherein the modification comprises altering the second
signal by adjusting at least one of the following: exposure of an iris of an eye
and exposure of the sclera of an eye, in order to increase the perception of
eye contact by a viewer of the image represented by the second signal”
Appeal 2010-000867
Application 10/438,237

9
(App. Br. 19-20). Specifically, Appellants contend Zitnick teaches or
suggests rendering new eyes but not adjusting exposure of an iris or sclera of
an eye (App. Br. 19-20).
Issue 3: Has the Examiner erred in finding Zitnick would have taught
or suggested “wherein the modification comprises altering the second signal
by adjusting at least one of the following: exposure of an iris of an eye and
exposure of the sclera of an eye” as recited in claim 5?

ANALYSIS
We agree with the Examiner’s findings and conclusions (Ans. 17) and
adopt them as our own. We further note that replacing the eyes with
synthesized eyeballs that appear to look in a desired direction does indeed
adjust at least one of exposure of an iris of an eye and exposure of the sclera
of an eye (Zitnick, pg. 4). Accordingly, the Examiner did not err in finding
the combination of Koizumi, Valliath, Cosatto, Andersson, Harada, and
Zitnick would have taught or suggested “adjusting at least one of the
following: exposure of an iris of an eye and exposure of the sclera of an eye”
as recited in claim 5. Therefore, the Examiner did not err in rejecting claim
5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for obviousness over Koizumi, Valliath, Cosatto,
Andersson, Harada, and Zitnick.

DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 6-14, 16, and 18-33 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over Koizumi, Valliath, Cosatto,
Andersson, and Harada is affirmed.
Appeal 2010-000867
Application 10/438,237

10
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 34-39 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being obvious over Koizumi, Valliath, Cosatto, Andersson, and Harada is
reversed.
The Examiner’s rejection of claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being obvious over Koizumi, Valliath, Cosatto, Andersson, Harada, and
Zitnick is affirmed.
The Examiner’s rejection of claim 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being obvious over Koizumi, Valliath, Cosatto, Andersson, Harada, and
Hein is affirmed.

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

tj