Ex Parte Ramirez Flores et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 19, 2016

13213408 (P.T.A.B. May. 19, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/213,408 08/19/2011
109808 7590 05/23/2016
LENOVO/P ANGRLE
Pangrle Patent, Brand & Design Law, P.C.
3500 W Olive Ave
3rd Floor
Burbank, CA 91505
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Axel Ramirez Flores
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.
RPS920110038-US-NP 8221
EXAMINER
TRAN,HAIV
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2423
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/23/2016 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):
brian@ppbdlaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte AXEL RAMIREZ FLORES, MARK CHARLES DA VIS,
BRADLEY PARK STRAZISAR, SCOTT EDWARDS KELSO,
STEVEN RICHARD PERRIN, YI ZHOU, HOW ARD J. LOCKER,
JIAN LI, JIANBANG ZHANG, and
JENNIFER GREENWOOD ZA WACK.I
Appeal2014-009004
Application 13/213,408
Technology Center 2400
Before JAMES R. HUGHES, LINZY T. McCARTNEY, and
MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges.
McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
rejection of claims 1-5, 7, and 10-23, which are all the claims pending in
this application.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Lenovo Singapore
PTE. Ltd. App. Br. 2.
2 Claims 6, 8, and 9 have been canceled. See App. Br. 2.
Appeal2014-009004
Application 13/213,408
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellant's present application relates to recognizing and profiling
groups of individuals to assign media consumption preferences. Spec. i-f 1.
Claim 1 is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal and reads as follows:
1. A system comprising:
storage for identification data for individuals;
an interface configured to receive image data;
recognition circuitry configured to recognize individuals
using received image data and stored identification data;
location circuitry configured to spatially locate recognized
individuals in an environment and to determine an arrangement
of spatial locations of the recognized individuals with respect to
each other in the environment;
assignment circuitry configured to assign media
consumption preferences to a defined group based at least in part
on a determined arrangement of spatial locations of recognized
individuals in the defined group; and
output circuitry configured to output preferred media
information based on assigned media consumption preferences
of a defined group of recognized individuals.
The Examiner's Rejections
Claims 1-5, 10, 12, 14-20, and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as anticipated by Marsh (US 2003/0237093 Al; Dec. 25, 2003).
See Ans. 5-10
Claims 1-5, 10, 12, 14-20, and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Marsh. See Ans. 5-10.
2
Appeal2014-009004
Application 13/213,408
Claims 7, 21, and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Marsh and Perez (US 2012/0124456 Al; May 17, 2012).
See Ans. 10-11.
Claim 11 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Marsh and Baker (US 8,027,518 B2; Sept. 27, 2011). See Ans. 11.
Claim 13 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Marsh and Ketkar (US 2012/0030586 Al; Feb. 2, 2012). See Ans.
11-12.
ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds Marsh teaches "determin[ing] an arrangement of
spatial locations of the recognized individuals with respect to each other in
the environment." See Final Act. 5-6, Ans. 3--4. In particular, the Examiner
finds Marsh teaches determining which entertainment system users are
located within a room. Ans. 3 (citing Marsh i-fi-f 199-203). The Examiner
further finds Marsh teaches a "pecking order" that is used to determine
media consumption preferences for the group of users located in the room.
Ans. 3 (citing Marsh i-fi-f 142, 149-153). The Examiner concludes the claim
limitation "determine an arrangement of spatial locations of the recognized
individuals with respect to each other in the environment" is "broad enough
to reads [sic] on Marsh's 'pecking order' and the process of ascertaining the
composition of a group of users." Ans. 3 (citing Marsh i-fi-f 144, 145, 149,
164, 168). The Examiner reasons that Marsh's pecking order "inherently
must be arranged by an 'arrangement scheme."' Ans. 4.
Appellants argue the Examiner erred in finding Marsh teaches or
suggests "determin[ ing] an arrangement of spatial locations of the
3
Appeal2014-009004
Application 13/213,408
recognized individuals with respect to each other in the environment." See
App. Br. 6-11, Reply Br. 2-7. In particular, Appellants argue Marsh teaches
detecting which entertainment system users are within a room, but does not
teach determining an arrangement of spatial locations of the recognized
users with respect to each other in the room. App. Br. 9.
We agree with Appellants' contentions. Claim 1 recites "location
circuitry configured to spatially locate recognized individuals in an
environment." Claim 1 further recites the spatial locating is done "to
determine an arrangement of spatial locations of the recognized users with
respect to each other in the environment." Accordingly, claim 1 requires the
location circuitry to locate individuals in the environment and determine an
arrangement of spatial locations of these recognized individuals with respect
to each other in the environment.
Marsh teaches detecting which recognized users are located in a room.
Marsh i-fi-f 199-203. Marsh also teaches determining a "pecking order"
among users in a room, where the pecking order is a ranking that determines
which user in a room is the primary user for which the media presented is
tailored. Marsh i-fi-f 142, 149-153. However, Marsh does not teach
determining an arrangement of spatial locations of the recognized
individuals with respect to each other. The Examiner's reliance on Marsh's
determining whether a user enters or leaves the room is misplaced because
the claim requires determining the arrangement of spatial locations of the
recognized individuals, which are the individuals in the environment. If a
user is out of the room (i.e., not "in the environment"), the user cannot be
recognized and thus that user's location with respect to the other users is not
"determined" as required by the claim. Accordingly, on the record before
4
Appeal2014-009004
Application 13/213,408
us, Appellants have persuaded us that the Examiner erred in finding Marsh
teaches "location circuitry configured ... to determine an arrangement of
spatial locations of the recognized individuals with respect to each other in
the environment."
CONCLUSIONS
On the record before us and in view of the analysis above, Appellants
have persuaded us that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1. Therefore,
we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1, independent claims 15 and 18,
which recite similar limitations, and claims 2-5, 7, 10-14, 16, 17, and
19-23, dependent therefrom.
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-5, 7, and 10-23 is
reversed.
REVERSED
5