Ex Parte Ramirez Flores et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 19, 201613213408 (P.T.A.B. May. 19, 2016) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation