Ex Parte Sali et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 12, 2016

13098497 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 12, 2016)

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.
13/098,497 05/02/2011 Erez Sali 1020-1044.1 8897
123590 7590 12/14/2016
n KT TOT FR T P SFR VIFFS T TF>
EXAMINER
P.O. BOX 57651 GRAY, RYAN M
TEL AVIV, 61576
ISRAEL ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2611
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/14/2016 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):
INFO @DKP AT.CO.IL
daniel@dkpat.co.il
alon@dkpat.co.il
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte EREZ SALI, TOMER YANIR,
ERAN GUENDELMAN, and AMIAD GURMAN
Appeal 2015-007856
Application 13/098,497
Technology Center 2600
Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., and
ADAM J. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
Per Curiam.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final
Rejection of claims 1—30 and 43—48. Appeal Brief 1. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
Appeal 2015-007856
Application 13/098,497
Introduction
Appellants’ invention relates to “receiving a depth map of a scene
containing a body of a humanoid subject” in which “[t]he depth map is
processed in a digital processor to extract a skeleton of at least a part of the
body, the skeleton including multiple joints having respective coordinates.”
Abstract.
Representative Claim (Disputed limitations emphasized)
1. A method for processing data, comprising:
receiving a depth map of a scene containing a body of a
humanoid subject, the depth map comprising a matrix of pixels,
each pixel corresponding to a respective location in the scene and
having a respective pixel depth value indicative of a distance
from a reference plane to the respective location;
processing the depth map in a digital processor to extract
a skeleton of at least a part of the body, the skeleton comprising
multiple joints having respective coordinates; and
providing an application program interface (API)
indicating at least the coordinates of the joints and giving event
notifications in response to predefined changes in the extracted
skeleton.
Rejections on Appeal
Claims 1,5, 10, 11, 15, 20, 21, 25, 30, and 43—48 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Craig (US Patent Number
8,295,546 B2; issued October 23, 2012) in view of Mattingly (US Patent
Application Publication Number 2011/0197161 Al; published August 11,
2011). Final Rejection 3.
Claims 2, 3, 12, 13, 22, and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
2
Appeal 2015-007856
Application 13/098,497
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Craig, in view of Mattingly and Perez
(US Patent Application Publication Number 2010/0306716 Al; published
December 2, 2010). Final Rejection 7.
Claims 4, 6—9, 14, 16—19, 24, and 26—29 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Craig, in view of Mattingly and
Katz (US Patent Application Publication Number 2011/0187819 Al;
published August 4, 2011). Final Rejection 9.
ANALYSIS
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner,
we refer to the Final Rejection (mailed August 26, 2014), the Advisory
Action (mailed October 28, 2014), the Appeal Brief (filed March 19, 2015),
the Answer (mailed July 15, 2015), and the Reply Brief (filed August 27,
2015) for the respective details. We have considered in this decision only
those arguments Appellants actually raised in the Briefs.
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
arguments that the Examiner has erred. We adopt as our own (1) the
findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this
appeal is taken and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the
Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellants’ Appeal Brief, except where
noted.
Rejection of Claims 1, 11, and 21
Appellants argue Examiner error “because the cited references fail to
teach or suggest any sort of event notifications, let alone the specific sort of
event notifications that are recited in the independent claims.” Appeal Brief
3
Appeal 2015-007856
Application 13/098,497
5. Particularly, Appellants contend Mattingly’s system checks, regarding
whether the user enters or leaves the field of view, “would not have given
the person of ordinary skill any reason to think that a notification was called
for” (Appeal Brief 6, citing Mattingly 193) and in Craig’s API, “[ejvent
notifications are not needed in order to report changes.” Appeal Brief 6,
citing Craig 13:43—45.
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments. The Examiner
correctly finds that Craig’s API “may be configured to communicate the
joint positions” and that “[a] content receiver (e.g., a gaming application)
may then use the reported information as desired.” Final Rejection 5,
quoting Craig 13:38-47. The Examiner also correctly finds “Mattingly also
teaches providing a skeletal model (138) and is responsive to a user’s
entering or leaving a field of view (193).” Final Rejection 5. We agree
with the Examiner’s finding that “[o]ne of ordinary skill in the art would
consider use of notifications to inform applications that a user has entered or
left the field of view of the depth camera” (Final Rejection 5) would be
called for, because the event notification would (1) indicate the user desires
to pause a computer program (see Mattingly Fig. 5) or (2) influence or
dictate the outcome of a game such as boxing (see Craig Fig. 1A).
Appellants’ arguments regarding impermissible hindsight (see Appeal Brief
6—7) are unpersuasive because the Examiner has taken “into account only
knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the
claimed invention was made.” In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 1395
(CCPA 1971).
4
Appeal 2015-007856
Application 13/098,497
Therefore, we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of
independent claim 1, as well as independent claims 11 and 21 commensurate
in scope, and claims 2—10, 12—20, and 22—30 not separately argued.
Rejection of Claims 43—48
Dependent claims 43, 45, and 47 require “that that an event
notification is generated when a hand, belonging to the body whose skeleton
is extracted, newly appears in a given frame.” Appeal Brief 8, emphasis
added. Dependent claims 44, 46, and 48 require “that that an event
notification is generated when a hand, belonging to the body whose skeleton
is extracted, disappears in a given frame.” Appeal Brief 10, emphasis added.
For claims 43, 45, and 47, Appellants argue Examiner error because “[tjhere
is no hint in Mattingly, however, that there might be some significance to a
hand newly appearing” (Appeal Brief 9) and “Craig makes no mention or
suggestion at all of hands newly appearing in a given frame or of reporting
such an appearance.” Appeal Brief 9. Appellants make a similar argument
regarding the disappearance of a hand from the frame. See Appeal Brief 10.
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments. The Examiner
correctly finds that “Mattingly discloses detecting when a user enters or exits
a given frame (193) and further discloses determining when a user is
engaging the system based on a user’s hand (‘which hand is in the physical
interaction zone (hand on the user’s side facing the camera increases
confidence)’ (1 61)).” Final Rejection 7. Mattingly thus clearly teaches the
detection of both movement and position of body parts used to “determin[e]
whether a user is engaging with the system 10.” Mattingly 161. Movement
and position of hands has similar importance in Craig, in order to mimic a
5
Appeal 2015-007856
Application 13/098,497
boxing match. See Craig Fig. 1A. Appellants’arguments are thus
unpersuasive, and we agree with the Examiner’s finding that “[o]ne of
ordinary skill would consider reporting when a user’s hand enters or exists
in order to notify applications that make use of user interaction, such as
through gestures or hand movements.” Final Rejection 7.
Therefore, we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of
dependent claims 43—48.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1—30 and 43—48.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
6