Ex Parte Sharma

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Nov 25, 2008

10384410 (B.P.A.I. Nov. 25, 2008)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte MANISH SHARMA
_____________

Appeal 2008-6278
Application 10/384,410
Technology Center 2600
____________

Decided: November 25, 2008
____________

Before KENNETH W. HAIRSTON, JOHN A. JEFFERY,
and ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judges.

MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2008-6278
Application 10/384,410

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1-25 and 30-34. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

INVENTION
Appellant’s claimed invention is directed “to a method and system for
controlling the movement of a device” (Spec. 5:4-5). An image capturing device
captures multiple images of a subject’s eye (Spec. 10:9-10). A computer’s I/O
controller coupled to the image capturing device receives the images of the eye and
an image analysis module analyses the images and determines the direction of the
eye (Spec. 11:15-18). The I/O controller configured to control a cursor that is
displayed on the computer’s screen moves the cursor in the direction of the eye-
movement (Spec. 11:13-15 and 18-19).
Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on appeal:
1. A method for controlling the movement of a device comprising:
capturing a plurality of images of an ocular unit;
determining a direction of movement of the ocular unit based on the
plurality of images; and
moving the device based on the direction of movement of the ocular unit.

THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence of unpatentability:
Gerhardt US 5,481,622 Jan. 02, 1996
Appeal 2008-6278
Application 10/384,410

3

Kasahara US 5,548,354 Aug. 20, 1996

Mizouchi US 5,717,413 Feb. 10, 1998

Sorensen US 5,861,936 Jan. 19, 1999

Morrison US 6,634,749 B1 Oct. 21,2003
(filed Sep. 12, 2001)
The following rejections are before us for review:
1. The Examiner rejected claims 1-3, 8, 10-12, 16, 18-19, and 30-31 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Mizouchi.
2. The Examiner rejected claims 5, 7, 9, 13, 15, 17, 20, and 22-24 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Mizouchi and Gerhardt.
3. The Examiner rejected claims 5-6, 13-14, 20-21, and 32-33 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Mizouchi and Morrison.
4. The Examiner rejected claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Mizouchi and Kasahara.
5. The Examiner rejected claim 34 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Mizouchi and Morrison and Kasahara.
6. The Examiner rejected claim 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Mizouchi and Gerhardt and Sorensen.
Independent claims 1, 10, 18, and 20 and dependent claims 2-3, 8, 11-12, 16,
19, and 30-31 were argued as a group with claims 1, 10, 18, and 20 as
representative claims (Br. 7-8).

Appeal 2008-6278
Application 10/384,410

4
ANTICIPATION
ISSUE
Appellant contends that Mizouchi detects the movement of the eye and
controls the display state of a display device (Br. 8). Appellant asserts that the
display state is different from moving a device based on the direction of movement
of the ocular unit (i.e., eye) as recited in the independent claims (Br. 8).
The Examiner responds that Appellant’s disclosure describes the controlled
movement of a cursor on a display based on the movement of an eye (Spec. 10:3-6,
11:17-19 and 13:2-3) (Ans. 11). The Examiner asserts that the movement of the
cursor on the display device can be characterized as a change in the display state of
the display device, and Appellant’s own disclosure defines the cursor as a device
(Spec. 13:2-3) (Ans. 11-12). The Examiner determined that Mizouchi’s “image or
the display to be the claimed ‘device’ as the movement is a relative, virtual
movement between the image and the smaller display” (Ans. 12). The Examiner
concludes that changing the display in the manner disclosed by Mizouchi, so that
the image and the smaller display are moved relative to one another, in response to
eye movement, meets the claimed requirement for “moving the device based on the
direction of movement of the ocular unit” (Ans. 12-13).
Has the Appellant shown that the Examiner erred by determining that
movement of Mizouchi’s image constitutes the movement of “the device” as
claimed?

Appeal 2008-6278
Application 10/384,410

5
FINDINGS OF FACT
The relevant facts include the following:
1. It is undisputed that Mizouchi teaches capturing a plurality of images of an
ocular unit (col. 4, ll. 45-52) and determining the direction of movement of
the ocular unit based on the plurality of images (col. 6, ll. 33-39) (Br. 7).
2. Appellant defines the “device” as a cursor that moves based on the eye
movement direction (Spec. 12:33-13:3).
3. Mizouchi teaches that the nine image areas A-I move with respect to the
display 6 depending on the moving direction of the eye (col. 6, ll. 44-65 and
Fig. 2 Finding of Fact 1).
4. Mizouchi teaches that when the display 6 shows area I, the direction of the
eye movement controls how the image will move (i.e., image area A is
displayed if the eye movement direction is towards upper left, image area H
is displayed if the eye movement direction is straight upwards, image B is
displayed if the eye movement direction is to the left) (col. 6, ll. 54-65).

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
Analysis of whether a claim is patentable over the prior art under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102 begins with a determination of the scope of the claim. We determine the
scope of the claims in patent applications not solely on the basis of the claim
language, but upon giving claims their broadest reasonable construction in light of
the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. In re
Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
Appeal 2008-6278
Application 10/384,410

6
The claim terms should be given their broadest reasonable meaning in their
ordinary usage as such claim terms would be understood by one skilled in the art
by way of definitions and the written description. In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048,
1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
The claims, of course, do not stand alone. Rather, they are part of a
‘fully integrated written instrument’ . . . consisting principally of a
specification that concludes with the claims. For that reason, claims
‘must be read in view of the specification, of which they are a
part.’ . . . [T]he specification ‘is always highly relevant to the claim
construction analysis. Usually, it is dispositive; it is the single best
guide to the meaning of a disputed term.’

Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2005).

ANALYSIS
Has the Appellant shown that the Examiner erred by determining that
Mizouchi’s movement of the image constitutes the movement of “the device”
as claimed?

Appellant defines the “device” as a cursor that moves based on the eye
movement direction (Finding of Fact 2). Mizouchi teaches that the nine
image areas A-I move with respect to the display 6 depending on the moving
direction of the eye (Finding of Fact 3). Mizouchi teaches that when the
display 6 shows area I, the direction of the eye movement controls how the
image will move (i.e., image area A is displayed if the eye movement
direction is towards upper left, image area H is displayed if the eye movement
direction is straight upwards, image B is displayed if the eye movement
direction is to the left) (Finding of Fact 4). As stated supra, the specification
Appeal 2008-6278
Application 10/384,410

7
is the single best guide to the meaning of a disputed term. Phillips v. AWH
Corp., 415 F.3d at 1315. Thus, Mizouchi’s movement of the image areas A-I,
much like Appellant’s disclosed movement of the image of a cursor,
constitutes the movement of “the device” as claimed.

CONCLUSION OF LAW
Appellant has not shown that the Examiner erred by determining that
Mizouchi’s movement of the image constitutes the movement of “the device” as
claimed. Thus, the anticipation rejection of independent claims 1, 10, and 18, and
dependent claims 2, 3, 8, 11, 12, 16, 19, 30, and 31 is sustained.

OBVIOUSNESS
Appellant has presented no further arguments as to rejected claims 4-7, 9,
13-15, 17, 20-25, and 32-34, but instead rely on the arguments provided for
independent claims 1, 10, 18, and 20 by virtue of their dependency (Br. 8-11).1
Thus, for the reasons as articulated supra, we find that the Appellant has not shown
that the Examiner erred by determining that Mizouchi’s movement of the image
constitutes the movement of “the device” as claimed. In summary, the
obviousness rejections of claims 4-7, 9, 13-15, 17, 20-25, and 32-34 are sustained.

1 Only arguments made by Appellant have been considered in this decision.
Arguments which Appellant could have made but did not make in the Brief have
not been considered and are deemed waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)
(2004).
Appeal 2008-6278
Application 10/384,410

8
ORDER
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-25 and 30-34 is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this
appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

eld

HEWLETT-PACKARD DEVELOPMENT COMPANY
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ADMINISTRATION
P.O. BOX 272400
FORT COLLINS, CO 80527-2400