Ex Parte Shintani

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 8, 2016

13281610 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 8, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/281,610 10/26/2011 Peter Shintani
36738 7590 08/10/2016
ROGITZ & AS SOCIA TES
750B STREET
SUITE 3120
SAN DIEGO, CA 92101
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.
201003837.01 5860
EXAMINER
HABIB, !RF AN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2485
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/10/2016 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):
Noelle@rogitz.com
eofficeaction@appcoll.com
J ohn@rogitz.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte PETER SHINTANI
Appeal2015-001927
Application 13/281,610
Technology Center 2400
Before JOHN A. EVANS, LARRY J. HUME, and JOYCE CRAIG,
Administrative Patent Judges.
CRAIG, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant 1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 1-7 and 9-20, which constitute all of the claims
pending in this application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm.
1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Sony Corp. App. Br. 2.
Appeal2015-001927
Application 13/2 81, 610
fNVENTION
Appellant's invention relates to a 3D user interface (UI) for an audio
video display device such as a TV. Title. Claim 1 is illustrative and reads as
follows:
1. Audio video display device (A VDD) comprising:
processor;
video display; and
computer readable storage medium bearing instructions
executable by the processor to:
present a three dimensional (3D) user interface (UI) on the
video display in a foreground of an image of the display such that
at least a first element of the 3D UI has a simulated element
position that makes the first element appear to be closer to a
viewer of the display than the image in a dimension that is
perpendicular to the image presented on the display;
detect a person's appendage in proximity to the first
element;
responsive to a determination that the person's appendage
is substantially co-located with the simulated element position,
execute a first function associated with the first element; and
responsive to a determination that the person's appendage
is moving toward the simulated element position, animate the
first element to make the first element appear to move toward the
person's appendage.
REJECTION2
Claims 1-7 and 9-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Jagmag (US 2012/0050154 Al;
2 To ensure compliance with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 112, i-f 2, and
in the event of further prosecution, we invite the Examiner's attention to the
2
Appeal2015-001927
Application 13/2 81, 610
published Mar. 1, 2012) and lzadi et al. US 2010/0315413 Al; published
Dec. 16, 2010).
ANALYSIS
We have considered Appellant's arguments, but do not find them
persuasive of Examiner error. We agree with and adopt as our own the
Examiner's findings of facts and legal conclusions as set forth in the Answer
and in the Action from which this appeal was taken. We provide the
following explanation for emphasis.
In rejecting representative claim 1 for obviousness, the Examiner
found that Jagmag discloses all of the recited limitations except "responsive
to a determination of the location of the person's appendage," for which the
Examiner relied on the teachings of Izadi. Final Act. 2--4 (citing J agmag
Figs 1--4, iii! 13, 26-33, 36-38, 52, 53; Izadi Figs. 2-9, 13, iii! 39--41, 73).
Appellant contends the cited portions of Jagmag do not disclose
animating a UI element to make the element move toward the person's
appendage responsive to a determination that the appendage is moving
toward the element, as claim 1 requires. App. Br. 4. Appellant argues that
Figures 2--4 of Jagmag show no animation, Jagmag never mentions the word
"animation," and paragraphs 26-33 "are completely silent about moving any
part of the relied-upon UI toward the user responsive to any determination
tied to user hand motion." Id.
We are not persuaded by Appellant's arguments. Appellant attacks
Jagmag individually even though the Examiner relies on the combination of
Jagmag and Izadi as teaching or suggesting the disputed features. Final
recitation in claim 1 of "processor," "video display," and "computer readable
storage medium," which all omit the indefinite article "a."
3
Appeal2015-001927
Application 13/2 81, 610
Act. 2--4; Ans. 2--4. In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2012)
(citing In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981)) ("The test for
obviousness is what the combined teachings of the references would have
suggested to those having ordinary skill in the art."). Moreover, identity of
terminology is not required. The Examiner does not contend, nor is the
Examiner required to demonstrate, the recited term "animation" appears in
the cited references. In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 832 (Fed. Cir. 1990). The
Examiner found that J agmag teaches "[ o ]nee the display device 200 receives
user location, motion and/or action information, the display 200 may
determine the input and/or feedback provided by the user 202 by correlating
the received user movement and/or actions with the location of the projected
keyboard 206," as shown in Figure 2. Ans. 5 (quoting Jagmag i-f 33). The
Examiner further found that lzadi teaches, "responsive to a determination
(e.g. gesture recognition module 1307) that the person's appendage (e.g.
hand position) is substantially co-located with the simulated element
position, execute a first function (e.g. software to carry out the desired
functions) associated with the first element." Final Act. 3 (citing Izadi Figs.
2-9, 13, i-fi-139-41, 73). Appellant has provided no persuasive explanation or
evidence to rebut the Examiner's findings.
Appellant further contends that, even if J agmag discloses moving
projected keyboard 206 of Figure 2 in response to user movement, Jagmag
would move the keyboard away from the user (back toward the display) "to
maintain the fixed distance envisioned in paragraph 31" of Jagmag. App.
Br. 6.
We are not persuaded by Appellant's reasoning. The portion of
paragraph 31 on which Appellant relies teaches that "the perceived location
4
Appeal2015-001927
Application 13/2 81, 610
and/or depth of the projected keyboard 206 may be determined, based on
predetermined generic distance criteria, which may dictate the average
separation between users and the UL" Id. (citing Jagmag i-f 31 ). Appellant
has not persuaded us that Jagmag's disclosure of an average separation
between users and the virtual interface precludes Jagmag, in combination
with Izadi, from teaching or suggesting that keyboard 206 moves toward a
person's appendage responsive to a determination that the appendage is
moving toward keyboard 206, as the Examiner found.
For these reasons, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in
finding that the combination of Jagmag and Izadi teaches or suggests the
disputed limitations of claim 1.
With regard to independent claim 9, Appellant contends the Examiner
erred in finding that Figure 2 of Jagmag teaches or suggests "at least a first
UI element being rendered to appear further in front of the display than a
second UI element, the second UI element being rendered to appear to be
behind the first UI element," as recited in claim 9. App. Br. 7.
We are not persuaded of Examiner error. The Examiner found that
Figure 2 and paragraphs 31-33 of Jagmag teach or suggest that once the user
is moving towards keyboard 206 UI element, it moves away from the
display and toward the user. Ans. 7. We understand the Examiner's finding
to be that, once it moves toward the user, keyboard 206 is rendered to appear
further in front of the display than other UI elements on the display,
including the previous rendering of keyboard 206. Appellant offers no
persuasive explanation or evidence to rebut the Examiner's findings.
5
Appeal2015-001927
Application 13/2 81, 610
For these reasons, and on this record, we are not persuaded that the
Examiner erred in finding that the combination of J agmag and Izadi teaches
or suggests the disputed limitation of claim 9.
Accordingly, we sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of
independent claims 1 and 9, as well as the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of
independent claim 18, which Appellant argues is patentable for similar
reasons. App. Br. 7-8. We also sustain the Examiner's rejection of
dependent claims 2-7, 10-17, 19, and 20, not argued separately. Id. at 4--8.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-7 and 9-20.
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