Ex Parte Tsukamoto et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Feb 27, 2017

14171029 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Feb. 27, 2017)

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.
14/171,029 02/03/2014 Yasushi Tsukamoto JP920130005-US-NP 1292
57295 7590
Russell Ng PLLC
8729 Shoal Creek Blvd.
Suite 100
Austin, TX 78757
EXAMINER
SHAH, UTPAL D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2665
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/01/2017 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):
Stephanie@russellnglaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte LENOVO (SINGAPORE) PTE. LTD.
Appeal 2016-008292
Application 14/171,029
Technology Center 2600
Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, IRVIN E. BRANCH, and
AARON W. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judges.
MOORE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2016-008292
Application 14/171,029
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1—14, which are all of the pending claims. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
THE INVENTION
The application is directed to “[a] computer capable of recognizing
gesture commands.” (Abstract.) Claim 1, reproduced below, is exemplary
of the subject matter on appeal:
1. A method comprising:
assigning a unique reference shape to a gesture command
with which a computer command is associated;
receiving a plurality of frames from an image sensor that has
captured blurred images of an object;
generating a composite image of said blurred images from
said received frames;
identifying a shape of said composite image;
determining whether or not said identified shape of said
composite image represents said gesture command by comparing
said identified shape of said composite image to said reference
shape; and
in response to a determination that said identified shape of
said composite image represents said gesture command,
executing said computer command to control an operation of a
computer.
1 Appellants identify “Lenovo Corporation” as the real party in interest. (See
App. Br. 3.) Yasushi Tsukamoto and Jun Sugiyama are the named
inventors.
2
Appeal 2016-008292
Application 14/171,029
THE REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Wilson et al. US 2004/0193413 A1 Sept. 30, 2004
Moore US 2012/0019728 Al Jan. 26, 2012
Tan et al. US 2013/0154919 Al June 20, 2013
Aaron F. Bobick and James W. Davis, The Recognition of Human
Movement Using Temporal Templates, IEEE Transactions on Pattern
Analysis and Machine Intelligence, Vol. 23, No. 3, pp. 257—67
(March 2001)
THE REJECTIONS
1. Claims 1—3, 5, 7, 9, 10, 11, and 12 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Bobick and Wilson. (See Final Act.
4—15.)
2. Claims 4, 6, and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Bobick, Wilson, and Moore. (See Final Act. 15—16.)
3. Claim 8 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Bobick, Wilson, and Tan. (See Final Act. 17.)
ANALYSIS
Independent claim 1 is directed to a method that includes (a)
“assigning a unique reference shape to a gesture command with which a
computer command is associated”; (b) receiving frames from an image
sensor that has captured blurred images of an object, generating a composite
image, and identifying a shape of said composite image; (c) determining
whether the identified shape represents the gesture command by comparing
3
Appeal 2016-008292
Application 14/171,029
the shape to the reference shape; and (d) if so, executing the computer
command to control an operation of a computer. Independent claim 11 is
directed to essentially the same concept claimed as “a computer.”
The Examiner finds that Bobrick teaches a system that assigns a
reference shape to a gesture (the “temporal template” generated from
training samples described in Section 4.1). (Final Act. 5.) The Examiner
further finds that Bobrick also receives frames, generates a composite image,
and determines if the image matches the reference shape, as described in
Section 4.2 and illustrated in Figures 5 and 6. {Id. at 5—6.) The Examiner
concludes, however, that while Bobrick also teaches “controlling an
operation of a computer” in response to a match (in the “Kids-Room”
application described in Section 6.2), it does not teach “assigning a unique
reference pattern shape to a gesture command with which a computer
command is associated’'' or “executing [a] computer command to control an
operation of a computer.” {Id. at 6—7, emphases added.) However, the
Examiner further finds that Wilson teaches assigning a reference pattern
shape to a computer command and executing the command to control the
computer, and that it would have been obvious “to apply Bobick’s gesture
recognition to recognize Wilson’s motion gestures for generating computer
commands, because the combination simplifies recognition of motion
gesture commands.” {Id. at 7—8.)
Appellants argue the rejections should be set aside because “ Wilson
does not disclose the claimed assigning step.” (App. Br. 5.) We are not
persuaded of error. In the cited portions, Wilson describes a system in
which hand gestures are used to control a computer. {See Wilson 1130.)
Such hand gestures are illustrated in Figures 21 A—E and include, for
4
Appeal 2016-008292
Application 14/171,029
example, gestures to manipulate images or control volume. Thus, Wilson
teaches “assigning a unique reference shape [e.g., that of an extended index
finger or an extended pinky finger] to a gesture command with which a
computer command [e.g., tilt an image or control volume] is associated.”
Appellants also argue that “Bobick does not disclose the claimed steps
within the capture/identify stage.” (See App. Br. 5, 7.) As found by the
Examiner and explained above, however, Bobrick teaches the claimed
capturing and identifying steps in, at least, Section 4.2.
Because we find Appellants’ contentions unpersuasive, we sustain the
rejections of claims 1—14.2
DECISION
The rejections of claims 1—14 are 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)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
2 In the Reply, Appellants also attack the combination. (See Reply Br. 2—3
(arguing “teaching away” and that the references “cannot be combined”).)
We find these contentions untimely and, therefore, waived. See Ex parte
Borden, 93 USPQ2d 1473, 1474 (BPAI 2010) (informative) (“[T]he reply
brief [is not] an opportunity to make arguments that could have been made
in the principal brief on appeal to rebut the Examiner’s rejections, but were
not.”); 37 C.F.R. § 41.41(b)(2).
5