Ex Parte WatanabeDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 20, 201613699454 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 20, 2016) Copy Citation 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. 1946-0786 2575 EXAMINER ZUBAJLO, JENNIFER L ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2623 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 13/699,454 11/21/2012 60803 7590 12/20/2016 Paratus Law Group, PLLC 1765 Greensboro Station Place Suite 320 Tysons Corner, VA 22102 Sayaka Watanabe 12/20/2016 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte SAYAKA WATANABE Appeal 2016-002445 Application 13/699,454 Technology Center 2600 JOHNNY A. KUMAR, NATHAN A. ENGELS, and ALEX S. YAP, Administrative Patent Judges. KUMAR, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 1—21. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. 1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Sony Corporation. (App. Br. 3.) Appeal 2016-002445 Application 13/699,454 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Claim 1 is illustrative of the invention and reads as follows: 1. An apparatus, comprising: a receiving unit configured to receive a first spatial position associated with a first portion of a human body, and a second spatial position associated with a second portion of the human body; an identification unit configured to identify a group of objects based on at least the first spatial position; and a selection unit configured to select an object of the identified group based on the second spatial position. Rejection Claims 1—21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Underkoffler (Pub. No. US 2010/0060570 Al; published Mar. 11,2010). ANALYSIS Dispositive issue: Did the Examiner err in finding that Underkoffler teaches or suggests a “group of objects,” as recited in independent claims 1, 20, and 21? 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 Appellant’s Appeal Brief. We concur with the conclusions reached by the Examiner. We highlight and address specific findings and arguments for emphasis as follows. Appellant contends that: Underkoffler does not identify a group of objects based on a spatial position of the operator’s hand. Although the Examiner 2 Appeal 2016-002445 Application 13/699,454 suggests that the “channels” of Underkoffler are describing a group of objects, Underkoffler at best can only access one channel at a time based on where the operator’s hand is translated. Such is not an identification of a group of objects based on a spatial position associated with the operator’s hand. Furthermore, Underkoffler is simply selecting a desired channel when the operator closes their hand when the hand is located in correspondence with the desired channel. Clearly, this is not a selection of an object of the identified group, based on a second spatial position associated with a second portion of the human body. Reply Br. 4 (emphasis omitted). The Examiner finds: the example described in [0110], “Audition of the various channels proceeds, the operator translating her hand forward and back to access each in turn. Finally, to select one she merely closes her hand”. This example identifies a group of objects (channels) based on at least the first spatial position associated with the first portion of the human body (open hand with palm facing forward and movement forward and backward) and selection of an object identified based on a second spatial position that is associated with a second portion of the human body (i.e. to select a channel (object) she merely closes her hand). Ans. 5 (emphasis added). Appellant does not provide a definition in the claim or in the Specification that would preclude the Examiner’s broader reading of the term “group of objects.” Also, Appellant does not explain why Appellant’s claimed invention would not have been obvious to one skilled in the art, and Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive of Examiner error. 3 Appeal 2016-002445 Application 13/699,454 Regarding the Examiner’s broader reading, because “applicants may amend claims to narrow their scope, a broad construction during prosecution creates no unfairness to the applicant or patentee.” In re ICON Health and Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citation omitted). Regarding Appellant’s contention that “Underkoffler at best can only access one channel at a time based on where the operator’s hand is translated,” we note that the claim does not recite “group of objects at a time’’ or preclude the “one at a time” feature of Underkoffler. Reply Br. 4. Thus Appellant’s contentions are not commensurate with the scope of the claims. Consequently, we find no error in the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-21. DECISION The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—21 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)(l)(iv). AFFIRMED 4 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation