Ex Parte Wilson

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 3, 2018

12104360 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 3, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/104,360 04/16/2008
69316 7590 12/05/2018
MICROSOFT CORPORATION
ONE MICROSOFT WAY
REDMOND, WA 98052
UNITED ST A TES OF AMERICA
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Andrew Wilson
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.
193526-US-CNT[l3] 3724
EXAMINER
BODDIE, WILLIAM
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2625
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/05/2018 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):
usdocket@microsoft.com
chriochs@microsoft.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ANDREW WILSON
Appeal2018-002063
Application 12/104,360
Technology Center 2600
Before JOHNNY A. KUMAR, JOHN A. EV ANS, and
STEVEN M. AMUNDSON, Administrative Patent Judges.
AMUNDSON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection
of claims 32, 36-38, 40, 44--48, and 52-55, i.e., all pending claims. Because
the claims have been twice rejected, we have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§§ 6(b) and 134(a). See Ex parte Lemoine, 46 USPQ2d 1420, 1423 (BPAI
1994) (precedential).
We reverse.
1 Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Microsoft Technology
Licensing, LLC. Br. 3.
Appeal2018-002063
Application 12/104,360
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Invention
According to the Specification, the invention "relate[ s] to controlling
electronic components in a ubiquitous computing environment, and more
particularly to a system and process for controlling the components using
multimodal integration in which inputs" from various subsystems, including
a "gesture recognition subsystem employing a wireless pointing device and
[a] pointing analysis subsystem associated with the pointing device, [that]
are combined to determine what component a user wants to control and what
control action is desired." Spec. ,r 3, Abstract. 2
Exemplary Claim
Independent claim 32 exemplifies the claims at issue and reads as
follows (with formatting added for clarity and italics identifying the disputed
limitation):
32. A computer-readable storage device having stored
thereon computer-executable instructions comprising:
identifying a position and an orientation of a pointing
device in three-dimensional space;
determining that the pointing device is directed to an
object based on the position and the orientation of the pointing
device in three-dimensional space;
determining that an input sequence of sensor values
output by the pointing device matches a matching prototype
sequence from a set of stored prototype sequences,
2 This decision uses the following abbreviations: "Spec." for the
Specification, filed April 16, 2008; ''Non-Final Act." for the Non-Final
Office Action, mailed November 17, 2016; "Br." for the Appeal Brief, filed
July 17, 2017; and "Ans." for the Examiner's Answer, mailed September 22,
2017.
2
Appeal2018-002063
Application 12/104,360
wherein each stored prototype sequence represents
a sequence of said sensor values that are generated if a
user performs a unique gesture representing a different
control action using the pointing device,
wherein the matching prototype sequence is
determined at least by comparing the matching prototype
sequence to the input sequence of sensor values and by
comparing the input sequence of sensor values to one or
more versions of the matching prototype sequence that
are scaled up and down in amplitude and warped in time;
and
controlling a computer system based on a command and
referent pair,
wherein the referent is determined based on the
position and the orientation of the pointing device in
three-dimensional space, and
wherein the command is determined based on a
gesture associated with the matching prototype sequence.
Br. 13 (Claims App.).
The Prior Art Supporting the Rejections on Appeal
As evidence of unpatentability, the Examiner relies on the following
prior art:
LaBiche et al. ("LaBiche") US 4,839,838
Saund et al. ("Saund") US 5,485,565
Poon et al. ("Poon") US 5,687,254
Matsuo et al. ("Matsuo")
Sefcik
Pryor
US 6,215,890 Bl
US 2003/0099375 Al
US 2011/0059798 Al
3
June 13, 1989
Jan. 16, 1996
Nov. 11, 1997
Apr. 10, 2001
May 29, 2003
(filed Nov. 27, 2001)
Mar. 10, 2011
(filed Aug. 21, 1998)
Appeal2018-002063
Application 12/104,360
The Rejections on Appeal
Claims 32, 40, 48, and 55 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Pryor, Saund, and Poon. Non-Final Act. 2--4.
Claims 36, 46, and 52 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Pryor, Saund, Poon, and LaBiche. Non-Final Act. 4--5.
Claims 37, 38, 44, 45, and 53 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Pryor, Saund, Poon, and Sefcik. Non-Final Act. 5.
Claims 47 and 54 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Pryor, Saund, Poon, and Matsuo. Non-Final Act. 6.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the rejections of claims 32, 36-38, 40, 44--48, and
52-55 in light of Appellant's arguments that the Examiner erred. Based on
the record before us and for the reasons explained below, we concur with
Appellant's contention that the Examiner erred in finding that the cited
portions of the references teach or suggest the disputed limitation in
independent claims 32, 40, and 48.
The§ 103(a) Rejection of Claims 32, 40, 48, and 55
Appellant argues that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 32, 40,
and 48 because the references do not teach or suggest the following
limitation in each claim:
wherein the matching prototype sequence is determined at least
by comparing the matching prototype sequence to the input
sequence of sensor values and by comparing the input sequence
of sensor values to one or more versions of the matching
prototype sequence that are scaled up and down in amplitude
and warped in time.
See Br. 9-11.
4
Appeal2018-002063
Application 12/104,360
Appellant asserts that the Examiner "acknowledges that Pryor does
not teach or suggest that a matching prototype sequence is determined at
least by comparing an input sequence to one or more versions of the
matching prototype sequence that are: (i) scaled up and down in amplitude;
and (ii) warped in time." Br. 9 (citing Non-Final Act. 3). Appellant also
asserts that the Examiner relies on Saund for teaching amplitude-scaled
versions of a prototype sequence of sensor values and Poon for teaching
time-warped versions of a prototype sequence of sensor values. Id. at 9-10.
Appellant then contends that (1) "Saund disclose[s] ... a pose-matching
routine in which candidate objects are prescreened using a spatially- and
scale-indexed data structure" and (2) Saund's data structure lacks amplitude-
scaled versions of a prototype sequence of sensor values because "Saund's
data structure teaches modifying a graphic object's physical dimensions and
relative location on a display screen." Id. at 9-10.
The Examiner finds that Saund teaches "comparing the matching
prototype sequence to the input sequence of sensor values" and "comparing
the input sequence of sensor values to one or more versions of the matching
prototype sequence that are scaled up and down in amplitude (scale-indexed
data structure)." Non-Final Act. 3--4 (citing Saund 6:1-9, Fig. 9); see
Ans. 3.
Based on the record before us, we agree with Appellant that the
Examiner has not adequately explained how the cited portions of Saund
teach or suggest amplitude-scaled versions of a prototype sequence of sensor
values. In column 6, Saund notes that Application 08/101,646 describes a
"spatially- and scale-indexed data structure" for storing candidate objects
used by a pose-matching routine. Saund 6: 1-5. Saund incorporates
5
Appeal2018-002063
Application 12/104,360
Application 08/101,646 by reference. Id. at 1:6-11. Application 08/101,646
issued as U.S. Patent No. 5,553,224 (the '224 patent). U.S. Patent
No. 5,553,224, at [21]. The '224 patent explains that the "spatially- and
scale-indexed data structure" for storing candidate objects organizes or
indexes objects according to their spatial locations and sizes. U.S. Patent
No. 5,553,224, 8:46-55. The '224 patent does not disclose that the data
structure includes amplitude-scaled versions of a prototype sequence of
sensor values. Id. at 5:29-47, 8:37-9:35, Fig. 3B; see Saund 6:1-19, Fig. 9.
The Examiner provides no analysis or technical reasoning explaining how
objects organized or indexed according to their spatial locations and sizes
correspond to amplitude-scaled versions of a prototype sequence of sensor
values. See Non-Final Act. 3--4; Ans. 3--4.
Because the Examiner has not adequately explained how the cited
portions of Saund teach or suggest amplitude-scaled versions of a prototype
sequence of sensor values, we do not sustain the§ 103(a) rejection of
claims 32, 40, and 48.
Claim 55 depends from claim 32. For the reasons discussed regarding
claim 32, we do not sustain the§ 103(a) rejection of claim 55.
The§ 103(a) Rejections of Claims 36-38, 44-47, and 52-54
Claims 36-38 depend from claim 32; claims 44--47 depend from
claim 40; and claims 52-54 depend from claim 48. On this record, the
Examiner has not shown how the additionally cited secondary references-
LaBiche, Sefcik, and Matsuo------overcome the deficiency in Saund discussed
above for claims 32, 40, and 48. Hence, we do not sustain the§ 103(a)
rejections of claims 36-38, 44--47, and 52-54.
6
Appeal2018-002063
Application 12/104,360
Because this determination resolves the appeal with respect to
claims 32, 36-38, 40, 44--48, and 52-55, we need not address Appellant's
other arguments regarding Examiner error. See, e.g., Beloit Corp. v. Valmet
Oy, 742 F.2d 1421, 1423 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (explaining that an administrative
agency may render a decision based on "a single dispositive issue").
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's decision to reject claims 32, 36-38, 40,
44--48, and 52-55.
REVERSED
7