Steven Reynolds

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Oct 14, 2021

2021003023 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 14, 2021)

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.
16/410,532 05/13/2019 Steven Reynolds 1936
156293 7590 10/14/2021
Steven J. Reynolds
4000 W Montrose Ave
PO Box No. 674
Chicago, IL 60641
EXAMINER
PATEL, SANJIV D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2622
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/14/2021 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):
stevejreynoldsuspto@gmail.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte STEVEN J. REYNOLDS

Appeal 2021-003023
Application 16/410,532
Technology Center 2600

Before JEAN R. HOMERE, HUNG H, BUI, and ADAM J. PYONIN,
Administrative Patent Judges.
HOMERE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE1
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant2 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1 and 3–30. Appeal Br. 2. Claim 2 is
cancelled. Id. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

1 We refer to the Specification, filed May 13, 2019 (“Spec.”); Final Office
Action, mailed Oct. 09, 2020 (“Final Act.”); Appeal Brief, filed Dec. 10,
2020 (“Appeal Br.”); Examiner’s Answer, mailed Feb. 9, 2021 (“Ans.”); and
Reply Brief, filed Apr. 5, 2021 (“Reply Br.”).
2 “Appellant” refers to “Applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a).
Appellant identifies the real party in interest as the inventor, Steven J.
Reynolds. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2021-003023
Application 16/410,532
2
II. CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
According to Appellant, the claimed subject matter relates to a
method and system for processing user gestures captured via a motion
capture device. Spec. ¶ 2. Figure 1, reproduced below, is useful for
understanding the claimed subject matter:

Figure 1 above illustrates a gesture-based data capture and analysis system
including gesture unit 100 (optionally gesture unit 103) containing a
Appeal 2021-003023
Application 16/410,532
3
peripheral camera 102 and microphone 104 to communicate wirelessly a
detected user signal (e.g., gesture with audio visual input) to analysis unit
150. Id. ¶¶ 3, 14. In particular, upon receiving the gesture data, analysis unit
150 interprets captured data therein to create a capture/gesture file
containing the captured data to which it appends gesture data and associated
instruction (e.g., type/category, location). Id. ¶¶ 4–6.
Independent claim 1, with disputed limitations emphasized, is
illustrative:
1. A gesture-based data capture and analysis device,
comprising:
a display;
a gesture unit configured to detect one or more gestures made
by a user;
one or more peripherals configured to capture data in response
to a gesture made by a user; and
an analysis unit connected to the gesture unit configured to
interpret the one or more gestures based upon information obtained
from the gesture unit and to process the captured data based upon the
interpretation of the one or more gestures;
wherein the analysis unit is configured to create a capture file
containing the captured data and to append gesture data and an
instruction to the capture file.

Appeal Br. 1.
III. REFERENCES
The Examiner relies upon the following references as evidence.3
Name Reference Date
El Dokor

US 9,207,759 B1 Dec. 8, 2015
Marvit

US 2005/0212760 A1 Sept. 29, 2005

3 All reference citations are to the first named inventor only.
Appeal 2021-003023
Application 16/410,532
4
Albertson US 2008/0170748 A1 July 17, 2008
Fredlund US 2011/0216209 A1 Sept. 8, 2011
Watanabe US 2013/0335640 A1 Dec. 19, 2013
Her US 2015/0229837 A1 Aug. 13, 2015
Harris

US 2015/0253847 A1 Sept. 10, 2015
Gupta

US 2015/0309582 A1 Oct. 29, 2015
Jung

US 2015/0346899 A1 Dec. 3, 2015
Ng-Thow-Hing

US 2017/0076415 A1 Mar. 16, 2017
Lee

US 2017/0336963 A1 Nov. 23, 2017

IV. REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejects claims 1 and 3–30 as follows:
Claim 26 stands rejected as being indefinite for failing to particularly
and distinctly point out and claim the subject matter, which Appellant
regards as the invention. Final Act. 2–3.
Claims 1, 5, 8–10, and 27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over the combined teachings Gupta and Marvit. Final Act. 3–6,
23–24.
Claims 3 and 28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over the combined teachings of Gupta, Marvit, and Jung. Final Act. 6–7.
Claim 4 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
the combined teachings of Gupta, Marvit, and Jung, and Albertson. Final
Act. 7–8.
Claim 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
the combined teachings of Gupta, Marvit, and El Dokor. Final Act. 8–9.
Appeal 2021-003023
Application 16/410,532
5
Claim 7 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
the combined teachings of Gupta, Marvit, and Harris. Final Act. 9–10.
Claims 11–13 and 19–21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over the combined teachings of Gupta and Ng. Final Act. 10–
13.
Claim 14 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
the combined teachings of Gupta, Ng, and Fredlund. Final Act. 14.
Claim 15 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
the combined teachings of Gupta, Ng, and Jung. Final Act. 15.
Claim 16 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
the combined teachings of Gupta, Ng, Jung, and Albertson. Final Act. 15–
17.
Claim 17 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
the combined teachings of Gupta, Ng, and El Dokor. Final Act. 17–18.
Claim 18 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
the combined teachings of Gupta, Ng, and Harris. Final Act. 18.
Claims 22 and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over the combined teachings of Gupta and Watanabe. Final
Act. 19–20.
Claim 24 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
the combined teachings of Gupta, Watanabe, and Her. Final Act. 20–21.
Claim 25 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
the combined teachings of Gupta, Watanabe, Her, and Lee. Final Act. 21.
Claims 26, 29, and 30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over the teachings of Gupta. Final Act. 22.

Appeal 2021-003023
Application 16/410,532
6
V. ANALYSIS
We consider Appellant’s arguments seriatim, as they are presented in
the Appeal Brief, pages 19–55 and the Reply Brief, pages 13–35.4 We are
unpersuaded by Appellant’s contentions. Except as otherwise indicated
herein below, we adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth in the
Final Action, and the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellant’s Appeal
Brief.5 Final Act. 2–25; Ans. 3–26. However, we highlight and address
specific arguments and findings for emphasis as follows.
a. Indefiniteness Rejection
The Examiner rejects claim 26 as being indefinite for failing to
provide antecedent basis for the recitation “the interpretation.” Final Act. 2–
3. Appellant’s arguments do not address this rejection. Accordingly, we
summarily affirm this rejection.
b. Obviousness Rejections
1. Claims 1, 5, and 8–10
Appellant argues that the Examiner errs in finding that the
combination of Gupta and Marvit renders claim 1 unpatentable. Appeal
Br. 16. In particular, Appellant argues that Gupta and Marvit are not

4 We have considered in this Decision only those arguments Appellant
actually raised in the Briefs. Arguments not made are forfeited. See
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2017).
5 See Icon Health & Fitness, Inc. v. Strava, Inc., 849 F.3d 1034, 1042 (Fed.
Cir. 2017) (“As an initial matter, the PTAB was authorized to incorporate
the Examiner’s findings.”); see also In re Brana, 51 F.3d 1560, 1564 n.13
(Fed. Cir. 1995) (upholding the PTAB’s findings, although it “did not
expressly make any independent factual determinations or legal
conclusions,” because it had expressly adopted the examiner’s findings).

Appeal 2021-003023
Application 16/410,532
7
compatible; there is insufficient motivation to combine them; and that they
do not teach or suggest appending gesture data to captured peripheral
information as recited in independent claim 1. Id. at 15–18. According to
Appellant, Marvit discloses processing unknown gestures as opposed to
processing captured data based upon the interpretation of gestures stored in a
database. Id. at 17 (citing Chang ¶ 147). That is, Appellant contends Marvit
simply creates a gesture database, but not using the gesture data to interpret
captured peripheral information. Id. at 18. Further, Appellant argues that
Marvit’s creation of a gesture database does not teach creating a capture file
to which gesture information is appended. Id.
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that Gupta and Marvit
are non-analogous art, and, therefore, cannot be properly used in the
proffered combination. “Whether a reference in the prior art is ‘analogous’ is
a fact question.” In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656, 658 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (citing
Panduit Corp. v. Dennison Mfg. Co., 810 F.2d 1561, 1568 n.9 (Fed. Cir.
1987)).
Two criteria have evolved for [answering the analogous art
question:] (1) whether the art is from the same field of
endeavor, regardless of the problem addressed, and (2) if the
reference is not within the field of the inventor’s endeavor,
whether the reference still is reasonably pertinent to the
particular problem with which the inventor is involved.
Id. at 658–59 (citing In re Deminski, 796 F.2d 436, 442 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In
re Wood, 599 F.2d 1032, 1036 (CCPA 1979)).
As a preliminary matter, we note that both Gupta and Marvit pertain
to Appellant’s field of endeavor, namely, a device for interpreting captured
motion made by a user. Gupta, Abstr.; Marvit, Abstr. Further, we agree with
the Examiner that the solution proposed by the Gupta-Marvit combination,
Appeal 2021-003023
Application 16/410,532
8
namely of equipping a wearable device with a gesture unit and an analysis
unit to facilitate the tasks of capturing, storing, processing, transmitting, and
displaying captured motion information along with associated gesture
information corresponding thereto, is directed to solving the same problem
with which Appellant’s claimed subject matter is concerned. Spec. ¶ 2; Ans.
6. As correctly noted by the Examiner, both Appellant’s claimed subject
matter and the Gupta-Marvit combination are concerned with using the well-
known and widely used technique of “controlling operation of an electronic
device through gesture input made by a user of the electronic device.” Ans. 6
(citing Marvit ¶ 34; Gupta ¶¶ 34, 35). Because the Gupta-Marvit’s solution
pertains to Appellant’s field of endeavor, and alternatively, to the particular
problem with which Appellant’s claimed subject matter is involved, we are
thus satisfied that both Gupta and Marvit qualify as analogous art. See
Donner Tech., LLC v. Pro Stage Gear, LLC, 979 F.3d 1353, 1359–61 (Fed.
Cir. 2020).
Further, we are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that the
Examiner’s proposed reason to combine the teachings of Gupta with those of
Marvit is insufficient, thereby rendering the proposed combination improper.
The U.S. Supreme Court has held “[t]he combination of familiar elements
according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more
than yield predictable results.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,
416 (2007). The Court further instructs that:
Often, it will be necessary for a court to look to interrelated
teachings of multiple patents; . . . and the background
knowledge possessed by a person having ordinary skill in the
art, all in order to determine whether there was an apparent
reason to combine the known elements in the fashion claimed
by the patent at issue.
Appeal 2021-003023
Application 16/410,532
9
Id. at 418. “[R]ejections on obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by
mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated
reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of
obviousness.” In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (cited by KSR,
550 U.S. at 418). However, the Court also instructs that “the analysis need
not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the
challenged claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and creative
steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR, 550 U.S.
at 418.
In addition, the Court instructs, “if a technique has been used to
improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize
that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is
obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill.” KSR, 550
U.S. at 417.
This precedent controls, and the application of the cited legal
principles to the facts of this appeal provide us with the necessary guidance
in affirming this obviousness rejection. The Examiner relies upon Gupta to
teach a wristband device including a gesture-based data capture and analysis
device for capturing a photo/video in response to detected user
movement/gesture, which is subsequently interpreted. Final Act. 3, 4 (citing
Gupta ¶¶ 73, 74). Further, the Examiner relies upon Marvit for its teaching
of creating and maintaining a gesture database in which raw gesture motion
data is added, analyzed, interpreted, and stored as gesture data. Id. at 4
(citing Marvit ¶¶ 147, 148). Accordingly, the Examiner concludes that, at
the time of the claimed subject matter, combining Gupta’s teachings with
those of Marvit to achieve the claimed device would have been obvious to
Appeal 2021-003023
Application 16/410,532
10
the ordinarily skilled artisan because it would have yielded “a user-created
or defined gesture.” Id. at 4–5 (citing Marvit, Fig. 21). We agree with the
Examiner that the proposed combination of the teachings of Gupta and
Marvit is supported by a preponderance of the evidence, and the ensuing
conclusion of obviousness is consistent with controlling authorities. Ans. 7.
Now, turning to Appellant’s argument that the Gupta and Marvit
combination does not teach appending gesture data and instruction to a
captured file containing data captured by a peripheral device: as correctly
noted by the Examiner, Appellant’s Specification6 states the following:
The analysis unit stores the captured data (e.g., image, audio, or
video) in memory as a capture file, to which it appends gesture
information or other processing information or instructions to
create a gesture file. “File” means any set of data stored in
memory that is appended together. This includes, for example,
data sets or databases that are distributed across different
networks or servers. “Append” means that two or more data
are associated or related in a way that a CPU can interpret or

6 We note, the cited claim language must be given its broadest reasonable
interpretation consistent with Appellant’s disclosure, as explained in Morris:
[T]he PTO applies to the verbiage of the proposed claims the
broadest reasonable meaning of the words in their ordinary usage
as they would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art,
taking into account whatever enlightenment by way of
definitions or otherwise that may be afforded by the written
description contained in the applicant’s specification.
In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997); see also In re Zletz, 893
F.2d 319, 321 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (stating that “claims must be interpreted as
broadly as their terms reasonably allow.”). Our reviewing court further
states, “the proper … construction is not just the broadest construction, but
rather the broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification.” In
re Man Mach. Interface Techs. LLC, 822 F.3d 1282, 1287 (Fed. Cir. 2016).

Appeal 2021-003023
Application 16/410,532
11
recognize the association; to the extent it is necessary to delete
or alter current data in order to successfully “append” new data,
such actions are encompassed by the term “append.”

Spec. ¶ 3 (emphasis added); Ans. 4.

As such, we broadly but reasonably construe the disputed claim
limitation consistent with the Specification to mean two or more
associated/related data that are stored in memory in a way a CPU can
interpret or recognize the association.7 As correctly noted by the Examiner,
Marvit’s disclosure of an analysis unit for storing in a database raw motion
data, which is analyzed, stored in a database as gesture, and which is edited
to add or assign thereto function mapping information for the gesture teaches
or suggests the disputed limitation. Ans. 4–5 (citing Marvit ¶¶ 147, 148).
Further, we find the ordinarily skilled artisan, being “a person of
ordinary creativity, not an automaton,” would have been able to fit the cited
teachings of Gupta and Marvit together like pieces of a puzzle to predictably
result in a gesture-operated wrist mounted camera system for capturing user
motion, which is stored in a database as a file to which function mapping
information is assigned, thereby amounting to appending gesture data to a
captured data file, as recited in the rejected claim. KSR, 550 U.S. at 421.
Furthermore, although it is necessary for an Examiner to identify a reason

7 During prosecution, claims must be given their broadest reasonable
interpretation when reading claim language in light of the specification as it
would have been 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); see also In re
Smith Int’l, Inc., 871 F.3d 1375, 1382–83 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (noting that such
interpretation is one “that corresponds with what and how the inventor
describes his invention in the specification, i.e., an interpretation that is
‘consistent with the specification’”).
Appeal 2021-003023
Application 16/410,532
12
for modifying the familiar elements obtained from the prior art in
establishing a prima facie case of obviousness, so long as the Examiner
provides an articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to
conclude the claim is obvious, such a conclusion is proper. In this case, the
afore-cited rationale provided by the Examiner is more than just a mere
conclusory statement. In our view, such a statement suffices as an articulated
reason with a rational underpinning to support the proffered combination.
Final Act. 4–5. As noted above, the Examiner may look to the state of the
prior art, including the knowledge of the ordinarily skilled artisan, to arrive
at such a reason for combining the known elements of the prior art.
Consequently, the Examiner’s reliance upon available knowledge to arrive at
an articulated reason with a rational underpinning to support the proffered
combination is proper in rejecting claim 1. Accordingly, we sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 1.
Regarding the rejections of claims 5, and 8–10, Appellant either does
not present separate patentability arguments or reiterates substantially the
same arguments as those discussed above for the patentability of claim 1. As
such, claims 5, and 8–10 fall therewith. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
2. Claims 11–13 and 19–21
Appellant argues that the Examiner errs in finding that the
combination of Gupta and Ng renders claim 11 unpatentable. Appeal Br. 19.
In particular, Appellant argues that Gupta and Ng are not analogous art
because they do not pertain to processing and storing captured data based
upon instruction-related to gesture type. Id. Further, Appellant argues that
there is insufficient rationale to combine Gupta and Ng because: (1) Ng
relates to a system for use in an automobile, it teaches away from a mobile
Appeal 2021-003023
Application 16/410,532
13
wearable gesture sensing device, (2) Gupta teaches away from using
cumbersome devices such as Ng’s automobiles, and (3) that the Gupta-Ng
combination does not teach a gesture sensing device and processing unit as
claimed. Id. at 20–22 (citing Ng ¶¶ 4, 27; Gupta ¶¶ 30, 32, 34).
Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive of reversible Examiner
error. As noted above, Gupta is within Appellant’s field of endeavor and is
therefore analogous art. Further, as correctly noted by the Examiner, Ng’s
disclosure of a system for interpreting a gesture associated with a captured
motion performed by a user pertains to the problem with which Appellant’s
invention is concerned with, and therefore qualifies as analogous art. Ans.
8–9 (citing Ng ¶¶ 22, 27, 45). Furthermore, although Gupta pertains to using
a mobile device to interpret user gestures while Ng relates to using an
automobile to perform similar functions, we do not agree with Appellant that
such uses of different media to perform the gesture interpretation function
teaches away from the combination.8 These references instead teach
alternative devices for interpreting a captured motion made by the user as a
corresponding gesture. Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner that Gupta
and Ng do not teach away from each other. Id. at 9–10. Additionally, we
agree with the Examiner that Ng’s disclosure of a processing unit configured
to alter an electronic file based upon a physical gesture indicating metadata
to be appended thereto would complement Gupta’s data capture and analysis

8 The Federal Circuit has held “[a] reference may be said to teach away
when a person of ordinary skill, upon reading the reference, would be
discouraged from following the path set out in the reference, or would be led
in a direction divergent from the path that was taken by the applicant.” In re
Kahn, 441 F.3d at 990 (quoting In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 553 (Fed. Cir.
1994)).
Appeal 2021-003023
Application 16/410,532
14
system to provide a more complete account (including time, date, location)
of captured motions for translation into corresponding gestures. Final Act.
11–12 (citing Ng ¶ 27). Consequently, the Examiner’s reliance upon
available knowledge to arrive at an articulated reason with a rational
underpinning to support the proffered combination is proper in rejecting
claim 11. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 11.
Regarding the rejections of claims 12, 13, and 19–21, Appellant either
does not present separate patentability arguments or reiterates substantially
the same arguments as those discussed above for the patentability of claim
11. As such, claims 12, 13 and 19–21 fall therewith. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
3. Claims 22 and 23
Appellant argues that the Examiner errs in finding that the
combination of Gupta and Watanabe renders claim 22 unpatentable. Appeal
Br. 23. In particular, Appellant argues that there is insufficient rationale to
combine Gupta’s media capturing system with Watanabe’s image projection
system, especially when Gupta teaches away from using such cumbersome
devices. Id. at 23–24 (citing Gupta ¶¶ 28–31; Watanabe ¶¶ 6, 44). Further,
Appellant argues that because Watanabe’s lookup tables are prepopulated,
they do not include instructions that are stored based upon a type of gesture.
Id. at 24–25.
Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive of reversible Examiner
error. Although Gupta pertains to using a mobile device to interpret user
gestures while Watanabe relates to using an information processing
apparatus coupled to a conference system to perform similar functions, we
do not agree with Appellant that such uses of different devices to perform
Appeal 2021-003023
Application 16/410,532
15
the gesture interpretation function teaches away from the combination.9
These are intended instead as alternative devices for interpreting a captured
motion made by the user as a corresponding gesture. Accordingly, we agree
with the Examiner that Gupta and Watanabe do not teach away from each
other. Ans. 12. Additionally, we agree with the Examiner that Watanabe’s
disclosure of a database including a lookup table for identifying gestures
associated with a captured motion would complement Gupta’s data capture
and analysis system to provide a more complete account of uniquely
identified gestures associated with captured motions. Final Act. 19–20
(citing Watanabe ¶¶ 44, 49). Consequently, the Examiner’s reliance upon
available knowledge to arrive at an articulated reason with a rational
underpinning to support the proffered combination is proper in rejecting
claim 22. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 22.
Regarding the rejections of claim 23, Appellant either does not
present separate patentability arguments or reiterates substantially the same
arguments as those discussed above for the patentability of claim 22. As
such, claims 23 fall therewith. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
4. Claims 3, 4, 6, 7, 14–18, 24–28–30
Regarding claims 3, 4, 6, 7, 14–18, 24–28–30, to the extent that
Appellant does not separately argue or substantially reiterates the same
arguments as those discussed above for claims 1, 11, and 22, those
arguments are not persuasive for the reasons set forth above. To the extent
that Appellant separately argues claims 3, 4, 6, 7, 14–18, 24–28–30, we find
that the Examiner has rebutted by a preponderance of the evidence each of
these arguments. For the reasons set forth in the Examiner’s Answer, which

9 See supra note 9.
Appeal 2021-003023
Application 16/410,532
16
are adopted herein, we sustain the Examiner’s rejections of claims 3, 4, 6, 7,
14–18, 24–28–30.
VI. CONCLUSION
On this record, we affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1, and
3–30.

VII. DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
26 112 Indefiniteness 26
1, 5, 8–
10, 27
103 Gupta, Marvit 1, 5, 8–10,
27

3, 28 103 Gupta, Marvit, Jung 3, 28
4 103 Gupta, Marvit, Jung,
Albertson
4
6 103 Gupta, Marvit, El
Dokor
6
7 103 Gupta, Marvit,
Harris
7
11–13,
19–21
103 Gupta, Ng 11–13,
19–21

14 103 Gupta, Ng, Fredlund 14
15 103 Gupta, Ng, Jung 15
16 103 Gupta, Ng, Jung,
Albertson
16
17 103 Gupta, Ng, El Dokor 17
18 103 Gupta, Ng, Harris 18
22, 23 103 Gupta, Watanabe 22, 23
24 103 Gupta, Watanabe,
Her
24
25 103 Gupta, Watanabe,
Her, Lee
25
Appeal 2021-003023
Application 16/410,532
17
26, 29,
30
103 Gupta 26, 29, 30
Overall
Outcome
1, 3–30

VIII. TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED