Weijie Zhang et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Oct 7, 2019

14290972 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Oct. 7, 2019)

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.
14/290,972 05/29/2014 Weijie ZHANG 388234-991100 1002
47604 7590 10/07/2019
DLA PIPER LLP US
ATTN: PATENT GROUP
11911 Freedom Dr.
Suite 300
RESTON, VA 20190
EXAMINER
ELNAFIA, SAIFELDIN E
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2625
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/07/2019 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):
PatentProsecutionRes@dlapiper.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte WEIJIE ZHANG and JOSEPH McGEE
____________

Appeal 2018-004027
Application 14/290,972
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, JESSICA C. KAISER, and
KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, Administrative Patent Judges.

THOMAS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–20. We have jurisdiction over the
appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refers to “applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Archer
Software Corporation. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2018-004027
Application 14/290,972

2
The present invention relates generally to analyzing and interpreting
user gestures. See Abstr.
Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the
appealed claims:
1. A method of gesture processing, the method comprising:
capturing ambient-lit image data from at least one two-
dimensional imaging camera;
analyzing the ambient-lit image data to identify an image
of at least one user within the ambient-lit image data; and
determining a command for a device and/or an input
position based on the analyzed ambient-lit image data.

Appellant appeals the following rejections:
R1. Claims 1–20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112 (a) or 35 U.S.C.
§ 112 (pre-AIA), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written
description requirement (Final Act. 5–6);
R2. Claims 1–5, 8–10, and 12–20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Clarkson (US 2011/0080490 A1, Apr. 7,
2011) and Huebner (US 2014/0267031 A1, Sept. 18, 2014) (Final Act. 6–
16); and
R3. Claims 6, 7, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Clarkson, Huebner, and Ptucha (US 2013/0201104
A1, Aug. 8, 2013).
We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues
identified by Appellant, and in light of the arguments and evidence produced
thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential).

Appeal 2018-004027
Application 14/290,972

3
ANALYSIS
Rejection under § 112
The Examiner finds that “[t]he subject matter ‘ambient-lit image data’
. . . was not described in the specification.” Final Act. 6. The Examiner
adds that “the captured image may be lit by any manner of sources, ambient,
dedicated, visible, or invisible (i.e. IR light) [and] [t]he simplistic drawings
presented in this application do not offer any evidence to what manner the
images are lit, and as such the limitation is still seen as undisclosed.” Ans.
3. We disagree with the Examiner.
Appellant contends that “it is well-known in the art that cameras
capture ambient-lit image data when they are not used with illumination
devices such as flashes[] [and] [t]he figures as filed clearly illustrate cameras
used without illumination devices.” Appeal Br. 10 (citing Spec. Figs. 1–3,
13B, and 15). Although we agree with Appellant that cameras without
flashes can be interpreted as capturing ambient-lit image data, after carefully
examining Appellant’s figures, we find it is unclear how the cameras are
actually capturing such images, i.e., with or without flashes.
In any case, we find that one of ordinary skill in the art would
recognize that cameras in the default mode capture images by merely using
ambient light, e.g., natural and/or normal room light. As such, the question
becomes: Does merely disclosing a camera show that Appellant had
possession of capturing “ambient-lit image data” in their Specification as
filed? We answer such a question in the affirmative and find that
Appellant’s disclosed use of a “camera” at a minimum discloses capturing
ambient-lit image data.
Appeal 2018-004027
Application 14/290,972

4
Accordingly, for at least the reasons noted supra, we disagree with the
Examiner that the claimed “ambient-lit image data” is not sufficiently
described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one
skilled in the relevant art that the inventor had possession of the claimed
invention.
Therefore, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1–20 under
35 U.S.C. § 112.

Rejections under § 103(a)
Appellant contends “Clarkson teaches a method of gesture processing
under active illumination . . . where gestures cannot be recognized in
ambient-lit images.” Appeal Br. 12–13. Similarly, Appellant also contends
that “active illumination is also necessary to Huebner’s system, wherein
ambient-lit image data is captured, active-lit image data is captured, and data
for analysis is generated from a difference between the two images.” Id. at
14 (emphasis omitted). In summary, Appellant contends that “no
combination of Clarkson and/or Huebner discloses, teaches, or suggest
analyzing the ambient-lit image data to identify an image of at least one user
within the ambient-lit image data [because] Clarkson teaches identifying an
image within illuminated image data . . . [and] Huebner [] analyzes the
difference data to detect the user image within.” Id. at 15 (emphasis
omitted).
In other words, Appellant contends that neither Clarkson nor Huebner
teaches or suggests the claimed “analyzing the ambient-lit image data to
identify an image of at least one user within the ambient-lit data,” (see claim
1) (emphasis added) because Clarkson only analyzes user within active
Appeal 2018-004027
Application 14/290,972

5
illuminated data and Huebner analyzes user within gesture light view data.
We agree with Appellant.
Here, the Examiner finds that Clarkson teaches capturing an image
“while an illumination source is turned on . . . [and] while the illumination
source is turned off . . . to produce a resulting image . . . [that] may be
analyzed.” Ans. 4. Specifically, Clarkson discloses:
In implementations where alternating camera images are captured
while an illumination source is turned on, a camera image captured
while the illumination source is turned off may be subtracted from a
camera image captured while the illumination source was turned on to
produce a resulting image. The resulting image may be analyzed to
determine whether one or more objects are illuminated in the camera
image captured when the illumination source was turned on.
Subtracting the camera image captured when the illumination source
was turned off may remove ambient light which was present in both
camera images.
Spec. ¶ 60. In other words, Clarkson’s system captures ambient-lit data, but
analyzes the resulting image which has removed the ambient light, as
opposed to analyzing ambient-lit image data to identify an image of at least
one user within the ambient-lit image data, as required by claim 1.
Further, the Examiner finds that “[t]he Huebner reference was added
for more clarification to capture an ambient light view without illumination
source.” Ans. 4 (citing Huebner ¶¶ 173–174). Specifically, Huebner
discloses “the viewing sensor 148 may capture an ambient light view (or
‘photo’ image frame) of its field of view forward of the pointer 100.”
Huebner ¶ 173. Huebner further discloses that “[t]hen in step S121, control
unit 108 and view grabber 118 may take receipt of and store the ambient
light view in captured view data 104 for future analysis.” Id. ¶ 174.
Additionally, Huebner discloses “control unit 108 and view grabber 118 may
Appeal 2018-004027
Application 14/290,972

6
retrieve the previously stored ambient and lit light views and compute image
subtraction of the ambient and lit light views, resulting in a gesture light
view.” Id. ¶ 180. In other words, like Clarkson, Huebner teaches
performing a subtraction function to arrive at the resultant gesture light
view, and it is this resultant image (i.e., the gesture light views) that is
analyzed to identify a user within the gesture light views, not a user within
the ambient-lit image data. See id. ¶ 183.
As such, we agree with Appellant that the combined teachings of
Clarkson and Huebner, as identified by the Examiner, fail to teach or suggest
the claimed “analyzing the ambient-lit image data to identify an image of at
least one user within the ambient-lit image data,” but rather teaches
identifying the user within illuminated views of image data.
Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of independent
claim 1, and dependent claims 2–17 and 20 for similar reasons.

Claim 18
Claim 18 is independent. The Examiner finds that Clarkson teaches
“generating a sensing region based on the captured image data,” as recited in
claim 18. Final Act. 12. The Examiner further finds that Huebner teaches
“the viewing sensor 148 may capture an ambient light view (or ‘photo’
image frame) of its field of view forward of the pointer 100. . . . wherein the
Pointer 100 may calibrate the workspace by creating a geometric mapping
between the coordinate systems of the view region 420 and projection region
222.” Id. at 13–14. In other words, it is the combined teachings of Clarkson
and Huebner that the Examiner is relying on to teach and/or suggest this
limitation of claim 18.
Appeal 2018-004027
Application 14/290,972

7
Appellant contends that “Clarkson in view of Huebner does not teach
or suggest ‘capturing ambient-lit image data . . . [and] generating a sensing
region based on the captured ambient-lit image data’ (claim 18), because the
sensing region of Clarkson is an illuminated region.” Appeal Br. 15.
Assuming arguendo that Clarkson’s sensing region is an illuminated region,
as proffered by Appellant, we observe that Appellant has not further
contested the Examiner’s findings regarding Huebner’s ambient light views
and geometric mapping.
Specifically, Appellant’s argument against Clarkson separately from
Huebner does not persuasively rebut the combination made by the Examiner.
One cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually,
where the rejections are based on combinations of references. In re Merck
& Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Keller, 642 F.2d
413, 425–26 (CCPA 1981).
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 18.

Claim 19
Claim 19 is independent. Appellant contends that “Clarkson in view
of Huebner does not teach or suggest ‘capturing ambient-lit image data . . .
[and] performing . . . on the ambient-lit image data’ (claim 19), because
Huebner processes difference data resulting from a combination of active
and ambient lit data sets.” Appeal Br. 15. In other words, Appellant
contends that the Examiner’s reliance on Huebner for teaching the
“performing” step is deficient because the processing in Huebner is
performed on “difference data” not “ambient-lit image data,” as required by
claim 19. We agree with Appellant.
Appeal 2018-004027
Application 14/290,972

8
As noted supra regarding claim 1, while the Examiner has shown
capturing of ambient-lit image data in both Clarkson and Huebner, the
Examiner fails to persuasively show any analyzing specifically on the
ambient-lit image data as set forth in the claims in neither Clarkson nor
Huebner, but instead analyzing illuminated views.
Accordingly, we reverse that rejection of claim 19.

CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
Basis  Affirmed Reversed
1–20 § 112   1–20
1–5, 8–10, and 12–20 § 103 Clarkson
and Huebner 
18 1–5, 8–10, 12–17,
19, and 20
6, 7, 11 § 103 Clarkson,
Huebner, and
Ptucha
6, 7, 11
Overall Outcome 18 1–17, 19, and 20

No period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this
appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).

AFFIRMED-IN-PART