Ex Parte Eliezer et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 27, 2012

11015562 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 27, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
_____________

Ex parte OREN EYTAN ELIEZER,
CARL M. PANASIK, JOHN LEONARD WALLBERG,
and ROBERT BOGDAN STASZEWSKI
____________________

Appeal 2010-003172
Application 11/015,562
Technology Center 2600
____________________

Before: ROBERT E. NAPPI, DAVID M. KOHUT, and TREVOR M.
JEFFERSON, Administrative Patent Judges.

JEFFERSON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-003172
Application 11/015,562
2
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims
23-58. Claims 1-22 are cancelled. Br. 2. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

The claims are directed to multi-function digital device that operates
as a human-input-device for a computer via a digital camera coupled to a
controller. Spec. ¶ [0006]. Claims 23 and 24, reproduced below, are
illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
23. A multi-function device comprising:
a controller configured to process information and
regulate operations of the multifunction device;
a digital camera coupled to said controller, said camera
further configurable to be used as a two-dimensional optical
sensor to capture information related to movement of said
multi-function device and to provide the information to the
controller, wherein the information is used to determine
direction and distance of the movement; and
a radio frequency circuit coupled to said controller, the
radio frequency circuit providing said movement information to
other devices via a plurality of communications networks.

24. The multi-function device of claim 23, wherein said
movement information is used to move a coordinate cursor on a
display device associated with said other device.

REJECTIONS
The Examiner made the following rejections:

Appeal 2010-003172
Application 11/015,562
3

Claims 23-24, 27-49 and 56-57 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C §102(b)
as being anticipated by Horiki (US 2002/0140667 A1, Oct. 3, 2002). Ans. 3-
12.
Claims 50-55 and 58 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Horiki and Vertaschitsch (US 6,976,217 B1, Dec. 13,
2005). Ans. 13-16.
Claims 25 and 26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Horiki and Lee (US 7,066,623 B2, Jun. 27, 2006). Ans.
16-17.

CLAIM GROUPING
Appellants separately argue independent claims 23 and 56 (Br. 8-10)
and dependent claims 24 (Br. 11-12) and 27 (Br. 12-13). Appellants make
no separate argument for dependent claims 28 and 29 (Br. 10). We address
independent claims 23 and 56 together and dependent claims 24 and 27
separately. Dependent claims 28 and 29 stand or fall with claim 23.
Appellants argue dependent claims 25 and 26 together (Br. 28-30).
Appellants separately argue independent claims 30 and 57 (Br. 13-16)
and dependent claims 31 (Br. 16-17) and 35 (Br. 16, 20-21). We address
claims 30 and 57 together. Because claims 31 and 35 raise similar
arguments, we address these claims together.
Appellants argue independent claim 34 (Br. 17-19), but dependent
claim 36 and 37 are not argued separately (Br. 19). Appellants also
separately argument independent claims 38 (Br. 21-22), 44 (Br. 23-25), and
independent claims 50 and 58 (Br. 25-28). We address claims 34, 38, 44
Appeal 2010-003172
Application 11/015,562
4
separately and claims 50 and 58 together. Claims 51-55, which depend from
claim 50 and are not argued separately, and stand or fall with claim 50.

OPINION
ANALYSIS
Independent Claims 23 and 56
Appellants contend that:
Horiki fails to teach or suggest, “a digital camera coupled to the
controller, the camera further configurable to be used as a two-
dimensional optical sensor to capture information related to
movement of the multi-function device and to provide the
information to the controller, wherein said information is used to
determine relative direction and distance of said movement”, as
required by Claim 23, OR “a digital camera coupled to the controller,
the digital camera further configurable to be used as a two-
dimensional optical sensor to capture information related to the
movement of said multi-function device and to provide the
information to the controller”, as required by Claim 56.
Br. 10. Appellants contend that Horiki “utilizes a CCD camera to identify
the tip of the user’s free hand and map this image onto the display device of
the mobile phone system …. [and] fails to disclose how the digital camera is
configured as a two-dimensional optical sensor to capture information
related to the movement of said multi-function device.” Br. 9. Accordingly,
Appellants argue the Examiner erred in finding that the movement of the
mobile phone is disclosed in Horiki during the tracking and command input
of the users fingertip relative to the motion of the phone. Br. 10. In sum,
Appellants assert that Horiki “fail[s] to describe the operation of the CCD
camera to determine movement of the mobile phone system.” Br. 10.
The Examiner found that Horiki discloses in Figure 8, the use of
cellular telephone 600 that allows input with a user’s hand, where the
Appeal 2010-003172
Application 11/015,562
5
movement of the forefinger in line with the user’s eye is captured by the
CCD camera. Ans. 17-18. This alignment between the forefinger, the
cellular telephone’s CCD camera and the user’s eye is used to capture
information about the location of the mobile phone relative to these points
(the user’s hand and the phone) and to use that information for input control
command. Ans. 17-18(citing Figures 8, 9(a), 9(b)).
We agree with the Examiner. Contrary to Appellants’ contention that
the Examiner has added creative engineering concepts (Br. 9), we find that
the Examiner properly identifies the disclosures in Horiki regarding the
detection of movement and interaction with external graphical interfaces via
a user’s hand to manipulate or command a device. Ans. 3-4. The Examiner
correctly found that the digital camera (611) coupled to controller (701 and
703) work together with the multifunction device (cellular phone system
600) to capture relative movement and provide such data to the controller.
Ans. 3, 17-18. Thus, we agree that Horiki discloses the input of a phone
number by interpreting the movements of the CCD camera relative to the
user’s hand. Ans. 18 (citing figure 13(a)-(d)).
We also find that Horiki determines the movement of the cellular
telephone in Figure 8, as it detects the movement of the phone to capture the
input via the CCD of the image that is captured by the user. Ans. 18. Thus,
Horiki, “capturing the three points interaction,” the user’s eye, the user’s
fingers in front of the CCD device and the movement of the device being
held in the user’s opposite hand. Ans. 20 (see Horiki, Figs. 7, 10 and 13).
Capturing such movement allows input via a cursor or telephone dialing as
shown in Horiki, Figures 10(b) and 13(d). Horiki discloses that such cursor
movement or activation can be from a GUI loaded from an external device.
Horiki ¶ [0134]. Accordingly, Horiki discloses that the users hand (or
Appeal 2010-003172
Application 11/015,562
6
finger) movement relative to the movement of the camera must be
interpreted by the CCD to detect movement and input via cursor activation
or phone dialing as showing in figures 10(b) and 13(d). Ans 20.
Based on the foregoing, we agree with the Examiner that Horiki
discloses “captur[ing] information related to movement of said multi-
function device and to provide the information to the controller, wherein the
information is used to determine direction and distance of the movement,” as
recited in claim 23 and a “digital camera further configurable to be used as a
two-dimensional optical sensor to capture information related to the
movement of said multi-function device and to provide the information to
the controller,” as recited in claim 56.
We sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 23 and 56 under 35
U.S.C §102(b) as being anticipated by Horiki. We also sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 28 and 29, which depend from claim 24.

Dependent Claim 24
With respect to dependent claim 24, Appellants contend that Horiki
does not disclose “movement information [that] is used to move coordinate
cursor on a display device associated with said other device” because Horiki
teaches a unitary multi-function device that only has one display. Br. 11.
Therefore, Horiki does not disclose movement of a cursor on a display
device associated with said other device. Id.
We disagree with Appellants’ argument. As the Examiner discusses,
Ans. 20, Horiki discloses that the user’s fingertip on the surface of the
display can be combined with GUI interface loaded form an external device
such that it becomes possible to generate control inputs for the device
connected to the external interface or other remote device. Horiki ¶ [0134].
Appeal 2010-003172
Application 11/015,562
7
We find that Horiki discloses “other devices” for which movement or
control input information can be generated as required in dependent claim
24. We sustain the Examiner’s rejection of dependent claim 24 under 35
U.S.C §102(b) as being anticipated by Horiki.
Dependent Claim 27
We also disagree with Appellants contention that Horiki fails to
disclose “the multi-function device of claim 24, wherein said device further
comprises an input sensor configured to capture user input and to provide
the user input to the controller,” Br. 12, for the same reasons as discussed
above for claims 23 and 56.
Horiki discloses the input a telephone number by capturing the
position and input of the user’s forefinger to initiate the input and dial the
number. Ans. 21 (citing Horiki Fig. 13(d)). Appellants’ argument that
Horiki fails to teach the extensive approach disclosed in Appellants’
specification, Br. 13, relies on functions that are not commensurate in scope
with Appellants’ claims. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection
of dependent claim 27 under 35 U.S.C §102(b) as being anticipated by
Horiki.

Independent Claims 30 and 57
Appellants assert that
Horiki fails to teach or suggest, “a positional sensor coupled to the
controller, the positional sensor configured to receive transmissions
from telemetry devices and to provide telemetry information to the
controller related to movement of said device, wherein said
information is used to determine relative direction and distance of
said movement”, as required by Claim 30, OR “a positional sensor
coupled to the controller, the positional sensor configured to receive
transmissions from telemetry devices and to provide telemetry
Appeal 2010-003172
Application 11/015,562
8
information to the controller related to the movement of said
device”, as required by Claim 57.
Br. 15-16. Since Horiki only uses the CCD to determine the movement of
and to identify the user’s free hand and then maps this image onto the
display device of the mobile phone, it does not disclose how the digital
camera is configured as a two-dimensional optical sensor to capture
information related to the movement of said multi-function device. Indeed,
Appellants contend that Horiki “teaches away from using a camera to
determine device movement by limiting ‘the focal length of the CCD camera
…’ [0132].” Br. 15.
We agree with the Examiner’s response that Horiki’s input control
system detects movement as disclosed in Appellants’ claims. Ans. 21.
Horiki determines the relative movement between three points and interprets
the movement of the user’s finger and hand in relation to the movement of
the camera that is provided to a controller via the CCD that captures the
position. Ans. 3, 21-22.
Appellants’ argument that the fixed focal length of the camera in
Horiki teaches away from claimed invention by failing to show detection of
the terminal’s movement is also not persuasive. We do not find that
detecting the object using a fixed focal length prevents the detection of
movement. Horiki ¶ [0132] discloses detecting the object being shot but
also discloses a digital camera (611) coupled to controller (701 and 703) that
work together with the multi-function device (cellular phone system 600) to
capture relative movement (of the hand and camera) and provides such data
to the controller. Ans. 3, 17-18. As Horiki discloses, it is the relative
movement of the user’s hand among the three points that operates a GUI and
provides control input. Horiki Fig. 8 and ¶¶ [0127], [0134].
Appeal 2010-003172
Application 11/015,562
9
Based on the foregoing, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims
30 and 57 under 35 U.S.C §102(b) as being anticipated by Horiki. The
Examiner’s rejections of claims 32 and 33, which depend from claim 30, are
also sustained.
Dependent Claims 31 and 35
Appellants contend that Horiki fails to disclose “an input sensor
configured to capture user input and to provide the user input to the
controller” as recited in claim 35 because the Examiner fails to disclose how
the input means 704 of Horiki is the same as the claimed input sensor. Br.
16.
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments. Appellants’
arguments for claims 31 and 35 present the same issues found in dependent
claim 27 discussed above. We find that Horiki discloses inputting a
telephone number by capturing the position and input of the user’s forefinger
to initiate the input and dial the number or to enter other commands. See
Horiki, ¶ [0134] – [0136]; Ans. 21, 23 (citing Horiki Fig. 8 and 13). Thus,
we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 31 and 35 under 35 U.S.C
§102(b) as being anticipated by Horiki.
Independent Claim 34
Regarding claim 34, Appellants largely repeat their arguments
regarding claim 23 discussed above. Br. 17-19. Appellants further contend,
however, that the claim 34 differs from claim 23 in that the movement of a
multi-function device as found in claim 23 is different than the movement of
an object applied to the multi-function device as recited in claim 34. Br. 19.
Appellants assert that Horiki fails to disclose either type of movement. Id.
We disagree with Appellants. As previously discussed with respect to
claim 23, Horiki discloses capturing information related to the movement of
Appeal 2010-003172
Application 11/015,562
10
the user’s hand and the multi-function device. See supra Independent Claim
23 and 56. The figures in Horiki, Figs. 8 and 13, and specification, ¶¶
[0124]-[125], [0134]-[0136], describe the measurement of the relative
movement of the object in the camera’s field of view with respect to the
user’s eye and camera and forefinger. Both movement of the object and the
multi-function device are disclosed in Horiki.
Based on the foregoing, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim
34 under 35 U.S.C §102(b) as being anticipated by Horiki. We also sustain
the Examiner’s rejection of dependent claims 36 and 37, which depend from
claim 34.
Independent Claim 38 and 44
Appellants contend that
Horiki fails to teach or suggest “detecting changes in position of the
multifunction device by capturing a sequence of images, wherein
the capturing is performed by a digital camera and processing the
sequence of images to detect a change in position”, “computing
movement information from changes in position”, as required by
Claim 38.

Br. 23. Appellants similarly contend that Horiki fails to disclose similar
limitations in claim 44. Br. 25 (emphasis omitted) (noting “detecting
changes in position of the multi-function device by utilizing a positional
sensor configured to receive transmissions from telemetry devices” and
“computing movement information from changes in position” limitations).
Appellants’ arguments for claims 38 and 44 repeat the previous arguments
regarding movement of the multi-function device rather than movement of
the object captured by the digital camera discussed above with respect to
claim 34. In sum, Appellants contend that detection of a fingertip in Horiki
Appeal 2010-003172
Application 11/015,562
11
is not the same as the recited limitations on the “position of the multi-
function device” as found in claims 38 and 44. Br. 22, 24.
We agree with the Examiner that Horiki “functions by capturing the
three points of interaction of the user’s left eye, the user’s left hand and right
hand” and detecting the movement of the device as showing in figures 7, 10
and 13. Ans. 25. The frame of the user’s hand is interpreted by the CCD
camera and alignment is determined to activate a cursor or dial the phone.
Id. We also agree with the Examiner that the relative position of the camera
is disclosed in the Horiki reference and not merely the position of the user’s
free hand as Appellants assert. As the Examiner found, Horiki addresses
positioning of both the user’s free (or right) hand and the left hand holding
the camera to create the three points needed to manipulate objects or process
inputs. Ans. 25.
Based on the foregoing, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims
38 and 44 under 35 U.S.C §102(b) as being anticipated by Horiki. The
rejections of claims 39-43, which depend from claim 38, and claims 45-49,
which depend from claim 44, are also sustained.
Independent Claims 50 and 58
Appellants contend that Horiki fails to teach the recited claim 50
limitation for “detecting changes in position of an object being applied to the
multi-function device by sequentially capturing the state of sensors in a
touch screen and processing the sequence of sensor states to detect a change
in position.” Br. 25. (Emphasis omitted). Appellants also contend that
Horiki fails to teach a “touch screen display configured to capture
information in a movement of an object applied to the touch screen display
and to provide the information to the controller” as recited in claim 58. Br.
26. Appellants argue that the LCD display in Horiki is not the “touch
Appeal 2010-003172
Application 11/015,562
12
screen” as recited in claims 50 and 58. Furthermore, Horiki in combination
with Vertaschitsch does not teach or suggest the limitations of claim 50 and
58.
We are not persuaded by Appellants attempts to argue the references
separately. Appellants’ arguments merely restate the claim limitations and
assert that its invention has nothing to do with a “mobile phone can acquire
the functionality of a Personal Digital Assistant.” Br. 27. The Examiner
properly found that the display of Vertaschitsch in combination with the
Horiki cellular phone interface provides a touch screen interface on the LCD
display. Ans. 14-16. The Examiner also found that use of the Vertaschitsch
touch screen show in Fig. 8, as the input and display of the Horiki multi-
function device allows a touch screen function to replace the keypad design
of Horiki. Ans. 26-27.
Accordingly, we do not agree that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claims 50 and 58 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Horiki and Vertaschitsch.
We also sustain the rejection of claims 51-55, which depend from claim 50.
Dependent Claims 25 and 26
Appellants contend that the combination of Horiki and Lee fail to
teach or suggest a device of claim 25 that comprises a light source that “is
powered on only when the digital camera is capturing information.” Br. 28-
29. (Emphasis omitted). Appellants’ arguments merely recite the disputed
claim limitations and case law to support the bare assertion that “all of the
words of [c]laims 25 and 26 cannot be found in any combination of [the
cited references].” Br. 29-30.
We disagree with Appellants’ contentions. The Examiner has
provided rational reasoning in support for the combination of the flash in
Lee with the input detection system of Horiki to apply flash in cellular phone
Appeal 2010-003172
Application 11/015,562
13
image capture. Ans. 16-17, 27. A determination of obviousness does not
require the claimed invention to be expressly suggested by any one or all of
the references. See e.g., In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981).
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 25 and 26
under 35 U.S.C §103(a) as being unpatentable over Horiki and Lee.

DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner’s rejection of claims 23-58 is
sustained.

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)(iv).

AFFIRMED

tj