Ex Parte Kim et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 31, 2013

11471359 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 31, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE
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.
11/471,359 06/20/2006 Soon-Ok Kim 678-2282 3148
66547 7590 08/01/2013
THE FARRELL LAW FIRM, P.C.
290 Broadhollow Road
Suite 210E
Melville, NY 11747
EXAMINER
CHOO, MUNSOON
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2645
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/01/2013 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 SOON-OK KIM, DAE-GYU KIM, and YONG-SOO PARK
____________

Appeal 2011-000452
Application 11/471,359
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, LYNNE E. PETTIGREW, and
MATTHEW R. CLEMENTS, Administrative Patent Judges.

CLEMENTS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1-4, 6-8, 10, and 11. Claims 5 and 9 are cancelled. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ invention generally relates to realizing a user interface
using a camera module and a mobile communication terminal such that if a
Appeal 2011-000452
Application 11/471,359

2
user makes a predetermined motion while the camera module is activated,
the mobile communication terminal recognizes the motion and performs a
predetermined action in response. See generally Abstract. Claim 1 is
illustrative (disputed limitations in italics):
1. A mobile communication terminal comprising:
a camera module to which a user motion is input;
a memory for storing at least one control command
corresponding to at least one motion pattern and storing at least one
character pattern according to predetermined traces; and
a controller for activating the camera module according to a
current mode type, patterning the user motion if the user motion is
input from a user through the activated camera module, reading out a
control command corresponding to the user motion pattern from the
memory according to the current mode type, and performing the
control command.

THE REJECTIONS
1. Claims 1-4 and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as
anticipated by Marvit (US 2005/021867 A1; published Sept. 29, 2005).
Ans. 3-6.1
2. Claims 6-8 and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Marvit and Iwamura (US 6,498,628 B2; issued Dec. 24,
2002). Ans. 6-7.
THE ANTICIPATION REJECTION
The Examiner finds that Marvit discloses every recited element of
claim 1. Ans. 3-5.

1 Throughout this opinion, we refer to (1) the Appeal Brief filed Jan. 12,
2010 (“App. Br.”); (2) the Examiner’s Answer mailed July 15, 2010
(“Ans.”); and (3) the Reply Brief filed Sept. 14, 2010 (“Reply Br.”).
Appeal 2011-000452
Application 11/471,359

3
Appellants argue, inter alia, that Marvit does not disclose “a
controller for activating the camera module according to a current mode
type.” App. Br. 4-5; Reply Br. 1-2.

ISSUE
Under § 102, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 by finding
that Marvit discloses “a controller for activating the camera module
according to a current mode type”?

ANALYSIS
On this record, we are persuaded of error in the Examiner’s
anticipation rejection of claim 1. The Examiner finds that Marvit’s teaching
of “motion detection” discloses the recited “current mode type” according to
which the camera module (cameras 26a, 26b, or 26c) is activated. Ans. 4, 8
(citing Marvit Fig. 2, ¶¶ 0047, 0056). Appellants argue that none of the
cited portions of Marvit disclose that the cameras are activated “according
to” the detection of motion. App. Br. 4-5; Reply Br. 2. We agree with
Appellants. Paragraph 0047 of Marvit describes the operation of cameras
26a, 26b, and 26c, but lacks any description of how, or under what
circumstances, the cameras are activated. Paragraph 0056 of Marvit does
not even mention cameras 26a, 26b, and 26c, but instead describes the
processing of raw data from Marvit’s cameras, gyroscopes, and rangefinders
by “processor 32 to produce motion detector output 34 identifying
movement of device 10.” Figure 2 of Marvit depicts cameras 26a, 26b, and
26c, but does not depict a controller for activating those cameras “according
to” motion. Because none of the cited portions of Marvit disclose that the
Appeal 2011-000452
Application 11/471,359

4
cameras are activated “according to” motion of the handheld device, as the
Examiner contends, we are persuaded that the Examiner incorrectly
determined that Marvit discloses “a controller for activating the camera
module according to a current mode type.”
We therefore do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent
claim 1 and of dependent claims 2-4 and 10 not separately argued with
particularity.

THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION
Because the Examiner has not shown that Iwamura cures the
deficiencies noted above, we will not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness
rejection of independent claim 6 and dependent claims 8 and 11 which recite
commensurate limitations. Ans. 6-7.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-4 and 10 under § 102 and
claims 6-8 and 11 under § 103.

ORDER
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-4, 6-8, 10, and 11 is
REVERSED.

REVERSED

gvw