Giuseppe Raffa et al.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardNov 1, 201913536262 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Nov. 1, 2019) Copy Citation 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. 13/536,262 06/28/2012 GIUSEPPE RAFFA P44327/1020P44327 4736 57035 7590 11/01/2019 KACVINSKY DAISAK BLUNI PLLC Attention: Tricia Riddle 430 Davis Drive Suite 150 Morrisville, NC 27560 EXAMINER ALMEIDA, CORY A ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2622 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 11/01/2019 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): docketing@kdbfirm.com intel@kdbfirm.com kpotts@kdbfirm.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte GIUSEPPE RAFFA, SANGITA SHARMA, and JUNAITH AHEMED SHAHABDEEN Appeal 2019-000622 Application 13/536,262 Technology Center 2600 ____________ Before JOHN A. EVANS, JOHN P. PINKERTON, and MICHAEL M. BARRY, Administrative Patent Judges. EVANS, 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, 3, 4, 12, 14, 15, 23, 27, 28, 33, 35– 37, 39–41, and 43–47, which are all of the claims pending in this application. Br. 18. Claims 2, 5–11, 13, 16–22, 24–26, 29–32, 34, 38, and 42 are canceled. Id. at 3–6, 8, 9 (Claims App.). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM.2 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “Applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Intel Corporation. Br. 3. 2 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellant and the Examiner, we refer to the Appeal Brief, filed February 22, 2018 (“Br.”), the Claims Appendix, filed April 12, 2018 (“Claims App.”), the Examiner’s Answer, Appeal 2019-000622 Application 13/536,262 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims relate to techniques for gesture recognition, pose estimation, and false positive filtering. Spec. ¶ 12. CLAIMS Claims 1, 12, 23, and 28 are independent. An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of representative Claim 1, which is reproduced below with some formatting added: 1. An article comprising a non-transitory machine- readable storage medium containing instructions that if executed enable a system to: receive sensor data corresponding to motion of an electronic device having a display captured by one or more sensors; determine if the motion comprises a three-dimensional (3-D) gesture motion using one or more gesture recognition algorithms; determine a start-of-motion, end-of-motion, a start pose and an end pose responsive to determining that the motion comprises the 3-D gesture motion, the start pose comprising an orientation of the electronic device before the motion is performed based on the sensor data before the start-of-motion, the end pose comprising the orientation of the electronic device after the motion is performed based on the sensor data after the end-of-motion; mailed July 9, 2018 (“Ans.”), the Advisory Action, mailed September 18, 2017 (“Advisory”), the Final Office Action, mailed May 24, 2017 (“Final”), and the Specification, filed June 28, 2012 “(Spec.”), for their respective details. Appeal 2019-000622 Application 13/536,262 3 determine if the start pose and end pose of the 3-D gesture motion correspond to a start pose and end pose of a gesture model corresponding to the 3-D gesture motion; and filter the motion of the electronic device based on the start pose and end pose of the 3-D gesture motion by: triggering a gesture event if the start pose and end pose of the 3-D gesture motion match the start pose and end pose of the gesture model and disregarding the 3-D gesture motion if the start pose and end pose of the 3-D gesture motion do not match the start pose and end pose of the gesture model, wherein a same 3-D gesture motion triggers separate gesture events based, at least in part, on the start pose and end pose of the 3-D gesture motion, triggering a first gesture event for the 3-D gesture motion if the start pose and the end pose are a portrait orientation of the electronic device, and triggering a second gesture event for the 3-D gesture motion if the start pose and the end pose are a landscape orientation of the electronic device. Claims App. 3. REFERENCES Name Reference Date De Foras et al. (De Foras) US 2012/0323521 A1 Dec. 20, 2012 Campbell et al. (Campbell) US 2012/0274550 A1 Nov. 1, 2012 Reville et al. (Reville) US 2011/0289456 A1 Nov. 24, 2011 Kim et al. (Kim) US 2012/0262372 A1 Oct. 18, 2012 Appeal 2019-000622 Application 13/536,262 4 REJECTION Claims 1, 3, 4, 12, 14, 15, 23, 27, 28, 33, 35–37, 39–41, and 43–47 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over De Foras, Campbell, Reville, and Kim.3 Ans. 2–15; see also Final 2–14. ANALYSIS We have reviewed the rejections of claims 1, 3, 4, 12, 14, 15, 23, 27, 28, 33, 35–37, 39–41, and 43–47 in light of Appellant’s arguments that the Examiner erred. We have considered in this decision only those arguments Appellant actually raised in the Briefs. Any other arguments which Appellant could have made but chose not to make in the Briefs are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). We adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth in the Examiner’s Answer and in the rejection from which this Appeal, to the extent consistent with our analysis below. We provide the following explanation to highlight and address specific arguments and findings primarily for emphasis. We consider Appellant’s arguments seriatim, as they are presented in the Appeal Brief, pages 18–21. 3 In the Final Office Action, the Examiner also rejected claims 38 and 42 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over De Foras, Campbell, Reville, and Kim. Final 2. Appellant, however, in an amendment after the Final Office Action, proposed to cancel claims 38 and 42 and amend independent claims 1, 12, 23, and 28 to include the canceled features. See Amendment after Final Office Action 2–8, 10 (filed August 24, 2017). The Examiner entered Appellant’s proposed amendment in the Advisory Action. Advisory 1–2. Accordingly, we refer to the grounds of rejection as restated in the Examiner’s Answer, which best accounts for Appellant’s after-final amendments. Appeal 2019-000622 Application 13/536,262 5 CLAIMS 1, 3, 4, 12, 14, 15, 23, 27, 28, 33, 35–37, 39–41, and 43–47: OBVIOUSNESS OVER DE FORAS, CAMPBELL, REVILLE, AND KIM. Appellant presents arguments for the § 103(a) rejection of Claim 1 and relies on those same arguments as a basis for disputing the § 103 rejections of Claims 3, 4, 12, 14, 15, 23, 27, 28, 33, 35–37, 39–41, and 43– 47. Br. 18–21. Therefore, we decide the appeal on the basis of representative Claim 1, and refer to the rejected claims collectively herein as “the claims.” See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv); In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Determining start of motion, end of motion, start pose, and end pose In rejecting Claim 1 as obvious over the combination of De Foras, Campbell, Reville, and Kim, the Examiner cites Campbell for teaching “determin[ing] a start-of-motion, an end-of-motion, a start pose and an end pose . . . [,] the end pose comprising the orientation of the electronic device after the motion is performed.” Ans. 4 (citing Campbell ¶ 26); see also Final 4. Appellant contends that the cited prior art references do not teach or suggest these elements (Br. 19–20) and that “at best Campbell teaches to analyze a starting position and ending position,” which “is not equivalent and fails to teach determining all four of a start motion, end motion, start pose, and end pose as claimed.” Id. at 19 (quoting Campbell ¶ 26). Appellant’s argument does not persuade us of Examiner error. We begin our analysis with a brief overview of Campbell. Campbell discloses a method for mapping 3D gesture motions with a defined set of 2D motions, thereby allowing a user to navigate a GUI using natural hand movements. Campbell ¶ 14. In Campbell, at least two 3D optical sensors may be used to detect the presence and movement of objects or hand poses. Id. ¶¶ 17, 22. Appeal 2019-000622 Application 13/536,262 6 This detected data may be stored and analyzed by a processor as positional information associated with the detected object, the positional information including the object’s orientation. Id. ¶¶ 14, 17, claim 3, Figs. 2A–B. For instance, as illustrated in Figures 6A–C of Campbell, while a hand is moving in the X, Y, or Z direction (e.g., upward, downward, left, right, inward, outward), the processor may continuously monitor and update the hand’s change in position and time from a starting hand position to an ending hand position. Id. ¶¶ 25–26, Figs. 6A–C, items 610a, 610b, 619. Such movement may be mapped to one of the 2D gestures stored in a database. Id. ¶¶ 14, 17, 26. A corresponding control or input operation may be determined for the mapped gesture based on the positional information and location of the object with respect to the display. Id. ¶ 14, 21, 22. Contrary to Appellant’s arguments, we agree with the Examiner that Campbell would have suggested determining a “start-of-motion,” “end-of-motion,” “start pose,” and “end pose” as claimed. First, Campbell’s disclosure that its processor continuously monitors and updates hand positions and times from a starting hand position to an ending hand position would have suggested determining a time associated with the starting hand position, i.e., “start-of-motion,” and determining a time associated with the ending hand position, i.e., an “end-of-motion.” Second, the above disclosure of Campbell along with its disclosure of using optical sensors such that the system may accurately detect the presence and movement of hand poses would have suggested determining a “start pose” and “end pose” as claimed. Just as Appellant’s Specification discloses that the “start pose” (or “end pose”) may comprise the position (i.e., location in 3D space) and orientation information of an object before (or after) the motion is performed (see, e.g., Appeal 2019-000622 Application 13/536,262 7 Spec. ¶¶ 41, 50), Campbell discloses and depicts starting and ending hand poses, each having a particular location within 3D space, as well as a particular position (e.g., orientation) before or after the movement is performed (see, e.g., Campbell, Figs. 6A–C, ¶¶ 25–26). Nor are we persuaded by Appellant’s arguments that the remaining prior art references do not teach or suggest the disputed claim elements. See Br. 18–19. These arguments amount to attacking the references individually rather than challenging what the combined teachings (including Campbell) would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art. “The test for obviousness is not . . . that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.” In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). Filtering the motion of the electronic device based on the start pose and end pose of the 3-D gesture motion In rejecting Claim 1 as obvious over the combination of De Foras, Campbell, Reville, and Kim, the Examiner cites disclosures from Reville and Kim for teaching “filter[ing] the motion of the electronic device based on the start pose and end pose of the 3-D gesture motion by . . . triggering a first gesture event . . . if the start pose and the end pose are a portrait orientation . . . , and . . . a second gesture event . . . if . . . [they] are a landscape orientation” as recited. Ans. 5–6 (citing Reville ¶¶ 52, 96, 99, Fig. 7; Kim ¶¶ 32, 43); see also Final 5, 13. Appellant contends that Kim does not teach or suggest these claim elements because Kim interprets or recognizes a gesture agnostic to, or regardless of, a device’s orientation, which, in fact, is the “exact opposite” of Appeal 2019-000622 Application 13/536,262 8 filtering a motion based on start pose and end pose. Br. 20 (citing Kim ¶ 32). Appellant argues that “a reference that teaches the interpreting a gesture regardless of device orientation may not nonetheless be construed as disclosing” the disputed claim elements. Id. Appellant’s argument does not persuade us of Examiner error. As an initial matter, Appellant’s argument is not responsive to the Examiner’s rejection, which relies on a combination of references, not Kim alone, for teaching the disputed claim elements. See Keller, 642 F.3d at 425. Moreover, Appellant’s argument is inapposite because it misinterprets and does not fully appreciate the disclosure of Kim. Appellant’s argument cites to the following passage from paragraph 32 of Kim: A method, device and/or system are discussed that recognize a gesture agnostic to device orientation. According to embodiments of the present invention, the mobile device (e.g., a tablet PC, a smart phone, etc.) may interpret a gesture applied to the mobile device in the same manner regardless of the orientation of the mobile terminal (e.g., a portrait orientation or a landscape orientation) during the gesture. Kim ¶ 32. Read in isolation, one might understand this to mean that device orientation is not considered in Kim’s gesture recognition system. But cited references must be considered for the entirety of what they teach and suggest to one skilled in the art. See, e.g., In re Hedges 783 F.2d 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (citing In re Wesslau, 353 F.2d 238, 241 (CCPA 1965)). Here, the very next passage of paragraph 32 of Kim explains that: [a]s the conventional mobile device can be tilted and display an image in multiple (e.g., two) different orientations, the same gesture applied to the conventional mobile device may be interpreted differently depending on its orientation during the gesture. That is, the gesture applied to the mobile in the portrait Appeal 2019-000622 Application 13/536,262 9 orientation (e.g., the upright position) may be interpreted different from the same gesture applied to the mobile device in the landscape position (e.g., inclined ninety (90) degrees to the right from the upright position). Id. Moreover, the remaining disclosure of Kim describes several embodiments that clearly account for device orientation when recognizing gestures, for example, by determining an orientation angle or tilt angle of the device using an orientation sensor. See, e.g., Kim ¶¶ 33–35, 52–61, 70–75, 83–86, Figs. 1, 6–8, 11, 15. Therefore, contrary to Appellant’s argument, Kim does not merely teach ignoring or disregarding device orientation in its gesture recognition device, but rather, when considered in its entirety, teaches a device including an orientation sensor for recognizing or interpreting a gesture based on the orientation angle of the device (e.g., portrait versus landscape) during the gesture. Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner that Kim teaches or suggests “triggering a first gesture event . . . if the start pose and the end pose are a portrait orientation . . . , and . . . a second gesture event . . . if . . . [they] are a landscape orientation” with its disclosure of interpreting a gesture differently when the device has a portrait orientation versus a landscape orientation. See Ans. 6 (citing Kim ¶¶ 32, 43); see also Kim, Claim 1, Figs. 6–7 (disclosing that, based on the orientation angle, the user gesture may be converted to a particular execution command—e.g., “display a main menu horizontally” if the device has a landscape orientation and “display a main menu vertically” if it has a portrait orientation). For the foregoing reasons, we sustain the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of Claims 1, 3, 4, 12, 14, 15, 23, 27, 28, 33, 35–37, 39–41, and 43–47. Appeal 2019-000622 Application 13/536,262 10 CONCLUSION We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of Claims 1, 3, 4, 12, 14, 15, 23, 27, 28, 33, 35–37, 39–41, and 43–47 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. 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). See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f). In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 3, 4, 12, 14, 15, 23, 27, 28, 33, 35–37, 39– 41, and 43–47 103(a) De Foras, Campbell, Reville, Kim 1, 3, 4, 12, 14, 15, 23, 27, 28, 33, 35–37, 39– 41, and 43–47 Overall Outcome 1, 3, 4, 12, 14, 15, 23, 27, 28, 33, 35–37, 39– 41, and 43–47 AFFIRMED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation