Giuseppe Raffa et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Nov 1, 2019

13536262 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Nov. 1, 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.
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