Motorola Mobility LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 29, 2021

2020003203 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 29, 2021)

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.
14/681,891 04/08/2015 Lawrence A. Willis MM01028USNP 4251
138602 7590 09/29/2021
FIG. 1 Patents
116 W. Pacific Avenue
Suite 200
Spokane, WA 99201
EXAMINER
TORRENTE, RICHARD T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2485
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/29/2021 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):
Fig1Docket@fig1patents.com
docketing.mobility@motorola.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte LAWRENCE A. WILLIS, JUSTIN ELTOFT, and JIRI SLABY
Appeal 2020-003203
Application 14/681,891
Technology Center 2400
BEFORE JEREMY J. CURCURI, NATHAN A. ENGELS, and
JAMES W. DEJMEK Administrative Patent Judges.
CURCURI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–4, 6–12, 14–17, and 19–23. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42(a) (2018). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Motorola
Mobility, LLC. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2020-003203
Application 14/681,891
2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to “iris acquisition using visible light
imaging.” Spec. ¶ 4. Claim 1, reproduced below with the key disputed
limitations emphasized, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method for iris acquisition using visible light
imaging, the method comprising:
determining that a user of a mobile device is wearing
glasses utilizing ambient light or projected visible light;
bisecting a lens of the glasses horizontally and vertically
to determine a bisection center point of the lens of the glasses;
projecting near infra-red light to encompass the
determined bisection center point of the lens effective to
illuminate a pupil of at least one eye of the user; and
locating the pupil of the at least one eye based on the
determined bisection center point of the lens and based on a
reflection of the near infra-red light from the pupil at
approximately the determined bisection center point of the lens.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Trumm US 2011/0007269 A1 Jan. 13, 2011
Wang US 2014/0147021 A1 May 29, 2014
Guo US 2016/0103484 A1 Apr. 14, 2016

REJECTIONS
Claims 1–4, 6, 7, 9–12, 14, 15, 17, and 19–23 are rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Trumm and Guo. Final Act. 2–4.
Claims 8 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over
Trumm, Guo, and Wang. Final Act. 4.
Appeal 2020-003203
Application 14/681,891
3
OPINION
The Obviousness Rejection of Claims 1–4, 6, 7, 9–12, 14, 15, 17, and 19–23
over Trumm and Guo
The Examiner finds Trumm and Guo teach all limitations of claim 1.
Final Act. 2–3. In particular, the Examiner finds Trumm teaches “bisecting a
lens of the glasses horizontally and vertically to determine a bisection center
point of the lens of the glasses” (claim 1 (emphasis added)). Final Act. 2
(citing Trumm, Fig. 5, elements 70, 72, 78, 80; Fig. 9a). The Examiner
further finds Trumm teaches “locating the pupil of the at least one eye based
on the determined bisection center point of the lens and based on a reflection
of the [light] from the pupil at approximately the determined bisection center
point of the lens” (claim 1 (emphasis added)). Final Act. 2 (citing Trumm,
Fig. 5, elements 58, 82; Fig. 9a).
Appellant presents the following principal arguments:
i. Trumm does not teach “bisecting a lens of the glasses
horizontally and vertically to determine a bisection center point of the lens
of the glasses” (claim 1 (emphasis added)). Appeal Br. 10–12; see also
Reply Br. 3–6. “Trumm does not use these horizontal and vertical planes
(70, 72) in any way related to locating the pupils of the eyes, and in fact,
there is not even a designator in the Trumm figures to identify the point at
which a vertical plane crosses a horizontal plane.” Appeal Br. 11. “[T]here is
no teaching or indication whatsoever of a determined center point of a lens
of the glasses (‘spectacles’) in Trumm.” Appeal Br. 12.
ii. Trumm does not teach “locating the pupil of the at least one eye
based on the determined bisection center point of the lens and based on a
reflection of the [light] from the pupil at approximately the determined
bisection center point of the lens” (claim 1 (emphasis added)). Appeal
Appeal 2020-003203
Application 14/681,891
4
Br. 13–15; see also Reply Br. 6–7. “Trumm specifically states that
preferably, pupil center points are determined automatically by a user data
positioning device (e.g. computer mouse or pointer on a touchscreen) based
on reflections from the corneas of the eyes due to illumination, and that the
pupil center points of the right eye and the left eye can be determined by an
optician on the basis of the reflections.” Appeal Br. 13 (citing Trumm
¶ 202).
Trumm directly states that measuring errors in the determination
of the actual position of wear are thereby avoided or are very few,
since the positions of the pupil centers relative to the glasses are
not determined through the lenses, but by means of the auxiliary
points.[] Trumm clearly teaches away from any notion of using
a bisection center point of a lens to locate the pupil of an eye.
Appeal Br. 14 (citing Trumm ¶ 254). “[T]he ‘corneal vertex distance’
described by Trumm is in reference to fitting the glasses and checking the
position of the lenses relative to the eyes or pupils after the location of the
pupils have already been determined and used for the individual fitting of
the lenses.” Appeal Br. 14 (citing Trumm ¶ 245).
In response, the Examiner explains
Trumm fig. 5 clearly shows left lens 50 is bisected horizontally
via left intersection point 66 and right intersection point 66 (see
dash line 70 in fig. 5), and vertically via upper intersection point
68 and lower intersection point 68 (see dash line 72 in fig. 5) to
determine a bisection center point of the lens (see dash lines 70
and 72 intersecting as the lens center point in fig. 5), wherein ¶
[0213] discloses the intersection points 66 (left 66 and right 66)
and points 68 (upper 68 and lower 68) are determined by either
an optician or automatically. Note that this bisecting of the lens
to determine the center point is further supported by fig. 9a,
wherein it is seen that the bisection center point location is
determined and the[n] utilized to determine the “corneal vertex
distance (HSA).
Appeal 2020-003203
Application 14/681,891
5
Ans. 7.
The Examiner further explains
Trumm similarly disclose[s] recognizing the pupil from captured
image reflection (e.g. see pupil center determined via optician or
image recognition software in ¶ [0213]) and its location is
determined based on the center lens (see the pupil locating based
on approximately (distance) from the determined lens center in
fig. 9a, wherein the HSA [(corneal vertex distance)]
measurement locates the pupil from the center of the lens). Note
Trumm fig. 9a shows a short line connecting the center of the
pupil with [the] bisection center point of the lens representing the
“corneal vertex distance (HSA)”.
Ans. 8.
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).
We do not see any reversible error in the Examiner’s contested
findings. We concur with the Examiner’s conclusion of obviousness.
Appellant’s argument (i) does not show any reversible Examiner
error, and we determine Trumm teaches “bisecting a lens of the glasses
horizontally and vertically to determine a bisection center point of the lens
of the glasses” (claim 1 (emphasis added)) because dashed lines 70 and 72
bisect a lens of the glasses horizontally and vertically, and the intersection of
these dashed lines determines the bisection center point of the lens. Trumm,
Fig. 5, elements 70, 72; see also Trumm, Fig. 5, elements 78, 80; Fig. 9a.
In reference to Figure 5, Trumm discloses “[p]referably, the pupil
center points 58, 60 are determined automatically by a user data positioning
device (not shown). To this end, reflexes 82 are used, which arise on the
corneas of the respective eyes 54, 56 due to the illuminants 28.” Trumm
Appeal 2020-003203
Application 14/681,891
6
¶ 202. Also in reference to Figure 5, Trumm further discloses “[t]he pupil
center points 58 and 60 of the right eye 54 and the left eye 56, respectively,
can be determined on the basis of the reflexes 82 for the right eye 54 and the
left eye 56.” Trumm ¶ 203. In reference to Figure 6, Trumm further
discloses “[a]nalogously, the pupil center points 58, 60 may also be
determined by means of the reflexes 83 on the basis of the image data
illustrated in FIG. 6.” Trumm ¶ 212.
Finally, Trumm further discloses
The intersection points 66, 68, 74, 76 or the pupil center points
58, 60 can be determined by an optician and input by means of a
computer mouse (not shown). Alternatively, the monitor 18 may
be designed as a “touch screen”, and the intersection points 66,
68, 74, 76 or the pupil center points 58, 60 can be determined and
input directly by means of the monitor 18. Alternatively, these
data can also be generated automatically by means of image
recognition software.
Trumm ¶ 213 (emphasis added).
Thus, Appellant’s argument (ii) does not show any reversible
Examiner error, and we further determine Trumm teaches “locating the pupil
of the at least one eye based on the determined bisection center point of the
lens and based on a reflection of the [light] from the pupil at approximately
the determined bisection center point of the lens” (claim 1 (emphasis added))
because Trumm discloses automatically generating intersection points 66
and 68, which determine dashed lines 70 and 72 to define the bisection
center point of the lens, and automatically generating pupil center point 58,
using image recognition software. Trumm ¶ 213; see also Trumm ¶¶ 202,
203, 212 (disclosing pupil center points are determined based on reflexes).
Put another way, we determine a skilled artisan would have understood
Trumm as suggesting image recognition software locating pupil center point
Appeal 2020-003203
Application 14/681,891
7
58 based on the intersection points 66 and 68, which determine dashed lines
70 and 72 to define the bisection center point of the lens, and based on the
reflexes 82, which are at approximately the determined bisection center
point of the lens. Trumm ¶¶ 202, 203, 212, 213.
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1.
Regarding independent claims 9 and 17, Appellant presents the same
arguments as presented for claim 1. See Appeal Br. 15–17; see also Reply
Br. 7.
We, therefore, also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 9 and
17.
Claim 4 further recites “locating the pupil of the at least one eye using
the determined bisection center point of the lens of the glasses as a starting
point of a location search for the pupil of the at least one eye.”
The Examiner finds Trumm teaches the further recited subject matter
of claim 4. Final Act. 3 (citing Trumm Fig. 6). The Examiner explains
Trumm fig. 6 relating to fig. 5 discussed in claim 1 shows that
the center point of the lens is fixed and reused at the intersect of
the vertical and horizontal plane even when the eyes moves off
the center. Thus, Trumm discloses locating the pupil of the at
least one eye using the determined center point of the lens of the
glasses as a starting point of a location search for the pupil of the
at least one eye (see fig. 6, wherein the fixed center location from
fig. 5 is known, thus, as a starting point to determine the pupil
distance when the eye moves to new location).
Ans. 8.
Appellant argues “[t]here is no discussion or indication in Trumm of
locating the pupil of an eye ‘using the determined bisection center point of
the lens of the glasses as a starting point of a location search for the pupil
of the at least one eye.’” Appeal Br. 18; see also Reply Br. 7–9.
Appeal 2020-003203
Application 14/681,891
8
We do not see any reversible error in the Examiner’s contested
findings. We concur with the Examiner’s conclusion of obviousness.
We emphasize that in considering the disclosure of a reference, “it is
proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but
also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be
expected to draw therefrom.” In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826 (CCPA 1968).
As discussed above, we determine a skilled artisan would have
understood Trumm as suggesting image recognition software locating pupil
center point 58 based on the intersection points 66 and 68, which determine
dashed lines 70 and 72 to define the bisection center point of the lens, and
based on the reflexes 82, which are at approximately the determined
bisection center point of the lens. Trumm ¶¶ 202, 203, 212, 213.
Given this determination, and Trumm’s disclosure in reference to
Figure 6 that “[a]nalogously, the pupil center points 58, 60 may also be
determined by means of the reflexes 83 on the basis of the image data
illustrated in FIG. 6” (Trumm ¶ 212), we further determine Trumm teaches
“locating the pupil of the at least one eye using the determined bisection
center point of the lens of the glasses as a starting point of a location search
for the pupil of the at least one eye” (claim 4). See Trumm ¶ 213 (“[T]hese
data can also be generated automatically by means of image recognition
software.”). Put another way, because we determine a skilled artisan would
have considered the bisection center point and reflexes with image
recognition software to locate the pupil, we determine starting the search at
the bisection center point would have been well within the grasp of a skilled
artisan. See Preda, 401 F.2d at 826.
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 4.
Appeal 2020-003203
Application 14/681,891
9
Regarding claims 12 and 22, Appellant presents the same arguments
as presented for claim 4. See Appeal Br. 19; see also Reply Br. 9.
We, therefore, also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 12 and
22.
Claim 6 further recites “determining the reflection of the near infra-
red light from the pupil as the closest reflection point to the determined
bisection center point of the lens of the glasses.”
The Examiner finds Trumm teaches the further recited subject matter
of claim 6. Final Act. 3 (citing Trumm Fig. 6); see also Ans. 9–10.
Appellant argues “[t]here is no discussion or indication in Trumm of
‘determining the reflection of the near infra-red light from the pupil as the
closest reflection point to the determined bisection center point of the lens
of the glasses’” Appeal Br. 20; see also Reply Br. 9–10.
We do not see any reversible error in the Examiner’s contested
findings. We concur with the Examiner’s conclusion of obviousness.
As discussed above, we determine a skilled artisan would have
understood Trumm as suggesting image recognition software locating pupil
center point 58 based on the intersection points 66 and 68, which determine
dashed lines 70 and 72 to define the bisection center point of the lens, and
based on the reflexes 82, which are at approximately the determined
bisection center point of the lens. Trumm ¶¶ 202, 203, 212, 213.
Given this determination, and Trumm’s disclosure in reference to
Figure 6 that “[a]nalogously, the pupil center points 58, 60 may also be
determined by means of the reflexes 83 on the basis of the image data
illustrated in FIG. 6” (Trumm ¶ 212), we further determine Trumm teaches
“determining the reflection of the near infra-red light from the pupil as the
closest reflection point to the determined bisection center point of the lens of
Appeal 2020-003203
Application 14/681,891
10
the glasses.” (claim 6). See Trumm ¶ 213 (“[T]hese data can also be
generated automatically by means of image recognition software.”). Put
another way, because we determine a skilled artisan would have considered
the bisection center point and reflexes with image recognition software to
locate the pupil, we determine locating the pupil at the closest reflection
point to the determined bisection center point would have been well within
the grasp of a skilled artisan. See Preda, 401 F.2d at 826.
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 6.
Regarding claims 14 and 19, Appellant presents the same arguments
as presented for claim 6. See Appeal Br. 21; see also Reply Br. 10.
We, therefore, also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 14 and
19.
We also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2, 3, 7, 10, 11, 15,
20, 21, and 23, which are not separately argued with particularity. See
Appeal Br. 21.

The Obviousness Rejection of Claims 8 and 16 over Trumm, Guo, and Wang
Claim 8 depends from claim 1, and claim 16 depends from claim 9.
Appellant does not present any additional arguments for this ground of
rejection. Appeal Br. 21.
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 8 and 16 for
the same reasons discussed above for claims 1 and 9.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–4, 6–12, 14–17, and 19–
23 is affirmed.
Appeal 2020-003203
Application 14/681,891
11
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–4, 6, 7, 9–
12, 14, 15,
17, 19–23
103 Trumm, Guo 1–4, 6, 7, 9–
12, 14, 15,
17, 19–23

8, 16 103 Trumm, Guo,
Wang
8, 16
Overall
Outcome
1–4, 6–12,
14–17, 19–
23

TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED