Zhou, Weifeng et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 31, 2019

13462826 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Dec. 31, 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.
13/462,826 05/03/2012 Weifeng Zhou HARM0169PUS 8178
109676 7590 12/31/2019
Brooks Kushman P.C./Harman
1000 Town Center
Twenty Second Floor
Southfield, MI 48075
EXAMINER
NAVAS JR, EDEMIO
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2483
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/31/2019 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@brookskushman.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte WEIFENG ZHOU, NORMAN WEYRICH, and
JIA HE
____________________

Appeal 2019-000229
Application 13/462,826
Technology Center 2400
____________________

Before ERIC S. FRAHM, JENNIFER S. BISK, and
JULIET MITCHELL DIRBA, Administrative Patent Judges.

DIRBA, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL1
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant2 seeks review of the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–5, 11–15, 17, 26–28, and 30–31. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.

1 This Decision uses the following abbreviations: “Spec.” for the original
Specification, filed May 3, 2012; “Final Act.” for the Final Office Action,
mailed December 6, 2017; “Appeal Br.” for Appellant’s Appeal Brief, filed
May 7, 2018, which includes an appendix of the claims (“Claims App.”);
“Ans.” for Examiner’s Answer, mailed August 7, 2018; and “Reply Br.” for
Appellant’s Reply Brief, filed October 8, 2018.
2 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. According to Appellant, the real party in interest is
Harman International Industries, Incorp. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2019-000229
Application 13/462,826

2
BACKGROUND
Appellant’s disclosed embodiments and claimed invention relate to a
multiple-view virtual camera system that displays images “configured
according to image-related parameters input by a user.” Abstract.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A multiple-view camera system for a motor vehicle, the
multiple-view camera system comprising:
one or more image source units;
an image processing unit including an electronic
processing component and being in signal communication with
each of the one or more image source units, the image
processing unit being configured to receive multiple images
from each of the one or more image source units;
a parameter setting unit including memory and being in
signal communication with the image processing unit,
configured to transmit to the image processing unit, image-
related parameters input by a user of the multiple-view camera
system, where the image-related parameters are utilized by the
image processing unit to generate images including a first
image of a motor vehicle for display to the user; and
a display in signal communication with the image
processing unit, configured to display to the user the first image
of the motor vehicle generated by the image processing unit,
where the image-related parameters are used to position a
virtual camera of the multiple-view camera system relative to
the motor vehicle,
where the virtual camera is translated along each of its
three axes by one of a single-touch gesture and a multi-touch
gesture that is input by the user,
where a type of the multi-touch gesture is determined at
least on a ratio of a first magnitude of a horizontal movement
Appeal 2019-000229
Application 13/462,826

3
and a second magnitude of a vertical movement of at least one
finger in motion on a touch screen, and
where the ratio of the first magnitude of the horizontal
movement and the second magnitude of the vertical movement
is compared to predetermined thresholds to determine whether
the multi-touch gesture is one of a multi-touch vertical gesture
and a multi-touch horizontal gesture.
Claims App. 1 (emphases added).
REJECTIONS
R1. Claims 1–2, 5, 11–13, 26–28, and 30–31 stand rejected under
pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Lee (WO 2006/022630 A1,
published Mar. 2, 2006), Okamoto (US 7,307,655 B1, issued Dec. 11, 2007),
Bratton (US 2010/0304731 A1, published Dec. 2, 2010), Mangum
(US 8,769,438 B2, filed Dec. 21, 2011, issued Jul. 1, 2014), and Sherwani
(US 7,870,496 B1, issued Jan. 11, 2011). Final Act. 3–16.
R2. Claims 3, 14, and 15 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as obvious over Lee, Okamoto, Bratton, Mangum, Sherwani, and
Chinomi (US 2007/0003108 A1, published Jan. 4, 2007). Final Act. 16–17.
R3. Claims 4 and 17 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as obvious over Lee, Okamoto, Bratton, Mangum, Sherwani, and
Lee ’730 (US 2012/0249730 A1, filed Mar. 31, 2011, published Oct. 4,
2012). Final Act. 18–19.
ANALYSIS
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).
Appeal 2019-000229
Application 13/462,826

4
To the extent Appellant has not advanced separate, substantive arguments
for particular claims, or other issues, such arguments are waived. 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
We have considered all of Appellant’s arguments and any evidence
presented. We highlight and address specific findings and arguments for
emphasis in our analysis below.
Obviousness Rejection R1 of Claims 1–2, 5, 11–13, 26–28, and 30–31
The Examiner rejects claims 1–2, 5, 11–13, 26–28, and 30–31 as
obvious over Lee, Okamoto, Bratton, Mangum, and Sherwani. Final Act. 3–
16. Appellant argues claims 1–2, 5, 11–13, 28, and 31 together as a group
(see Appeal Br. 3–7), and Appellant presents separate arguments directed to
dependent claims 26 and 30 as a group (see id. at 7–10, 14) and dependent
claim 27 (see id. at 11–14). Therefore, consistent with the provisions of
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv), we limit our discussion to independent claim 1
and dependent claims 26 and 27. Independent claim 12 and dependent
claims 2, 5, 11, 13, 28, and 31 stand or fall with claim 1; dependent claim 30
stands or falls with claim 26.
Claim 1
Claim 1 recites “a type of the multi-touch gesture is determined at
least on a ratio of a first magnitude of a horizontal movement and a second
magnitude of a vertical movement of at least one finger in motion on a touch
screen.” Claims App. 1 (the “determining limitation”). The claim further
recites “the ratio . . . is compared to predetermined thresholds to determine
whether the multi-touch gesture is one of a multi-touch vertical gesture and a
multi-touch horizontal gesture.” Claims App. 1 (the “comparing
Appeal 2019-000229
Application 13/462,826

5
limitation”). The Examiner found that Mangum teaches the determining
limitation and that Sherwani teaches the comparing limitation. Final Act. 6–
7 (citing Mangum, Fig. 3B, 14:37–15:15; Sherwani, Fig. 6B, 13:5–26).
Appellant argues that the references fail to teach or suggest the
comparing limitation. Appeal Br. 3–7. According to Appellant, Sherwani,
“[a]t best,” uses a threshold to determine “whether touch points are
translated horizontally or vertically in the same direction,” and Appellant
argues Sherwani fails to “employ a ratio” or to “compare the ratio to
predetermined thresholds” to determine the type (i.e., vertical or horizontal)
of multi-touch gesture. Id. at 4.
Appellant’s arguments do not persuade us of Examiner error. The
Examiner found that Mangum teaches determining a type of gesture based
on a ratio of a first magnitude of a horizontal movement and a second
magnitude of a vertical movement. Final Act. 6 (pointing to Mangum for
the determining limitation). Appellant neither responds to this finding nor
addresses the teachings of Mangum. See generally Appeal Br.; Reply Br.
Because Appellant alleges (and we perceive) no error in the Examiner’s
finding that Mangum teaches the claimed ratio, we are not persuaded by
Appellant’s argument that Sherwani fails to teach this feature.
Moreover, we agree with the Examiner that the determining and
comparing limitations are taught or suggested by the combination of
Mangum and Sherwani. In particular, Mangum describes different types of
finger gestures that can be accepted from a touch-screen. See Mangum
13:14–37 (describing examples of figure gestures). According to Mangum,
“the horizontal and vertical components [of a gesture] may be used to
determine a direction” of the finger gesture. 14:66–67. As an example,
Appeal 2019-000229
Application 13/462,826

6
Mangum describes a “substantially horizontal gesture.” Id. at 14:67–15:6.
According to Mangum, a “critical angle” can be used “to determine whether
a swipe gesture . . . should be considered a horizontal navigation command,
or a vertical command.” Id. at 15:51–55. In particular, if the angle is less
than the critical angle, the swipe is considered to be a horizontal gesture; if it
is greater, the swipe is considered to be vertical. Id. at 15:55–64; see Fig. 4B
(illustrating critical angle 450, horizontal swipe 440, and vertical swipe 430).
Mangum’s critical angle teaches both a ratio of a first magnitude of
horizontal movement and a second magnitude of vertical movement and a
determination of a type of gesture based on that ratio.
Sherwani tracks multiple contact points (or “touch points”)
simultaneously. Sherwani 6:36–43. When the multiple touch points are
“moved in the vertical direction, the motion may be interpreted as a vertical
scroll event,” and when they are moved horizontally, it is interpreted as a
horizontal scroll event. Id. at 9:7–11; see id. at 9:11–14 (also describing
panning which can “occur in all directions . . . rather than just the horizontal
and vertical directions”). According to Sherwani, “there may be a threshold
for determining whether both touch points are being translated horizontally
in the same direction,” and “there may be a threshold for determining
whether both touch points are being translated vertically in the same
direction.” Id. at 13:5–26. Because the thresholds are used when the touch
points have moved (but the distance between them has remained
substantially constant),3 we read Sherwani as using these thresholds to

3 Sherwani first detects two-touch movement (step 660). Sherwani, Fig. 6B.
Then, Sherwani determines whether the movement is a zoom gesture (in step
662) prior to determining whether the movement is a horizontal swipe (step
668) or a vertical swipe (step 672). Id.; see id. at 12:33–44 (determining
Appeal 2019-000229
Application 13/462,826

7
determine the direction of movement (e.g., horizontal or vertical). See id. at
5:67–6:4 (explaining that touchscreen recognizes position of touch over the
display, which is interpreted by computing device), 9:7–14 (identifying
vertical, horizontal, and panning movements, where panning can “occur in
all directions . . . rather than just the horizontal and vertical directions”).
The Examiner also found Sherwani’s thresholds are used to determine
the direction of movement, and the Examiner found that a person of ordinary
skill would understand this, in turn, involves comparing a ratio of vertical
and horizontal movement to these thresholds. See Final Act. 2–3, 6–7; Ans.
20. We are not persuaded that this finding4 is in error. Indeed, Appellant
does not describe (and we do not perceive) a different interpretation of
Sherwani. See, e.g., Appeal Br. 4 (asserting Sherwani does not compare a
ratio of horizontal to vertical movement, but failing to provide alternative
explanation of how Sherwani allegedly uses the thresholds to determine
direction); Reply Br. 2 (same). Indeed, Mangum supports the Examiner’s
finding that an ordinary artisan would have this understanding of Sherwani’s

whether movement is a zoom gesture by determining whether distance
between points is increasing or decreasing).
4 The Examiner also “note[d] that these are common techniques that may be
seen elsewhere in the art, especially with the onset of smart-phones and
tablets.” Final Act. 3; see also Ans. 21 (“The examiner maintains that this is
not a novel idea and may be commonly seen in, for example, camera or map
controls in video games and applications.”). Appellant argues these findings
are conclusory and not supported by evidence of record. Appeal Br. 5;
Reply Br. 3. We agree with Appellant that these findings are not supported
by evidence and, thus, are in error. However, this error does not result in
reversal because we perceive no error in the Examiner’s findings that
Mangum and Sherwani teach or suggest the disputed limitations.
Appeal 2019-000229
Application 13/462,826

8
thresholds. See Mangum 15:55–64, Fig. 4B (determining the direction of
movement by comparing to a critical angle).
Finally, Appellant argues that the Examiner failed to articulate a
rationale to combine the teachings of the references “in the manner set forth
in claim 1.” Appeal Br. 6 (emphasis omitted). Specifically, Appellant
asserts that “it cannot follow that the addition of Sherwani to Lee provides”
the benefits identified by the Examiner because Sherwani fails to disclose
the claimed ratio. See id. at 6–7. We are not persuaded by this argument.
The Examiner explained why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have
been motivated to combine Mangum with Lee (Final Act. 6) and why that
ordinary artisan would have been motivated to combine Sherwani with Lee
(id. at 7). See also Ans. 21–22 (further explaining rationale to combine
Sherwani with Lee to yield limitations of the claim); see generally Reply Br.
(electing not to respond to the Examiner’s Answer). Appellant does not
show error in the Examiner’s rationale. For example, Appellant identifies no
errors or inaccuracies in this rationale, does not contend the Examiner’s
proposals are beyond the level of skill of one of ordinary skill in the art, and
does not submit that the proposed combination of references would yield
undesirable, unpredictable, or unexpected results.
Therefore, based upon the findings above, on this record, we are not
persuaded of error in the Examiner’s reliance on the cited prior art
combination to teach or suggest the disputed limitations of claim 1, nor do
we find error in the Examiner’s resulting legal conclusion of obviousness.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of
independent claim 1, and grouped claims 2, 5, 11–13, 28, and 31.
Appeal 2019-000229
Application 13/462,826

9
Claim 26
Claim 26 depends from claim 1 and further recites: “where the ratio
. . . is compared to a first predetermined threshold . . . , and the multi-touch
gesture is determined to be the multi-touch vertical gesture if the ratio . . . is
less than the first predetermined threshold.” Claims App. 4.
Appellant argues that the references fail to teach the limitations of
claim 26. Appeal Br. 7–10. In support, Appellant presents the same
arguments presented for independent claim 1, and Appellant concludes that
Sherwani does not disclose the additionally recited features of claim 26.
Compare id. at 7–10 (arguing claim 26), with id. at 3–7 (arguing claim 1).
For the reasons explained above, we are not persuaded by Appellant’s
arguments. Moreover, Appellant does not explain why the limitations
additionally recited in claim 26 would not have been obvious in light of the
references’ teachings. Accordingly, we perceive no error in the Examiner’s
finding that the limitations of claim 26 are taught or suggested by the
references.
Therefore, based upon the findings above, on this record, we are not
persuaded of error in the Examiner’s reliance on the cited prior art
combination to teach or suggest the disputed limitations of claim 26, nor do
we find error in the Examiner’s resulting legal conclusion of obviousness.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of dependent
claim 26 and grouped claim 30.
Claim 27
Claim 27 depends from claim 26 and recites: “where the ratio . . . is
compared to a second predetermined threshold . . . , and the multi-touch
Appeal 2019-000229
Application 13/462,826

10
gesture is determined to be the multi-touch horizontal gesture if the ratio . . .
is greater than the second predetermined threshold.” Claims App. 4.
Appellant argues that the references fail to teach the limitations of
claim 27. Appeal Br. 11–14. In support, Appellant presents the same
arguments presented for independent claim 1, and Appellant concludes that
Sherwani does not disclose the additionally recited features of claim 27.
Compare id. at 11–14 (arguing claim 27), with id. at 3–7 (arguing claim 1).
For the reasons explained above, we are not persuaded by Appellant’s
arguments. Moreover, Appellant does not explain why the limitations
additionally recited in claim 27 would not have been obvious in light of the
references’ teachings. Accordingly, we perceive no error in the Examiner’s
finding that the limitations of claim 27 are taught or suggested by the
references.
Therefore, based upon the findings above, on this record, we are not
persuaded of error in the Examiner’s reliance on the cited prior art
combination to teach or suggest the disputed limitations of claim 27, nor do
we find error in the Examiner’s resulting legal conclusion of obviousness.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of dependent
claim 27.
Obviousness Rejections R2 & R3 of Claims 3, 4, 14, 15, and 17
The Examiner rejects claims 3, 4, 14, 15, and 17 over a combination
of Lee, Okamoto, Bratton, Mangum, Sherwani, and either Chinomi or
Lee ’730. Final Act. 16–19. These claims depend from either independent
claim 1 or independent claim 12 (see Claims App. 2–3), and Appellant does
not separately argue these claims (see generally Appeal Br.). Consequently,
Appeal 2019-000229
Application 13/462,826

11
because we sustain the Examiner’s rejections of independent claims 1 and
12, we also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of these dependent claims (i.e.,
claims 3, 4, 14, 15, and 17).
CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–2, 5, 11–
13, 26–28,
30–31
103 Lee, Okamoto,
Bratton, Mangum,
Sherwani
1–2, 5, 11–
13, 26–28,
30–31

3, 14, 15 103 Lee, Okamoto,
Bratton, Mangum,
Sherwani, Chinomi
3, 14, 15
4, 17 103 Lee, Okamoto,
Bratton, Mangum,
Sherwani, Lee ’730
4, 17
Overall
Outcome
1–5, 11–15,
17, 26–28,
30–31

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