Ex Parte Aull et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 21, 2015

11934580 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 21, 2015)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
111934,580 11102/2007 Kenneth W. Aull
26294 7590 12/23/2015
TAROLLI, SUNDHEIM, COVELL & TUMMINO L.L.P.
1300EASTNINTH STREET, SUITE 1700
CLEVELAND, OH 44114
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
NG(MS)8604 6030
EXAMINER
SHAPIRO, LEONID
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2625
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/23/2015 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):
rkline@tarolli.com
dkinder@tarolli.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte KENNETH W. AULL, H. KEITH NISHIHARA, and
SHI-PING HSU
Appeal2013-005602
Application 11/934,580
Technology Center 2600
Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, and
JAMES R. HUGHES, Administrative Patent Judges.
HUGHES, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner's Non-Final decision rejecting claims 1-20. (App. Br. 5.) 1 We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We reverse.
1 We refer to Appellants' Specification ("Spec.") filed November 2, 2007;
Appeal Brief ("App. Br.") filed November 7, 2012; and Reply Brief ("Reply
Br.") filed March 13, 2013. We also refer to the Examiner's Answer
("Ans.") mailed January 15, 2013, and Non-Final Office Action (Non-Final
Rejection) (''Non-Final Act.") mailed June 12, 2012.
Appeal2013-005602
Application 11/934,580
Appellants 'Invention
The invention at issue on appeal concerns gesture recognition systems
and methods for providing gesture inputs to devices. The system uses a
projector to project visible images and invisible (non-visible) light (e.g.,
infrared light) onto a background surface, where the projection of the
invisible light is interleaved with the visible images. The system also uses a
controller determine a given input gesture based on changes in relative
locations of a sensorless input object. (Spec. i-fi-f l, 4---6; Abstract.)
Illustrative Claim
Independent claim 1, reproduced below with the key disputed
limitations emphasized, further illustrates the invention:
1. A gesture recognition interface system comprising:
a projector configured to project invisible light and
visible images onto a background surface, the projection of the
invisible light being interleaved with the projection of the
visible images;
at least one camera configured to receive a plurality of
images based on a reflected light contrast difference between
the background surface and a sensorless input object
during projection of the invisible light; and
a controller configured to determine a given input gesture
based on changes in relative locations of the sensorless input
object in the plurality of images, and being further configured
to initiate a device input associated with the given input gesture.
Rejections on Appeal
1. The Examiner rejects claims 1, 2, 7, 8, 10, 12, 17, and 20 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Peter (US 6,359,612 Bl, iss.
Mar. 19, 2002).
2
Appeal2013-005602
Application 11/934,580
2. The Examiner rejects claims 3-5, 13, 14, and 18 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Peter and Chang (US
2009/0015791 Al, pub. Jan. 15, 2009 (filed July 12, 2007)).
3. The Examiner rejects claims 6, 15, and 19 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Peter, Chang, and Sukthankar (US
6,618,076 Bl, iss. Sept. 9, 2003).
4. The Examiner rejects claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Peter and Park (US 2008/0136973 Al, pub. June 12, 2008
(filed December 8, 2006)).
5. The Examiner rejects claims 11 and 16 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Peter and Ahn (US 2005/0151850 Al,
pub. June 14, 2005).
ISSUE
Based upon our review of the administrative record, Appellants'
contentions, and the Examiner's findings and conclusions, the pivotal issue
before us follows:
Does the Examiner err in concluding that Peter would have taught or
suggested "a projector configured to project invisible light and visible
images onto a background surface, the projection of the invisible light being
interleaved with the projection of the visible images" within the meaning of
Appellants' claim 1 and the commensurate limitations of claims 12 and 17?
ANALYSIS
The Examiner addresses independent claims 1, 12, and 17 together as
a group (Non-Final Act. 2-3) and rejects representative claim 1 under 35
3
Appeal2013-005602
Application 11/934,580
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious in view of Peter. (Non-Final Act. 2-3.)
Appellants contend that Peter does not teach or suggest the features of
representative claim 1. (App. Br. 13-17; Reply Br. 2--4.) Specifically,
Appellants contend, inter alia, that Peter does not teach projecting visible
and non-visible light that are interleaved (that non-visible light is inserted at
intervals within the visible light)- "Peter fails to teach or suggest a
projector configured to project invisible light and visible images onto a
background surface, the projection of the invisible light being interleaved
with the projection of the visible images, as recited in claim 1." (App. Br.
13.) As explained by Appellants Peter describes a video projector and a
separate infrared (IR) light source that provides IR illumination at all times.
(App. Br. 14.) As further explained by Appellants, even if one were to
combine Peter's video projector and IR light source, the resulting
"projector" would not provide visible light "interleaved" with non-visible
(infrared) light. (App. Br. 14--15.)
We agree with Appellants that Peter does not describe a projector that
projects "invisible light and visible images" such that "the projection of the
invisible light being interleaved with the projection of the visible images"
(claim 1 ). Merely incorporating or combining different light sources (e.g.,
the video projector and infrared light source of Peter) does not necessarily
teach a projector that interleaves visible images with invisible light. The
term interleave means "to insert (something) at intervals into (something
else)" (Webster's New World College Dictionary, 4th Ed. (1999), available
athttp://www.vourdictionary.com/). Thus we construe the term interleave
(interleaving/interleaved) conveys inserting something at intervals into
something else (see App. Br. 14), not providing both elements continuously.
4
Appeal2013-005602
Application 11/934,580
Consequently, we are constrained by the record before us to find that
the Examiner erred in concluding Peter teaches the recited features of
Appellants' claim 1. Independent claims 12 and 17 include limitations of
commensurate scope. Claims 2, 7, 8, 10, and 20 depend on claims 1 and 17,
respectively. Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner's obviousness rejection
of claims 1, 2, 7, 8, 10, 12, 17, and20.
With respect to the obviousness rejections of claims 3---6, 9, 11, 13-
16, 18, and 19, rejected as obvious over Peter as well as Chang, Sukthankar,
Park and/or Ahn, we reverse the Examiner's obviousness rejection for the
same reasons set forth with respect to claim 1 (supra).
CONCLUSION
Appellants have shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-
20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's rejections of claims 1-20.
REVERSED
dw
5