Ex Parte Bishop et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 23, 201713644418 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 23, 2017) 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. 13/644,418 10/04/2012 Lars Bishop DU-l 1-0296-USl 7249 102469 7590 02/27/2017 PARKER JUSTISS, P.C./Nvidia 14241 DALLAS PARKWAY SUITE 620 DALLAS, TX 75254 EXAMINER LE, THANH C ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2649 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/27/2017 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): docket@pj-iplaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte LARS BISHOP, KEITH GALOCY, and DAVID CHAIT Appeal 2016-008082 Application 13/644,4181 Technology Center 2600 Before KEVIN C. TROCK, NABEEL U. KHAN, and MICHAEL M. BARRY, Administrative Patent Judges. KHAN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection of claims 1—20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. 1 Appellants identify Nvidia Corporation as the real party in interest. App. Br. 3. Appeal 2016-008082 Application 13/644,418 STATEMENT OF THE CASE The Invention Appellants’ claims relate to an electronic camera with a proximity sensor for pre-enabling a camera feature (such as auto-focus) in response to the user’s finger coming in close proximity to the proximity sensor. Spec. 111,3,8-10, 20. Exemplary independent claim 1 is reproduced below. 1. An electronic camera, comprising: a camera chassis; a shutter button coupled to the camera chassis; a proximity sensor coupled to the camera chassis, the proximity sensor configurable to pre-enable one or more camera features when it detects a presence of a finger of a user. References and Rejection Claims 1—20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Vuppu et al. (US 2012/0172085 Al; July 5, 2012), Ju et al. (US 2013/0314558 Al; Nov. 28, 2013), or Kahn et al. (US 2009/0174782 Al; July 9, 2009). See Final Act. 2-4. ANALYSIS The Examiner finds Vuppu teaches or suggests a proximity sensor configurable to pre-enable one or more camera features. Final Act. 2 (citing Vuppu 11 8—10, 12, 17—19, Figs. 1—3). The Examiner further finds, Ju teaches or suggests a proximity sensor that detects the presence of finger to pre-enable one or more camera features. Id. (citing Ju Figs. 1, 2, H 57—59). The Examiner alternatively finds Kahn also teaches or suggests a proximity 2 Appeal 2016-008082 Application 13/644,418 sensor that detects the presence of finger to pre-enable one or more camera features. Id. (citing Kahn Fig. 8, Tflf 86, 88). Appellants argue Vuppu “does not pre-enable one or more camera features when it detects a presence of a finger of a user, but in turn runs a face recognition algorithm when a proximity sensor detects a face or cheek of a user.” App. Br. 4. Appellants argue Vuppu teaches away from detecting the presence of a finger to pre-enable camera features because “Vuppu includes safeguards configured to prevent a gesture, such as a hand gesture or finger gesture, from activating the proximity sensor.” App. Br. 4—5 (citing Vuppu 9—10). Appellants further argue that because Vuppu teaches away from detecting a presence of a finger of a user to pre-enable camera features, one would not combine Vuppu with either Ju or Kahn, which the Examiner relied upon as teaching or suggesting detecting the presence of a finger to pre-enable camera features. App. Br. 5. We are unpersuaded by Appellants’ arguments. Vuppu explains that typical touch screen phones disable the touch screen when a call is taking place in order to avoid inadvertent actuation by the user’s face when it abuts the screen. Vuppu 4. However, Vuppu recognizes that sometimes users may wish to continue interacting with the screen even when a call takes place and may want to avoid the display becoming deactivated by proximity sensors detecting a user’s gestures rather than by detecting the user’s face. Vuppu 19. Thus, Vuppu teaches “[t]o reduce the likelihood of an inadvertent disablement [of the touch screen], the proximity sensor can be used in conjunction with a camera of the mobile device” to detect a user’s face position using facial recognition software, to determine whether the user is viewing the screen indicating that the user wishes to continue 3 Appeal 2016-008082 Application 13/644,418 interacting with the touch screen. Vuppu H 9—10. Vuppu describes that this process can involve the use of the camera’s auto-focus feature. Vuppu 110. Thus, contrary to Appellants’ contention, Vuppu’s proximity sensors do, in fact, detect the presence of a figure to activate a feature of the camera to perform facial recognition. Moreover, Vuppu does not teach preventing a gesture from activing the proximity sensor. Instead, Vuppu teaches using proximity sensors to detect the presence of the user’s finger or hand, and activating the camera in response to such detection to perform facial recognition, and if such facial recognition fails to show that the user is viewing the screen, then deactivating the screen, not the proximity sensors. Vuppu 19. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1, and of claims 2—20 for which Appellants make no additional arguments for patentability. See App. Br. 4, 6—7. DECISION The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1—20 is affirmed. 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. § 41.50(f). AFFIRMED 4 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation