Ex Parte Feng et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jul 20, 2018

14159089 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jul. 20, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/159,089 01/20/2014
58127 7590 07/20/2018
FERENCE & ASSOCIATES LLC
409 BROAD STREET
PITTSBURGH, PA 15143
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
XinFeng
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.
RPS920130222USNP(710.317) 5023
EXAMINER
BARRETT,RYANS
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2145
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/20/2018 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte XIN FENG, ROBERT JAMES KAPINOS, JON WAYNE HEIM,
PAUL HILBURGER, and JAMES ANTHONY HUNT
(Applicant: Lenovo (Singapore) PTE. LTD.)
Appeal2017-010261
Application 14/159,089 1
Technology Center 2100
Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, JOHNNY A. KUMAR,
and NORMAN H. BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judges.
BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction over the pending
rejected claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 Appellants identify Lenovo (Singapore) PTE. LTD. as the real party in
interest. (App. Br. 3.)
Appeal2017-010261
Application 14/159,089
THE INVENTION
Appellants' disclosed and claimed invention is directed to capturing a
user gesture input and performing an action in response. (Abstract.)
Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter
on appeal:
1. A method, comprising:
capturing, using a gesture input component of an
information handling device, a user gesture input;
processing, using a processor, the captured user
gesture input to extract one or more features;
comparing, using a processor, the one or more
extracted features of the user gesture input to features of
a predetermined gesture input;
determining, using a processor, whether a
confidence level calculated based on the comparing is
between a lower similarity threshold and a higher
similarity threshold, wherein the confidence level
provides an indication of a degree of confidence related
to recognition of the user gesture input as a
predetermined gesture input; and
performing, if the confidence level is between the
lower similarity threshold and the higher similarity
threshold, an action selected from the group consisting of
communicating with the user, and adjusting the gesture
input component.
REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 3-7, 9-11, 13-17, 19, and 20 under
35 U.S.C. § I02(a)(l) as being anticipated by Ohki et al. (US 2011/0320949
Al, pub. Dec. 29, 2011). (Final Act. 5-16.)
2
Appeal2017-010261
Application 14/159,089
The Examiner rejected claims 2, 8, 12, and 18 under 35 U.S.C.
§ I03(a) as being unpatentable over Ohki and Brickner (US 2014/0267004
Al, pub. Sept. 18, 2014). (Final Act. 17-20.)
ISSUE ON APPEAL
Appellants' arguments in the Appeal Brief present the following
dispositive issue: 2
Whether the Examiner erred in finding Ohki discloses the independent
claim 1 limitation, "performing, if the confidence level is between the lower
similarity threshold and the higher similarity threshold, an action selected
from the group consisting of communicating with the user, and adjusting the
gesture input component," and the commensurate limitations of independent
claims 11 and 20. (App. Br. 15-17.)
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants'
arguments that the Examiner erred. We disagree with Appellants'
arguments, and we adopt as our own ( 1) the pertinent findings and reasons
set forth by the Examiner in the Action from which this appeal is taken
(Final Act. 5-20) and (2) the corresponding findings and reasons set forth by
the Examiner in the Examiner's Answer in response to Appellants' Appeal
2 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the positions of the
Examiner, we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed Apr. 17, 2017) (herein, "App.
Br."); the Reply Brief (filed July 26, 2017) (herein, "Reply Br."); the Final
Office Action (mailed Nov. 17, 2016) (herein, "Final Act."); and the
Examiner's Answer (mailed May 26, 2017) (herein, "Ans.") for the
respective details.
3
Appeal2017-010261
Application 14/159,089
Brief. (Ans. 2--4.) We concur with the applicable findings and conclusions
reached by the Examiner, and emphasize the following.
Appellants argue the Examiner errs in finding Ohki discloses the
limitation at issue because Ohki "does not make any mention of 'adjusting
the gesture input component."' (App. Br. 17.) However, as the Examiner
states, this aspect of the claim is a Markush group limitation, requiring "an
action selected from the group consisting of communicating with the user,
and adjusting the gesture input component," and the Examiner correctly
finds Ohki discloses the "communicating with the user" alternative. (Final
Act. 6-7; Ans. 2; Ohki Fig. 3, Step S27, i178.)
Appellants also argue "Ohki bases the recognition of the gesture on
partial input of the gesture and not on completed 'user gesture input."'
(App. Br. 17.) However, we agree with the Examiner's conclusion that the
detected gestures disclosed in Ohki satisfy this aspect of the claims under the
broadest reasonable interpretation, which encompasses such partial gestures.
(Ans. 3.)
Accordingly, we sustain the anticipation rejections of independent
claims 1, 11, and 2 0.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, we sustain the rejections of claims 1, 11,
and 20 as anticipated by Ohki.
We also sustain the rejections of claims 3-7, 9, 10, 13-1 7, and 19 as
anticipated by Ohki, which rejections are not argued separately with
particularity, and the obviousness rejections of claims 2, 8, 12, and 18 over
4
Appeal2017-010261
Application 14/159,089
Ohki and Brickner, which are agued on the same grounds as the independent
claims. (App. Br. 17-18.)
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-20.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv). See
37 C.F.R. § 4I.50(f).
AFFIRMED
5