Ex Parte Genc et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 26, 2019

13325361 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 26, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/325,361 12/14/2011
28524 7590 02/28/2019
SIEMENS CORPORATION
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DEPARTMENT
3501 Quadrangle Blvd Ste 230
Orlando, FL 32817
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Yakup Gene
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.
2010P25849 USOl 9005
EXAMINER
FLORES, ROBERTO W
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2621
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/28/2019 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):
ipdadmin.us@siemens.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte YAKUP GENC, JAN ERNST, STUART GOOSE,
and XIANJUN S. ZHENG
Appeal2018-003001
Application 13/325,361
Technology Center 2600
Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, CHARLES J. BOUDREAU, and
JAMES W. DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judges.
DIXON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal2018-003001
Application 13/325,361
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 21-38. Claims 1-20 are canceled. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
The claims are directed to systems and methods for a gaze and gesture
interface. Claim 21, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
Claim 21. A method for implementing a user interaction with
3D objects displayed on a computer 3D display system,
compnsmg
providing a head frame to be worn by the user, the head
frame including a pair of endo-cameras pointed at the user's eyes
and an exo-camera pointed outward to capture the user's field of
view toward the computer 3D display system;
capturing a viewing direction of a user's gaze utilizing the
pair of endo-cameras;
processing the user's viewing direction to determine a
selected 3D object from a plurality of 3D objects displayed on
the computer 3D display system;
activating the selected 3D object to permit initiation of
further computer operations associated with the selected 3D
object;
capturing a user's body gesture utilizing the exo-camera;
processing the user's body gesture to determine a specific
computer operation to perform on the selected 3D object; and
2
Appeal2018-003001
Application 13/325,361
manipulating the selected 3D object in a manner defined
by the specific computer operation to generate a re-rendered 3D
display of the selected 3D object on the computer 3D display
system.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Ohshima et al.
Zalewski
Osterhout et al.
Maltz
Bar-Zeev et al.
US 6,414,681 Bl
US 2010/0007582 Al
US 2011/0213664 Al
US 2012/0021806 Al
US 2012/0127284 Al
REJECTIONS
The Examiner made the following rejections:
July 2, 2002
Jan. 14,2010
Sept. 1, 2011
Jan.26,2012
May 24, 2012
Claims 21, 23-27, 30, and 32-36 stand rejected under pre-AIA
35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being unpatentable over Osterhout in view of Maltz
and further in view ofBar-Zeev.
Claims 28, 29, 37, and 38 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ I03(a) as being unpatentable over Osterhout, Maltz, and Bar-Zeev as
applied to claim 21 and claim 30 above, and further in view of Zalewski.
Claims 22 and 31 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
being unpatentable over Osterhout, Maltz, and Bar-Zeev as applied to claim
21 and claim 30 above, and further in view of Zalewski and Ohshima.
ANALYSIS
Appellants argue the claims based upon the same line of reasoning
and do not set forth separate arguments for patentability. (App. Br. 14--16)
3
Appeal2018-003001
Application 13/325,361
As a result, we select independent claim 21 as the representative claim for
the group and will address Appellants' arguments thereto. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 4I.37(c)(l)(iv). We do not consider arguments that Appellants could have
made but chose not to make in the Brief so we deem any such arguments as
waived. 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv).
With respect to independent claim 21, Appellants contend:
the Examiner has responded to Appellant's arguments by first
stating that independent Claims 21 and 30 to [sic] not specifically
recite the phrase "separate computer 3D display system." While
literally true, it is clear from a reading of independent Claims 21
and 30 that the inventive "head frame" is worn and used with an
individual looking "toward a computer 3D display system."
[emphasis added] Appellant's FIG. 1 clearly shows a computer
3D display system 12, with head frame 20 looking "toward"
system 12. FIG. 7, reproduced above, clearly shows an
individual wearing the inventive head frame looking toward a
"computer 3D display system.". Appellant thus continues to
assert that the Examiner cannot characterize the lens elements of
Osterhout as equivalent to the "computer 3D display system"
defined in independent claims 21 and 30.
(App. Br. 14) (underlining added). Appellants admit above that the phrase
"separate computer 3D display system," is not recited in the claim, yet assert
the prior art fails to teach a three-dimensional display system. Specifically,
Appellants contend:
Additionally, the Examiner stated (in the Advisory Action) that
Bar-Zeev "teaches that the video display screen is a separate
display system," and then concluded that the combination of
"Osterhout, Maltz and Bar-Zeev teach the above limitations
[related to a separate 'computer 3D display system']"
Appellant cannot agree. A careful reading of Bar-Zeev
finds that the "display system" is of a conventional 2D variety -
such as a computer display, television, movie screen, etc. The
3D effect is created in Bar-Zeev via a "microdisplay" mounted
4
Appeal2018-003001
Application 13/325,361
in the headwear. The micro-display is positioned to project
images onto the lenses of the head wear. The result is a
configuration where it looks like the images are part of what is
being viewed. The "computer display" itself remains a
conventional component. Therefore, Bar-Zeev cannot be
characterized as teaching any type of "computer 3D display
system", as suggested by the Examiner.
(App. Br. 15.)
The Examiner finds the claims do not recite a separate computer 3 D
display system and the claim limitations do not indicate a separate computer
3D display. (Ans. 4).
We agree with the Examiner and find the method of independent
claim 21 and the system of independent claim 30 do not expressly require a
separate computer 3D display system. Additionally, we find Appellants do
not identify any portion of the Specification or specific definitions which
define or limit the context of Appellants' claimed invention concerning a
separate computer 3D display. Moreover, Appellants do not file a Reply
Brief to respond to the Examiner's clarifications of how the proffered
combination teaches and suggests the claimed invention.
Merely reciting the language of the claim is insufficient. See
37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv) ("A statement which merely points out what a
claim recites will not be considered an argument for separate patentability of
the claim."). Merely alleging that the references fail to support an
obviousness rejection is insufficient to persuade us of Examiner error.
Attorney arguments and conclusory statements that are unsupported by
factual evidence are entitled to little probative value. In re Geisler, 116 F.3d
1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997); see also In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705
(Fed. Cir. 1984); and Ex parte Belinne, No. 2009-004693, slip op. at 7-8
5
Appeal2018-003001
Application 13/325,361
(BP AI Aug. 10, 2009) (informative), available at
http://www. uspto. gov /web/ offices/ dcom/bpai/its/fd09004693. pdf.
Here, we find Appellants' arguments are conclusory in nature and fail
to address the thrust of the Examiner's obviousness rejections.
"Argument in the brief does not take the place of evidence in the
record." In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602 (CCPA 1965) (citing In re Cole,
3 26 F .2d 7 69, 773 ( CCP A 1964) ). This reasoning is applicable here.
On this record, we find Appellants have failed to present substantive
arguments and supporting evidence persuasive of Examiner error. Cf In re
Baxter Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d 388,391 (Fed. Cir. 1991) ("It is not the
function of this court to examine the claims in greater detail than argued by
an appellant, looking for [patentable] distinctions over the prior art.").
Appellants have not shown error in the Examiner's conclusion of
obviousness of independent claim 21 and dependent claims 23-27 and 32-
36, not separately argued.
Additionally, with respect to dependent claims 22, 2 8, 29, 31, 3 7, and
3 8, Appellants rely upon the arguments advanced with respect to
independent claims 21 and 30 and do not set forth additional arguments with
regard to the additional prior art references. As a result, these claims stand
or fall with their respective independent claims 21 and 30.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 21-3 8 based upon
obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
6
Appeal2018-003001
Application 13/325,361
DECISION
For the above reasons, we sustain the Examiner's obviousness
rejection of claims 21-38 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
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).
AFFIRMED
7