Ex Parte Kurzweil

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

May 30, 2012

10734617 (B.P.A.I. May. 30, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte RAYMOND C. KURZWEIL
____________________

Appeal 2010-005997
Application 10/734,617
Technology Center 3600
____________________

Before JOHN C. KERINS, EDWARD A. BROWN, and
WILLIAM V. SAINDON, Administrative Patent Judges.

BROWN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2010-005997
Application 10/734,617

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
decision rejecting claims 1-20. (App. Br. 2). An oral hearing was held on
May 8, 2012. We have jurisdiction over this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
THE INVENTION
The invention is directed to using virtual reality devices for
communication and contact. (Spec. 1, ll. 4-6). Independent claim 1,
reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal.
1. A virtual reality encounter system
comprising,
motion sensors positioned on a human user,
the motion sensors sending motion signals
corresponding to movements of the user, as
detected by the motion sensors relative to a
reference point, the motion signals sent over a
communications network;
a set of goggles worn by the user, the
goggles including a display to render video signals
received from the communications network from
at least one camera; and
a humanoid robot, receiving, from the
communications network, the motion signals to
induce movement of the robot according to
movement of the human user, the humanoid robot
further comprising:
the at least one camera coupled to humanoid
robot, the camera for sending video signals to the
communications network for reception by the set
of goggles.

Independent claim 13 is directed to a method of having a virtual
encounter and recites limitations that are similar to those in claim 1.
Appeal 2010-005997
Application 10/734,617

3
THE REJECTIONS
The following rejections are before us for review:
1. Claims 1-4, 7-15, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as anticipated by Hitoshi Hasunuma et al., Development of
Teleoperation Master System with a Kinesthetic Sensation of Presence, 1999
(hereinafter "Hasunuma").1
2. Claims 5 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Hasunuma.
ANALYSIS
Rejection of claims 1-4, 7-15, and 17-20 as anticipated by Hasunuma
Claims 1, 3, 6, 12, 13, 17, and 20
Appellant indicates that independent claims 1 and 13 stand or fall
together. (App. Br. 9). We select claim 1 as representative of the grouping.
See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2011).
The Examiner found Hasunuma discloses a teleportation system
comprising, inter alia, motion sensors positioned on a human user, which
send motion signals corresponding to movements of the user as detected by
the motion sensors relative to a reference point. (Ans. 3-4, citing the entire
disclosure of Hasunuma).
Figure 1 of Hasunuma depicts a remote control humanoid robot
platform including a set of a telexistence control cockpit system and a
humanoid robot. (See Hasunuma p. 1, right col., second para.). Hasunuma

1 The stated ground of rejection does not include claim 6. (Ans. 3).
However, the Examiner discusses claim 6 in the statement of the rejection
(Ans. 5), and Appellant indicates that claim 6 is rejected under this ground.
(App. Br. 9). Accordingly, we consider claim 6 also in this rejection.
Appeal 2010-005997
Application 10/734,617

4
discloses that the platform can include three humanoid robots and three
telexistence control cockpit systems. (Id.). Figure 2 of Hasunuma shows the
configuration of the telexistence control cockpit system, which includes
master arms with gripping operation devices the operator uses to remotely
manipulate the robot's arms and hands. The master arms provide the
operator with reacting force sensation of the slave robot arms. The moving
direction of an operator's arms is measured by sensors on the master-arm.
(Hasunuma, p. 3, right col., second para.).
Appellant acknowledges that Hasunuma's system includes motion
sensors that detect and track movements of a human operator. (App. Br. 12).
Claim 1 does not recite any structural limitations for the "motion sensors
positioned on a human user" that distinguish them from Hasunuma's motion
sensors. Appellant contends that Hasunuma does not teach motion sensors
positioned on a human user. (Id.). Appellant contends that Hasunuma
discloses placing motion sensors on a mechanical component (gripping
device of master arm) to detect and track a human operator's motions. (App.
Br. 13; Reply Br. 3). These contentions are not persuasive.
The Patent and Trademark Office gives claims their broadest
reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, reading claim
language in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of
ordinary skill in the art. In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359,
1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Appellant does not refer us to a specific definition of
the phrase "positioned on a human user" in the Specification, or to any other
description therein, that limits this phrase so as to preclude the Examiner's
construction. See In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994); In re
Appeal 2010-005997
Application 10/734,617

5
Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Appellant references Figures
7A and 7B of Appellant's application. (App. Br. 3). Figure 7A shows a user
22a wearing sensors 101 over their body. (See also, Spec. 6, ll. 18-21). The
sensors 101 appear to be positioned on clothing worn by the user 22a, not
directly on the user 22a. In our view, Hasunuma's motion sensors provided
on the master arms are "positioned on a human user" to the same extent as
the sensors 101 provided on clothing worn by the user 22a, and as called for
by claim 1.
Appellant contends that Hasunuma's disclosure of placing motion
sensors on the master arms "teaches away" from the claimed system. (App.
Br. 13). This contention is not germane to a § 102 rejection. See In re Self,
671 F.2d 1344, 1350-51 (CCPA 1982). Appellant further contends that
placing motion sensors on the human operator in Hasunuma would make the
gripping device and teleoperation system unusable for its intended purpose.
(App. Br. 13; Reply Br. 3). However, the Examiner found that Hasunuma
discloses "motion sensors positioned on a human user." Accodingly, this
contention also is not persuasive. Hence, we sustain the rejection of claims
1, 3, 6, 12, 13, 17, and 20 as anticipated by Hasunuma.
Claims 2 and 14
Appellant indicates that claims 2 and 14 stand or fall together. (App.
Br. 13). We select claim 2 as representative of the grouping.
Claim 2 recites "the robot includes actuators corresponding to the
motion sensors, the actuators causing the robot to move." Appellant
acknowledges that the master arms in Hasunuma's system control the robot
(App. Br. 14), but contends that the slave arm "does not bear any actuators
Appeal 2010-005997
Application 10/734,617

6
responsive to motion sensors" (Id.). Although Hasunuma does not appear to
explicitly disclose that the humanoid robot includes actuators, we agree with
the Examiner that the humanoid robot would need to have associated
actuators to allow the operator to remotely manipulate the robot, causing it
to move in the desired manner, through use of the master arm and gripping
operation device. Claim 2 does not recite any specific structure for the
actuators. Claim 2 also does not recite that the actuators are "responsive to
motion sensors," as Appellant argued, but rather only calls for "actuators
corresponding to the motion sensors." We find no error in the Examiner's
finding that actuators provided on Hasunuma's robot to cause it to move
"correspond to" the motion sensors positioned on the human operator and,
hence, that Hasunuma satisfies the limitations called for by claim 2. Thus,
we sustain the rejection of claims 2 and 14 as anticipated by Hasunuma.
Claims 4, 7-11, 15, 18, and 19
Claim 4 recites that the system further comprises "a microphone
coupled to the body of the robot, the microphone for sending audio signals
to the communications network," and "a transducer disposed in a headset
worn by the user, to transduce the audio signals received from the
microphone." Hasunuma discloses an audio-visual display system including
a 3D sound system. (See Hasunuma, p. 2, left col., last para.). Figure 2 of
Hasunuma shows a 3D sound system positioned on the display screen facing
the operator. The Examiner did not make a finding supported by a
preponderance of the evidence that Hasunuma discloses a transducer
disposed in the HMD worn by the operator to transduce audio signals
received from a microphone. Hence, we do not sustain the rejection of claim
Appeal 2010-005997
Application 10/734,617

7
4, and claims 7-11, which depend directly or ultimately from claim 4, as
anticipated by Hasunuma.
Claim 15 depends from claim 13 and recites "sending audio signals
over the communications network, the audio signals being produced from a
microphone coupled to the robot," and "transducing the audio signals
received from the communications network using a transducer." Hasunuma
discloses that "the audio-visual display system is used to provide [an
operator] with realistic information as for robot's surrounding views and
sounds." (See Hasunuma, p. 2, left col., last para.). Figure 1 of Hasunuma
depicts wireless communication directly between the robot and control
cockpit system. Hasunuma discloses that views (video signals) are provided
to the operator at the control cockpit system from robot eye cameras. (See
Hasunuma p. 2, right col., first para.). Hasunuma does not explicitly
disclose how the sound information is provided to the operator.
Regarding the claim recitation, "the audio signals being produced
from a microphone coupled to the robot," an ordinary meaning of
"microphone" is "an instrument whereby sound waves are caused to generate
or modulate an electric current usu. for the purpose of transmitting or
recording speech or music." See Webster’s Third New International
Dictionary (1993) (retrieved from lionreference.chadwyck.com) (last visited
May 22, 2012). According to this definition, a microphone is a device that
performs a function with respect to sound waves, rather than a particular
structure.
In Hasunuma, sounds of the robot's surroundings are able to be
provided by wireless transmission between the robot and control platform.
Appeal 2010-005997
Application 10/734,617

8
To transmit these signals, sound waves would be converted to, or caused to
generate, electrical signals. We find no error in the Examiner's finding that
Hasunuma's system includes a "microphone" for this conversion. In view of
Hasunuma's disclosure of eye cameras on the robot and wireless signal
transmission directly from the robot to the control cockpit system, we find
the Examiner's determination that the microphone is coupled to the robot to
be reasonable.
Regarding the step of "transducing the audio signals received from the
communications network using a transducer," in contrast to claim 4
discussed supra, claim 15 does not specify the location of the transducer.
We find the Examiner's determination that Hasunuma's system would also
include a transducer that performs the "transducing" step to be reasonable.
Hence, we sustain the rejection of claim 15, and claim 18, which depends
from claim 15 and is not separately argued.
Claim 19 depends from claim 15. Appellant acknowledges that
Hasunuma discloses "a head mount display (HMD) with a head tracker and
nine display screens that are projected in front of the user for displaying
surrounding scenery of the robot." (App. Br. 15). However, Appellant
contends that Hasunuma does not disclose "'a set of goggles worn by the
user, the goggles including a display to render video signals received from
… the at least one camera coupled to humanoid robot [],' as required by
claim 1." (App. Br. 15-16). This claim language is similar to language in
claim 13, from which claim 15 depends. Hasunuma discloses that "[w]hen
working on a dexterous task with arms, an operator manipulates by using
master-arms and gripping operation devices, watching views on the, HMD
Appeal 2010-005997
Application 10/734,617

9
from eye cameras." (See Hasunuma, p. 2, right col., first para.) (emphasis
added). Appellant does not provide any persuasive argument why
Hasunuma's HMD on which the operator watches views does not correspond
to the claimed "goggles," or why Hasunuma's HMD does not include a
receiver to receive video signals. Thus, we also sustain the anticipation
rejection of claim 19.
Rejection of claims 5 and 16 as unpatentable over Hasunuma
The Examiner's application of Hasunuma with respect to claim 5 does
not cure the deficiencies of the Examiner's reliance on Hasunuma for the
rejection of claim 4. Hence, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 5. For
reasons similar to those discussed supra with respect to claim 4, we do not
sustain the rejection of claim 16.
DECISION
1. We AFFIRM the rejection of claims 1-3, 6, 12-15, and 17-20,
and REVERSE the rejection of claims 4 and 7-11, under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
as anticipated by Hasunuma.
2. We REVERSE the rejection of claims 5 and 16 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Hasunuma.
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-IN-PART

mls