Ex Parte LI

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 31, 2017

13854236 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 31, 2017)

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.
13/854,236 04/01/2013 Wenlong Li ITL.2616US (P40258) 5221
47795 7590 08/02/2017
TROP, PRUNER & HU, P.C.
1616 S. VOSS RD., SUITE 750
HOUSTON, TX 77057-2631
EXAMINER
SUN, LI P
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2143
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/02/2017 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):
tphpto@tphm.com
Inteldocs_docketing @ cpaglobal.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte WENLONG LI
Appeal 2017-003171
Application 13/854,23 61
Technology Center 2100
Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, LARRY J. HUME, and
JAMES W. DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judges.
DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON REQUEST FOR REHEARING
Appellant requests rehearing under 37 C.F.R. § 41.52 of our Decision,
mailed June 12, 2017 (“Decision”), in which we reversed the Examiner’s
rejection, but entered a new ground of rejection pursuant to our authority
under 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b). Appellant timely filed a Request for Rehearing
(“Req. Reh’g.”) on June 26, 2017.
We have reconsidered our Decision in light of Appellant’s Request for
Rehearing, but we decline to change the Decision for the reasons discussed,
infra.
1 Appellant identifies Intel Corporation as the real party in interest. Br. 3.
Appeal 2017-003171
Application 13/854,236
DISCUSSION
Claim 1 recites “associating a hand gestural command from one
person of a plurality of persons by associating a hand with a face using
computer video analysis of the one person’s hand, arm and face.” Appellant
contends “the Board’s analysis confuses how the hand motion is made and
how the hand motion is disambiguated to the correct person.” Req.
Reh’g. 2. Further, Appellant asserts the Hildreth reference does not suggest
using any video analysis of a user’s arm. Req. Reh’g. 2. Rather, Appellant
argues “in every case,” Hildreth uses a predetermined distance (between a
detected hand and face), and not video analysis of the arm, to associate a
hand gesture with a user. Req. Reh’g. 2.
In reversing the Examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), we
found the Examiner relied on two separate embodiments of engagement
hand gestures disclosed by Hildreth. Decision 5. We are mindful that to
sustain an anticipation rejection, “it is not enough that the prior art reference
. . . includes multiple, distinct teachings that [an] artisan might somehow
combine to achieve the claimed invention.” Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign,
Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2008). However, as we stated, the
selection and combination of different embodiments within a prior art
reference may be proper in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Decision 5
(quoting In reArkley, 455 F.2d 586, 587 (CCPA 1972)).
Pursuant to our authority under 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b), we rejected,
inter alia, claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Hildreth. Decision 5. In particular, we found Hildreth discloses an
engagement hand gesture such as “<2 waving hand motion, or a circular hand
motion made by extending the user’s arm in front of their face, and moving
2
Appeal 2017-003171
Application 13/854,236
their arm in a circle in front of their head.'1'’ Hildreth 1182 (emphases
added); see Decision 6. We note Hildreth provides various descriptions of
gestures made by using the hand and arm. See, e.g., Hildreth 138
(describing a user may perform hand, arm, or body engagement gestures),
179 (defining a “gesture” as a form of non-verbal communication made
with a whole or part of a human body), and 1 80 (providing example
gestures including “a single hand and arm gesture; a single hand and arm,
and body gesture”).
Also, as we found in the Decision, Hildreth discloses monitoring
images captured by a camera for detecting an engagement hand gesture.
Decision 6 (citing Hildreth 1180); see also Hildreth 1182. Thus, as we
explained, we find Hildreth teaches, or reasonably suggests, analyzing the
images captured by the camera (i.e., performing video analysis) to associate
a detected engagement hand gesture (i.e., hand gestural command) with the
person performing the engagement hand gesture (i.e., associating a waving
or circular “hand motion” with “the user’s arm” and “their [(the user’s)]
face”). Decision 6; Hildreth 1182. Thus, we disagree with Appellant’s
assertion that “nowhere does the reference ever suggest that you actually use
any video analysis of the arm.” Req. Reh’g. 1—2. Also, contrary to
Appellant’s assertion, we did not confuse how the hand gesture is made with
how the hand gesture is associated with the person performing the gesture.
See Req. Reh’g. 2.
Further, we found, as did the Examiner, Hildreth discloses an
embodiment wherein a plurality of people are seated around a conference
table and one person raises their hand (i.e., performs a different hand
engagement gesture). Decision 6 (citing Hildreth 1191, Fig. 34). In this
3
Appeal 2017-003171
Application 13/854,236
particular embodiment, Hildreth further discloses associating the
engagement hand gesture with the face of the person raising their hand by
determining a minimum hand gesture position to face position distance.
Decision 6 (citing Hildreth 1191). Hildreth describes the scenario depicted
in Figure 34 (of multiple people seated around a conference table) as “an
example” and that determining the close face position (i.e., associated user’s
face) “may be calculated” using the minimum absolute value of a horizontal
distance between a user’s hand and face. Hildreth 1191 (reciting non­
limiting, permissive language for an associating a detected hand gesture with
a user); see also Hildreth 1243 (contemplating various modifications and
other embodiments). Thus, contrary to Appellant’s assertion, Hildreth does
not limit the manner in which an engagement hand gesture is associated with
the face of the user performing the gesture.
We relied on the combined teachings and suggestions of these two
embodiments in finding it would have been obvious to an ordinarily-skilled
artisan to use the circular hand motion engagement hand gesture (see
Hildreth 1182), wherein the detected gesture is associated with a user by
using video analysis of the user’s hand, arm, and face, in the scenario where
the user performing the gesture is one of a plurality of users (see Hildreth
1191). Decision 6. “The combination of familiar elements according to
known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield
predictable results.” KSRInt 7 Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007).
“If a person of ordinary skill can implement a predictable variation, § 103
likely bars its patentability.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 417.
Contrary to Appellant’s assertion, for at least the foregoing reasons,
we are unpersuaded we erred in our analysis rejecting independent claims 1,
4
Appeal 2017-003171
Application 13/854,236
25, and 37 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) by “confusing] how the hand motion is
made and how the hand motion is disambiguated to the correct person.”
Req. Reh’g. 2.
DECISION
We have considered the arguments raised by Appellant in the Request
for Rehearing. Although we have considered our prior Decision in light of
the Request for Rehearing, we decline to modify our prior Decision in any
respect.
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. § 41.50(f).
REHEARING DENIED
5