Ex Parte LIDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJul 31, 201713854236 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 31, 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. 13/854,236 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation