Ex Parte Seo et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 29, 2018

14546303 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 29, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
14/546,303 11/18/2014
79659 7590 07/03/2018
Weaver Austin Villeneuve & Sampson LLP - QUAL
Attn: QUAL
P.O. Box 70250
Oakland, CA 94612-0250
Hae-Jong Seo
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.
QUALP247US/l 41293 1488
EXAMINER
CERULLO, LILIANA P
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2621
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07 /03/2018 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):
USPTO@wavsip.com
ocpat_uspto@qualcomm.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte HAE-JONG SEO, JOHN MICHAEL WYRWAS,
JACEK MAITAN, EVGENI PETROVICH GOUSEV, BABAK ARYAN,
and XIQUAN CUI
Appeal2018-001429
Application 14/546,303 1
Technology Center 2600
Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, LARRY J. HUME, and
JOYCE CRAIG, Administrative Patent Judges.
HUME, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the final
rejection of claims 1-19 and 21-292. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is QUALCOMM, Inc.
App. Br. 3.
2 Claim 20 is cancelled. Claim 22 is objected to.
Appeal2018-001429
Application 14/546,303
STATEMENT OF THE CASE3
The Invention
Appellants' disclosed embodiments and claimed invention relate to
"input systems capable of recognizing surface and air gestures and
fingertips." Spec. ,-i 2.
Exemplary Claim
Claims 1 and 19, reproduced below, are representative of the subject
matter on appeal (emphasis added to contested limitations):
1. An apparatus comprising:
an interface for a user of an electronic device having a
front surface including a detection area;
a plurality of detectors configured to detect interaction of
an object with the device at or above the detection area and
output signals indicating the interaction, wherein an image can
be generated from the signals; and
a processor configured to:
obtain image data from the signals, wherein the image
data includes implicit distance information and does not include
explicit distance information;
apply a linear regression model to the image data
including to apply a learned weight matrix to the image data to
obtain a first reconstructed depth map, wherein the first
reconstructed depth map has a higher resolution than the
image; and
3 Our decision relies upon Appellants' Appeal Brief ("App. Br.," filed
July 19, 2017); Examiner's Answer ("Ans.," mailed Aug. 30, 2017); Reply
Brief ("Reply Br." mailed Oct. 24, 2017); Final Office Action ("Final Act.,"
mailed March 6, 2017); and the original Specification ("Spec.," filed
Nov. 18, 2014).
2
Appeal2018-001429
Application 14/546,303
apply a trained non-linear regression model to the first
reconstructed depth map to obtain a second reconstructed depth
map.
19. A method comprising:
obtaining image data from a plurality of detectors
arranged along a periphery of a detection area of a device, the
image data indicating an interaction of an object with the device
at or above the detection area, wherein the image data includes
implicit distance information and does not include explicit
distance information;
obtaining a first reconstructed depth map from the image
data wherein obtaining the first reconstructed depth map
includes applying a learned weight matrix to vectorized image
data, wherein the first reconstructed depth map has a higher
resolution than the image; and
obtaining a second reconstructed depth map from the first
reconstructed depth map.
Prior Art
The Examiner relies upon the following prior art as evidence in
rejecting the claims on appeal:
Harman et al. ("Harman") US 2002/0048395 Al Apr. 25, 2002
Yuan et al. ("Yuan") US 2009/0245696 Al Oct. 1, 2009
Tan US 2010/0141651 Al June 10, 2010
Powell et al. ("Powell") US 2011/0043490 Al Feb.24,2011
Katz et al. ("Katz") US 2012/0056982 Al Mar. 8, 2012
Ciurea et al. ("Ciurea") US 8,619,082 Bl Dec. 31, 2013
3
Appeal2018-001429
Application 14/546,303
Rejections on Appeal
Rl. Claims 19, 21, 26, 27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as obvious over the combination of Yuan, Harman and Tan. Final Act. 2.
R2. Claims 23-25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over the combination of Yuan, Harman, Tan and Ciurea. Final
Act. 5.
R3. Claims 28 and 29 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over the combination of Yuan, Harman, Tan and Katz. Final Act. 7.
R4. Claims 1, 2, 4-8, 11, 12, and 15-17 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over the combination of Yuan, Harman and
Ciurea. Final Act. 8.
R5. Claims 3 and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over the combination of Yuan, Harman, Ciurea and Powell. Final
Act. 14.
R6. Claims 9 and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over the combination Yuan, Harman, Ciurea and Tan. Final
Act. 15.
R7. Claims 13 and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over the combination of Yuan, Harman, Ciurea and Katz. Final
Act. 16.
CLAIM GROUPING
Based on Appellants' arguments (App. Br. 13-16), we decide the
appeal of Rejection Rl of claims 19, 21, 26, and 27 on the basis of
representative claim 19. We decide the appeal of Rejection R4 of claims 1,
4
Appeal2018-001429
Application 14/546,303
2, 4-8, 11, 12, and 15-17 on the basis of representative claim 1. We address
remaining claims in Rejections R2, R3, and R5-R7, not argued separately,
infra.
ISSUE
Appellants argue (App. Br. 5-8) the Examiner's Rejection Rl of
claims 19, 21, 26, and 27 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over the
combination of Yuan, Harman and Tan is in error. These contentions
present us with the following issues:
Did the Examiner err in finding that a skilled artisan would have been
motivated to combine the cited prior art in the manner suggested such that
there would be a reasonable expectation of success in arriving at the claimed
invention, and did the Examiner err in combining the references because,
allegedly, the combination would be unsatisfactory for its intended purpose?
ANALYSIS
In reaching this decision, we consider all evidence presented and all
arguments actually made by Appellants. We do not consider arguments
which Appellants could have made but chose not to make in the Briefs so
that we deem any such arguments as waived. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
We disagree with Appellants' arguments with respect to claim 19, and
we incorporate herein and adopt as our own: ( 1) the findings and reasons set
forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken, and
(2) the reasons and rebuttals set forth in the Examiner's Answer in response
to Appellants' arguments. We incorporate such findings, reasons, and
rebuttals herein by reference unless otherwise noted. However, we highlight
5
Appeal2018-001429
Application 14/546,303
and address specific findings and arguments regarding claim 19 for
emphasis as follows.
Appellants contend "Here, the proposed modification with Harman's
algorithms would render the prior art unsatisfactory for its intended purpose
and/or would impermissibly change the principle operation of Yuan." App.
Br. 12. Appellants argue "Because the depth maps produced by Harman's
algorithms from Yuan's low resolution images do not have a higher
resolution, then Harman's algorithms would frustrate the intended purpose of
Yuan that seeks to achieve higher resolution images with a wider field of
view and sharper details." App. Br. 13. Appellants further argue the Final
Office Action does not provide a reason to combine Herman with Yuan.
App. Br. 15-16.
We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments. The Examiner finds
Yuan does not disclose applying a learned weight matrix, however, Harman
does. Final Act. 2-4, Ans. 19. The Examiner applies Harman's algorithm to
Yuan's Fig. 8 to estimate the "reconstructed depth map." Id. The Examiner
specifically finds:
Harman discloses applying a learned weight matrix to the
image data (Harman's par. 85-87, 104-109 locally weighted
liner regression using weights for pixels). Therefore, it would
have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time
of filing, to use Harman's teachings in Yuan's invention in order
to obtain the benefit of a full depth map for a 20 image using
generic configurations of Machine Leaming algorithms
(Harman's par. 86-87).
Final Act. 3.
We find the Examiner has articulated a reason to combine the
references and has provided a reasonable basis for an expectation of success
6
Appeal2018-001429
Application 14/546,303
in applying Harman's learned weight matrix to Yuan's image reconstructed
depth map. Id. We note that a reason to combine need not be supported by
a finding that the proposed combination is the preferred, or most desirable,
combination over other alternatives. In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1200
(Fed.Cir.2004).
Regarding Appellants' arguments that the combination would be
unsatisfactory for its intended purpose, we note that even "[w]here the prior
art contains 'apparently conflicting' teachings (i.e., where some references
teach the combination and others teach away from it) each reference must be
considered 'for its power to suggest solutions to an artisan of ordinary skm."'
Medichem S.A. v. Rolabo S.L., 437 F.3d 1157, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 2006)
(quoting In re Young, 927 F2d 588, 591 (Fed. Cir. 1991)). Moreover, the
"expectation of success [in combining references to meet the limitations of
the claimed invention] need only be reasonable, not absolute." Pfizer, Inc. v.
Apotex, Inc., 480 F.3d 1348, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2007). While Appellants
present attorney arguments, Appellants have not pointed to any teachings in
the cited art that would render Yuan inoperable for the intended purposes
nor that "criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed."
In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
Furthermore, we do not find Appellants' lack of combinability
argument persuasive because "[i]t is well-established that a determination of
obviousness based on teachings from multiple references does not require an
actual, physical substitution of elements." In re Mouttet, 686 F .3d 1322,
1332 (Fed.Cir.2012) (citing In re Etter, 756 F.2d 852, 859 (Fed.Cir.1985)
(en bane) (noting that the criterion for obviousness is not whether the
references can be combined physically, but whether the claimed invention is
7
Appeal2018-001429
Application 14/546,303
rendered obvious by the teachings of the prior art as a whole)). See also In
re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981) ("The test for obviousness is not
whether the features of a secondmy reference may be bodily incorporated
into the structure of the primary reference .... Rather, the test is what the
combined teachings of [those] references would have suggested to those of
ordinary skill in the art."); Jn re Nievelt, 482 F.2d 965, 968 (CCPA 1973)
("Combining the teachings of references does not involve an ability to
combine their specific structures.").
Accordingly, we find the Examiner's articulated motivation to be
reasonable and sufficient in combining the teachings of the references to
conclude the Appellants' claim 19 to be rendered obvious over the cited prior
art. One with ordinary skill in the art is not compelled to follow blindly the
teaching of one prior art reference over the other without the exercise of
independent judgment. Lear Siegler, Inc. v. Aeroquip Corp., 733 F .2d 881,
889 (Fed.Cir.1984); see also KSR, 550 U.S. at 420-21 (A person with
ordinary skill in the art is "a person of ordinary creativity, not an
automaton," and "in many cases ... will be able to fit the teachings of
multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle.").
Therefore, based upon the findings above, on this record, we are not
persuaded of error in the Examiner's reliance on the combined teachings and
suggestions of the cited prior art combination to teach or suggest the
limitations of claim 19, nor do we find error in the Examiner's resulting legal
conclusion of obviousness. Therefore, we sustain the Examiner's
obviousness rejection of independent claim 19, and grouped claims 21, 26,
and 27, which fall therewith. See Claim Grouping, supra.
8
Appeal2018-001429
Application 14/546,303
We also sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejection R4 of
representative claim 1, and grouped claims 2, 4-8, 11, 12, and 15-17 for the
same reasons as those explained regarding the rejection of claim 19, as
Appellants merely repeat their arguments for claim 19. App. Br. 17-18. In
view of the lack of any substantive arguments directed to obviousness
Rejections R2, R3 and R5-R7 of the remaining claims under§ 103(a) (see
App. Br. 16-17 and 19-20), we sustain the Examiner's rejections of these
claims. Arguments not made are waived.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err with respect to obviousness Rejections Rl
through R4 of claims 1-19, 21, and 23-29 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the
cited prior art combinations of record, and we sustain the rejections.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-19, 21,
and 23-29.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § l.136(a)(l)(iv). See 37
C.F.R. § 41.50(±).
AFFIRMED
9