Ex Parte Smoot

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 12, 2016

12322038 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 12, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/322,038 01127/2009
63649 7590 08/16/2016
DISNEY ENTERPRISES, INC
C/O FARJAMI & FARJAMI LLP
26522 LA ALAMEDA A VENUE, SUITE 360
MISSION VIEJO, CA 92691
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Lanny Smoot
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.
0260187 5717
EXAMINER
SCHNIREL, ANDREW B
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2625
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/16/2016 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):
docketing@farj ami. com
farjamidocketing@yahoo.com
ffarj ami @farj ami. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte LANNY SMOOT
Appeal2015-002810
Application 12/322,038
Technology Center 2600
Before JUSTIN BUSCH, AMBER L. HAGY, and
AARON W. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judges.
MOORE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal2015-002810
Application 12/322,038
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1-5, 7-9, and 11-30, which are all of the pending claims. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
THE INVENTION
The application is directed to "touch detection systems and methods."
(Abstract.) Claim 1, reproduced below with the disputed limitation in
italics, is illustrative:
Claim 1: A display panel for sensing an object touching the
display panel using a detection light generated by a light source
located above the object and separate from the display panel, the
display panel comprising:
a touch pane configured to allow the detection light generated
by the light source located above the object and separate from
the display panel to pass through the touch pane; wherein the
detection light is substantially shadow-free;
a back inner surface;
a display generation module located between the touch pane
and the back inner surface, the display generation module
configured to produce a visual display at the touch pane, the
display generation module further configured to allow the
detection light received from the touch pane to pass through the
display generation module; and
a detection light receiver situated at the back inner surface,
the detection light receiver configured to detect the detection
light received through the display generation module for
1 Appellant identifies "Disney Enterprises, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary
of The Walt Disney Company" as the real party in interest. (See App. Br. 2.)
2
Appeal2015-002810
Application 12/322,038
enabling a detection of touches of the object to the touch pane of
the display panel.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Smoot us 5,940, 139 Aug. 17, 1999
Lee et al. US 2003/0122764 Al July 3, 2003
Ferren et al. US 2007 /0176848 Al Aug.2,2007
Chua et al. US 2008/0011944 A 1 Jan. 17,2008
Han US 2008/0029691 Al Feb. 7,2008
Sohn et al. US 2009/0128508 Al May 21, 2009
THE REJECTIONS
1. Claims 1, 4, 7-9, 11, 12, 14, 15, 17-20, 22, 24, 26, 27, 29, and
30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Sohn and
Ferren. (See Final Act. 2-19.)
2. Claims 2, 3, 13, 23, and 25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Sohn, Ferren, and Smoot. (See Final Act. 19-
24.)
3. Claim 16 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Sohn, Ferren, and Han. (See Final Act. 24.)
4. Claim 5 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Sohn, Ferren, and Chua. (See Final Act. 25.)
3
Appeal2015-002810
Application 12/322,038
5. Claims 21and28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Sohn, Ferren, Chua, and "Caldwell."2 (See Final Act. 25-
28.)
APPELLANT'S CONTENTION
Appellant argues that the rejections are improper because "neither
Sohn nor Ferren discloses, teaches or suggests 'wherein the detection light is
substantially shadow-free,' as recited by each of independent claims 1, 12
and 22." (App. Br. 10.)
ANALYSIS
The Specification describes a prior art "system for detecting touches
to a display surface utilizing an overhead camera to record interactions
between the feet of multiple users and a touch screen surface in the form of
an interactive floor," as shown in Figure 1. (Spec. 4:4--7.) The Specification
then explains that "a consequence of the [prior art approach] is that the
physical presence of users 110 and 120 between overhead camera 104 and
display surface 106 can obscure the exact location of touch points 112, 114,
122, and 124" as, "[f]or example, shadow 116, produced by user 110, may
2 There is some confusion about the "Caldwell" reference cited in the Final
Action. US 2003/0122764 Al, the number listed by the Examiner, is an
application by Lee et al., not Caldwell. Appellant assumes that the
Examiner is referring to Lee (see App. Br. 7), but the content of Lee does
not appear to match the description in the Final Office Action as, for
example, Lee has no Figure 10. (See Final Act. 27.) In light of our decision
on the independent claims, however, this issue is moot.
4
Appeal2015-002810
Application 12/322,038
prevent overhead camera 104 from capturing either or both of touch points
112 and 114." (Spec. 4:18-22.)
Appellant describes an effort to address the identified shortcomings of
the prior art system by using a detection light receiver below the floor and "a
spaced-out, diffuse light source [that] prevents having shadows of objects
fall on the interactive surface unless those objects are substantially touching
the surface, and therefore blocking substantially all light to the surface in the
area of contact." (Spec. 9:3-17; see Figs. 2 & 3 and accompanying text.)
Figure 2, reproduced below, shows a system with distributed illumination
source 208, including light strips 209a through 209f:
FIG. 2
200
,/
Figure 2 is diagram of a system for
detecting touches to a display surface.
5
Appeal2015-002810
Application 12/322,038
The Examiner finds that Sohn teaches all of the limitations of claim 1,
except that Sohn lacks "a touch pane configured to allow the detection light
generated by the light source located above the object and separate from the
display panel to pass through the touch plane, wherein the detection light is
substantially shadow free." (Final Act. 4.) For that feature, the Examiner
refers to Ferren and, in particular, to Figure 8, excerpted below:
820~ \
\
L.-345
\
\
\
\
I
P"32.""\ \~\ 840
~ ----(--·------""~://j,
834 850
j
" 8(}0
Figure 8 is a representation of one
implementation of an infrared gesture interface.
Perren's "infrared light source 820 illuminates the diffusion surface
830, such as a rear projection screen, from a front side 832 on which the user
is positioned." (Ferren i-f 40.) The reference explains that "[o]bjects
approaching the surface, such as the finger of a user's hand 860, will block
the IR source and throw a shadow 865 on the diffusion surface 830" and
"[t]he more closely the object approaches the diffusion surface 830, the
sharper the edges of the shadow 865 will become." (Id. i-f 41.) "The
distance information acquired in this manner may be used for advanced 3-
6
Appeal2015-002810
Application 12/322,038
dimensional gesture recognition capabilities that do not require physical
contact with the diffusion surface 830" as, "[f]or example, a momentary
mouseover gesture could be simulated by waving a finger over an object,
and the object could be selected by tapping the surface." (Id.)
The Examiner concludes that Ferren teaches or suggests that "the
detection light is substantially shadow-free" (a) because "the detection light
will be substantially shadow-free when no user is present" or, alternately,
(b) because "in order for the input system of Ferren et al. to function
properly, the detection light must be shadow free." (Ans. 30-31.) Appellant
argues in response that
unlike user's hand 860 (or object in Ferren) that is required to
create a shadow, a system of the present application is
implemented such that mere presence of the object (or person)
does not create any shadow, so that substantially shadow free
light distribution of the detection light can reach the touch panes
of display panels, but for the touch points touching the touch
panes of display panels.
(Reply Br. 4.) We are persuaded by Appellant's arguments.
We do not agree with the Examiner's position that "the detection light
will be substantially shadow-free when no user is present" because the
claims are directed to situations in which an object is touching the display. 3
3 See, e.g., Claim 1 ("[a] display panel for sensing an object touching the
display panel using a detection light generated by a light source located
above the object ... comprising ... a touch pane configured to allow the
detection light generated by the light source located above the object and
separate from the display panel to pass through the touch pane, wherein the
detection light is substantially shadow-free"; "a detection light receiver ...
configured to detect the detection light received through the display
generation module for enabling a detection of touches of the object to the
touch pane of the display panel").
7
Appeal2015-002810
Application 12/322,038
In that situation, Perren's single light source would cause any object to cast
at least some amount of shadow. We interpret the claims to require that the
detection light be "substantially shadow-free" at the display panel when one
or more objects (or users) are touching the display panel. 4
We also do not agree with the Examiner's finding that Perren's
"detection light must be shadow free." As noted above, Ferren teaches that
"[t]he more closely the object approaches the diffusion surface 830, the
sharper the edges of the shadow 865 [created by infrared light source 820]
will become," a characteristic used "for advanced 3-dimensional gesture
recognition capabilities." (Ferren i-f 40.) We agree with Appellant that, were
Perren's light source modified to be "substantially shadow-free," e.g., by
introducing light from multiple directions to substantially prevent shadows,
this feature could not be implemented, or, at best, would be severely
compromised. Ferren is largely concerned with tracking shadows, which
would not be consistent with a "substantially shadow-free" environment.
While it may be true that additional objects casting shadows would present
problems for Perren's system, we do not agree that such a problem would or
could be addressed by flooding the screen with light.
4 The Examiner points to this language in the disclosure as supporting the
"no user is present" position: "Detection light may be provided by
illumination source 208, which can be configured to flood the touch panes
of display panels 230a through 230p with a substantially uniform, and in the
absence of touch points ... , substantially shadow-free distribution of
light including a detection light." (Ans. 29, quoting Spec. 11:5-8.) We
understand "in the absence of touch points" to mean "outside of the touch
points," not "when touch points are not present." It is of course the case that
no shadows are cast when nothing is present to cast a shadow.
8
Appeal2015-002810
Application 12/322,038
For these reasons, we decline to sustain the rejections of claims 1-5,
7-9, and 11-30, each of which requires that "the detection light is
substantially shadow-free."
DECISION
The rejections of claims 1-5, 7-9, and 11-30 are reversed.
REVERSED
9