Ex Parte Williams et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 22, 2017

12902952 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 22, 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.
12/902,952 10/12/2010 Lance Williams NC74176US-NP 2993
11051 7590 09/26/2017
Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP
Nokia Technologies Oy
8000 Towers Crescent Drive, 14th Floor
Vienna, VA 22182
EXAMINER
REN, ZHUBING
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2483
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/26/2017 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):
sonia. whitney @ squirepb.com
ipgeneralty c @ squirepb .com
nokia.ipr@nokia.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte LANCE WILLIAMS, XIAOHUI SHEN,
and GANG HUA
Appeal 2015-000017
Application 12/902,952
Technology Center 2400
Before JUSTIN BUSCH, KAMRAN JIVANI, and
MONICA S. ULLAGADDI, Administrative Patent Judges.
BUSCH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the rejection
of claims 1 and 3—21. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
Appeal 2015-000017
Application 12/902,952
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 1,19, and 20 are independent claims. The claims relate
generally to identifying a predetermined motion by correlating a reference
set of scalar representations with a set of scalar representations of movement
generated from a video. Spec. Abstract, Figs. 1—4, || 38-49. Claim 1 is
reproduced below:
1. An apparatus, comprising:
a processor;
memory including computer program code, the memory
and the computer program code configured to, working with the
processor, cause the apparatus to perform at least the following:
receiving a video indicating a motion;
generating a set of scalar representations of movement
absent performance of a tracking calculation, based, at least in
part, on at least part of the video; and
identifying at least one predetermined motion to based, at
least in part, on correlation between a reference set of scalar
representations associated with the predetermined motion and
the set of scalar representations of movement.
REJECTIONS
Claims 1,3,4, 13—16, and 18—20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable in view of Freeman (US 5,594,469; Jan. 14, 1997)
and Katz (US 2010/0289912 Al; Nov. 18, 2010). Final Act. ^U8.
Claims 5, 8—12, and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable in view of Freeman, Katz, and Mekenkamp (US 2006/0050052
Al; Mar. 9, 2006). Final Act. 8—11.
Claims 6 and 7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable in view of Freeman, Katz, and Zipperer (US 2004/0001113 Al;
Jan. 1, 2004). Final Act. 12.
2
Appeal 2015-000017
Application 12/902,952
Claim 17 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable in
view of Freeman, Katz, and Gokturk (US 2003/0156756 Al; Aug. 21,
2003). Final Act. 12-13.
OPINION
Discussion of Freeman and Katz
Freeman generally relates to using a camera to identify a user’s hand
gesture via comparison to a hand template in order to activate a user
interface, which includes a hand icon. Freeman 2:6—21, Abstract, Figs. 1, 2,
7. The user interface enables control of a television, and the system tracks
the user’s hand in order to display relative movement of the hand icon to
facilitate user interaction with the television controls. Id. at 5:6—32. The
system modifies the state of the television based on the input received via
the user interface. Freeman 6:14—19, Figs. 1, 2, 7.
Katz generally relates to analyzing a recorded image or video to
identify a “static gesture” or “moving gestures.” Katz || 40, 42, Figs. 2—7.
In response to identifying a gesture, the system may then modify the
recorded image or take another image or video and modify that image or
video. Id. 43—45.
Rejection of Claim 1
Appellants contend that the Examiner has not demonstrated the
combination of Freeman and Katz teaches or suggests “generating a set of
scalar representations of movement absent performance of a tracking
calculation,'’'’ that the Examiner’s rationale for combining the references is
insufficient, and that the proposed combination would render Freeman
unsuitable for its intended purpose because Freeman depends on tracking to
perform its operations. App. Br. 8—11, 14—15.
3
Appeal 2015-000017
Application 12/902,952
The Examiner finds Freeman teaches every limitation of claim 1,
except for a portion of the generating step. Final Act. 4—5. With respect to
the generating step, the Examiner finds Freeman teaches “generating a set of
scalar representations of based, at least in part, on at least part of the video.”
Id. at 5 (pointing to Freeman’s slider bars and the scale factor between hand
movement and the hand icon movement (citing Freeman 5:6—15, 8:44—58,
Fig. 1)). The Examiner further finds Katz “teaches generating a set of scalar
representations is performed absent performance of a tracking calculation,
based, at least in part, on at least part of the video.” Id. (stating no tracking
calculations are needed to identify static gestures in a single image (citing
Katz || 40, 52—53, Figs. 2, 3, 5, 6)). Thus, the Examiner finds the
disclosures in Freeman and Katz of identifying static gestures in a single
image teach or suggest the recited generating step.
The Examiner’s stated rationale for modifying Freeman with Katz is
“to provide an analyzing circuitry may be configured to enhance a contrast
of said at least one image prior to performing the analysis.” Final Act. 5
(citing Katz 116). In the Answer, the Examiner further finds Freeman
identifies hand gestures (the flat handed, or “how,” gesture and the closed
fist gesture) that do not depend on tracking and Katz “teaches generating a
set of static gestures that only depend on [a] single image.” Ans. 11—12.
The Examiner finds tracking calculations are not needed to identify static
gestures base on a single image. Id. at 12. The Examiner expands on the
rationale, finding Katz provides the motivation to modify Freeman in order
“to add the generating static gesture technique taught by Katz in order to
determine a gesture to decide a modification of the image to enhance a
contrast of the image.” Id. at 12 (citing Katz 116, Abstract), 13 (finding
4
Appeal 2015-000017
Application 12/902,952
applying Katz’s static gesture determination to Freeman “would have been
predictable and resulted in gesture determination without tracking
calculation.”).
We find the Examiner’s rejection regarding the generating step
problematic. The generating step recites in its entirety “generating a set of
scalar representations of movement absent performance of a tracking
calculation, based, at least in part, on at least part of the video.” Even
assuming the combination of Freeman and Katz teaches or suggests
generating a representation absent performance of a tracking calculation, the
claim requires generation of a set of scalar representations of movement.
See App. Br. 8—11, 13—14. The Examiner points to Freeman’s determination
of the open hand or flat hand gesture and Katz’s determination of the static
gestures as teaching this limitation. See Final Act. 5; Ans. 11—12. As
Appellants argue, we are unpersuaded that identifying a static gesture
teaches or suggests “generating a set of scalar representations of movement,”
as recited in claim 1.
Certain of the Examiner’s findings, although not clear, imply that
some aspect related to Freeman’s movement of slider bars may teach or
suggest generating a set of scalar representations of movement. However,
even to the extent Freeman’s movement of slider bars teaches generating a
set of scalar representations of movement, such a finding would be
inconsistent with the Examiner’s explicit findings that Freeman’s and Katz’s
static gestures teach or suggest the generating step.
A finding that Freeman’s movement of slider bars teaches the
generating step also would be inconsistent with the Examiner’s finding
regarding the identifying step. Specifically, the Examiner fails to explain
5
Appeal 2015-000017
Application 12/902,952
how “identifying at least one predetermined motion” is based on a reference
correlation to movement of the slider bar, as required by the claims. Rather,
the Examiner finds Freeman’s comparison of a hand template to a detected
hand gesture to identify the “how” sign teaches “identifying at least one
predetermined motion” based on a correlation between a reference and the
generated set of scalar representations of movement. Thus, a finding that
Freeman’s movement of slider bars teaches the generating a set of scalar
representations would be inconsistent because it is unclear how identifying
the “how” sign would be based on a correlation of a reference to a set of
scalar representations of movement of a slider bar. Put another way, there
appears to be no relationship between moving the slider bar and identifying
the “how” sign, as recited in the claims.
On this record, we find the preponderance of the evidence supports
Appellants’ argued position. Therefore, we are persuaded the Examiner
erred in finding the combination of Freeman and Katz teaches or suggests
the generating step recited in independent claim 1, and commensurately
recited in independent claims 19 and 20. Dependent claims 3—18 and 21
ultimately depend from claim 1, incorporating the limitations of claim 1.
Although the rejections of dependent claims 5—12, 17, and 21 include an
additional reference, the additional reference was not relied on to cure the
deficiency discussed herein. Accordingly, for the same reasons discussed
with respect to the independent claims, we are persuaded the Examiner erred
in rejecting dependent claims 3—18 and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Because this issue is dispositive of the Appeal, we do not address
Appellants’ other arguments.
6
Appeal 2015-000017
Application 12/902,952
DECISION
For the reasons discussed above, we reverse the Examiner’s decision
to reject claims 1 and 3—21.
REVERSED
7