Google Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jun 17, 2020

2019002463 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 17, 2020)

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.
15/093,533 04/07/2016 Jaime Lien 2489800US 1849
149118 7590 06/17/2020
Colby Nipper / Google
291 East Shore Drive
Suite 200
Eagle, ID 83616
EXAMINER
SADIO, INSA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2628
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/17/2020 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):
docket@colbynipper.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

Ex parte JAIME LIEN, NICHOLAS EDWARD GILLIAN, and
IVAN POUPYREV

Appeal 2019-002463
Application 15/093,533
Technology Center 2600

Before JUSTIN BUSCH, CARL L. SILVERMAN, and
MICHAEL T. CYGAN, Administrative Patent Judges.

CYGAN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–20, which are all of the pending
claims in the application. Appeal Br. 3. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Google,
LLC. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2019-002463
Application 15/093,533

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claimed invention generally relates to identifying a microgesture,
such as a millimeter-scale gesture made by an object such as a hand. Appeal
Br. 4–9. The identifying may be performed by radiofrequency (“RF”)
signals transmitted by antennas that are reflected from the hand. Id. The
reflected signal may then be processed to identify the shape or movement of
the hand, such as through the use of a three-dimensional profile of the hand.
Independent claim 10 is illustrative:
10. A method for identifying a micro-gesture performed by a
hand, the method comprising:
transmitting a plurality of outgoing RF signals, each
outgoing RF signal transmitted on a respective antenna of a
plurality of antennas;
capturing, at least two incoming RF signals generated by
at least two outgoing RF signals of the plurality of outgoing RF
signals reflecting off the hand; and
processing the at least two captured incoming RF signals
to identify the micro-gesture performed by the hand, the micro-
gesture comprising a movement on a millimeter scale.
Appeal Br. 29 (Claims App.).
Independent claims 1 and 16 recite devices having limitations similar
to that of claim 1. Appeal Br. 27, 31. Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A device configured to identify a micro-gesture
associated with a target object, the device comprising:
at least two antennas to transmit a plurality of outgoing
radio frequency (RF) signals, each antenna configured to:
transmit a respective outgoing radio frequency (RF)
signal of the plurality of outgoing RF signals; and
Appeal 2019-002463
Application 15/093,533

3
receive an incoming RF signal generated by at least one
transmitted outgoing RF signal of the plurality of
outgoing RF signals reflecting off the target object;
a digital signal processing component configured to:
process a first set of data originating from incoming RF
signals to extract information about the target object, the
information comprising a shape of the object
corresponding to at least two points in time; and
a machine-learning component configured to:
receive the information extracted by the digital signal
processing component; and
process the information to identify the micro-gesture.
Appeal Br. 27 (Claims App.).
Dependent claims 2–9, 11–15, and 17–20 each incorporate the
limitations of their respective independent claims. Id. at 27–33.

REFERENCES
Name Reference Date
Movold et al.
(Movold)
US 2008/0134102 Al June 5, 2008
Rautiainen et al.
(Rautiainen)
US 2011/0181509 Al July 28, 2011
Walsh et al.
(Walsh)
US 2014/0215389 Al July 31, 2014

REJECTIONS
Claims 10–14 and 16–20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as
being anticipated by Rautiainen.
Claims 1–9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over
the combination of Rautiainen and Walsh.
Appeal 2019-002463
Application 15/093,533

4
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over the
combination of Rautiainen and Movold.

OPINION
1. Anticipation
We have reviewed the Examiner’s anticipation rejection (Final
Act. 10–16; Ans. 3–4) in light of Appellant’s contentions that the Examiner
has erred (Appeal Br. 14–19; Reply Br. 2–4). We are persuaded by
Appellant’s contention of Examiner error in rejecting claims 10–14 and 16–
20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1). We begin with claim 10.
Appellant contends that the Examiner errs in finding Rautiainen to
disclose “processing the at least two captured incoming RF signals to
identify the micro-gesture performed by the hand, the micro-gesture
comprising a movement on a millimeter scale.” Appeal Br. 14.
Specifically, Appellant contends that the Examiner has not shown
Rautiainen to disclose identifying a movement on a millimeter scale. Id. at
15. Appellant argues that Rautiainen’s use of millimeter wavelength RF
signals does not, by itself, show that Rautiainen can identify a millimeter
scale movement. Id. Appellant further argues that Rautiainen’s disclosure
of identifying “quite complex gestures” does not disclose the claimed
millimeter scale movement either. Id.
The Examiner finds Rautiainen’s statement, “the radio waves would
be microwaves or millimeter waves” to show that Rautiainen’s gesture
detector can inherently detect a micro-gesture comprising a movement on a
millimeter scale. Ans. 3.
Appeal 2019-002463
Application 15/093,533

5
We find Appellant’s arguments persuasive. To anticipate, each and
every element in the claim must be described in a single prior art reference,
either expressly or inherently. Verdegaal Bros. v. Union Oil Co. of
California, 814 F.2d 628, 631 (Fed. Cir. 1987). Claim 10, a method claim,
sets forth the action of processing signals to identify a millimeter-scale hand
microgesture. The Examiner has not pointed to any express description in
Rautiainen showing identification of a millimeter-scale microgesture. The
Examiner instead contends that the use of millimeter-scale waves inherently
provides Rautiainen’s system with the ability to identify millimeter-scale
microgestures. A device that necessarily performs a claimed action during
its normal and usual operation is considered to describe that action. See,
e.g., In re King, 801 F.2d 1324 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Appellant argues, and we agree, that the manner of processing the
signals is a factor in the resolution of features or movement. Appeal Br. 15
(“While radar hardware used may be a component of resolution, other
factors such as sampling rate, emitting pattern, beam forming, and signal
processing contribute to a resolution of object detection. Thus, a wavelength
of the radar waves used to detect does not directly correlate with a detection
resolution”). We find Appellant’s argument supported by the Specification.
The Specification indicates that cameras (although operating on similar or
smaller radiant wavelengths) may not provide the requisite resolution to
detect microgestures. Spec. ¶ 35. The Specification provides for the
millimeter resolution through a gesture sensor component 106. Id. ¶ 21.
The digital signal processing component 212 performs the processing to
reach the desired resolution. Id. ¶ 29. Appellant discloses specific signal
Appeal 2019-002463
Application 15/093,533

6
processing techniques that achieve the resolution necessary to identify
micro-gestures, such as by certain gesture recognition techniques. See, e.g.,
Spec. ¶ 50 (giving examples of probabilistic or machine-learning algorithms
as identifying micro-gestures or macro-gestures). In view of Appellant’s
reasoned arguments, we are persuaded that use of millimeter wave signals
reflected from an object will not, in its normal and usual operation,
necessarily result in the identification of movement of that object on a
millimeter scale. Accordingly, we are persuaded that the Examiner has not
shown Rautiainen to inherently identify millimeter-scale microgestures.
In summary, both Appellant’s claimed invention and Rautiainen use
reflected millimeter wave signals to identify hand gestures. See Spec. ¶ 41;
Rautiainen ¶¶ 15–17. However, Rautiainen does not disclose, either
explicitly or inherently, the claimed processing to identify hand micro-
gestures, which are defined further in the claim as involving movements on
the millimeter scale. Accordingly, we are persuaded by Appellant’s
arguments that Rautiainen does not disclose the process of claim 10.
Because the rejection of claims 11–14 and 16–20 are rejected under the
same reasoning, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 10–14 and
16–20.
2. Obviousness
We have reviewed the Examiner’s obviousness rejections (Final
Act. 3–9, Ans. 5–6) in light of Appellant’s contentions that the Examiner has
erred (Appeal Br. 19–25; Reply Br. 4). We are persuaded by Appellant’s
contention of Examiner error in rejecting claims 1–9 and 15 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103. We begin with claim 1.
Appeal 2019-002463
Application 15/093,533

7
Appellant contends that the Examiner errs in finding Rautiainen to
disclose a component configured to “process a first set of data originating
from incoming RF signals to extract information about the target object, the
information comprising a shape of the object corresponding to at least two
points in time.” Appeal Br. 19. Appellant acknowledges that Rautiainen
teaches receiving radio signals that are modulated by a gesture that varies in
time, but asserts that the information about such modulation does not include
extracting a shape of the gesturing object. Id. Appellant provides a
hypothetical example: “For example, while the device of Rautiainen may be
able to determine that an object is the size of a car, it by no means would be
able to distinguish a large sedan from a small truck of equal size (or equal
radar cross-section).” Reply Br. 3.
The Examiner finds that Rautiainen teaches a digital signal processing
component in which the shape of the hand of a target object is measured
because the gesture is detected over multiple points of the hand that is doing
the gesture. Ans. 5.
We find Appellant’s arguments persuasive on the record before us.
We initially note that Claim 1 requires “micro-gestures,” which are defined
as millimeter-scale movements (Specification paragraph 21), and we have
determined that Rautiainen does not disclose identifying movements on the
millimeter scale. The Examiner does not find Walsh to supply that teaching.
For at least that reason, the Examiner has not shown the combination of
Rautiainen and Walsh to teach or suggest the invention of claim 1.
Further, claim 1 recites a digital signal processing component
extracting information comprising a shape of the object corresponding to at
Appeal 2019-002463
Application 15/093,533

8
least two points in time. We do not agree with the Examiner’s finding that
Rautiainen’s detection of multiple points of the hand teaches or suggests
extracting “information comprising a shape of the object.” The types of
information extracted by Rautiainen are “kinematic parameters of the
gesture such as distance, speed, [and] direction.” Rautiainen ¶ 54. Although
Rautiainen determines “the position and velocity of the hand in two or three
dimensions,” this information is used to characterize the movement of the
hand, rather than its shape. Id. ¶ 60. Further, although Rautiainen identifies
when a human hand is moved relative to a user’s body, Rautiainen does not
explain how the hand is identified, whether by its shape or another
characteristic. Id. ¶ 92. Accordingly, Rautiainen does not provide support
for the Examiner’s finding that Rautiainen’s signal processing, either
explicitly or inherently, extracts information comprising a shape of the hand.
Claims 2–9 are rejected under the same grounds of rejection as claim
1. The rejections of claims 2–9 likewise suffer from the same deficiencies
noted for the rejection of claim 1. Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1–9.
Claim 15, which depends from claim 10, is argued to be non-obvious
upon the same arguments made against the rejection of claim 10. We have
found those arguments persuasive. The Examiner has not found, nor do we
determine, that the addition of Movold provides the missing teaching of a
micro-gesture, defined as millimeter-scale movement. Accordingly, we
reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claim 15.

Appeal 2019-002463
Application 15/093,533

9
CONCLUSION
For the above-described reasons, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection
of claims 10–14 and 16–20 as being anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1)
and reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–9 and 15 as being obvious
over the applied references under 35 U.S.C. § 103.

DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § References/Grounds Affirmed Reversed
10–14,
16–20
102(a)(1) Rautiainen 10–14,
16–20
1–9 103 Rautiainen, Walsh 1–9
15 103 Rautiainen, Movold 15
Overall
Outcome
1–20

REVERSED