Intel Corporation

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 1, 2020

13854236 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Sep. 1, 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.
13/854,236 04/01/2013 Wenlong Li ITL.2616US (P40258) 5221
47795 7590 09/01/2020
TROP, PRUNER & HU, P.C.
PO Box 41790
HOUSTON, TX 77241
EXAMINER
SUN, LI P
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2143
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/01/2020 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):
Inteldocs_docketing@cpaglobal.com
tphpto@tphm.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte WENLONG LI
Appeal 2019-002075
Application 13/854,236
Technology Center 2100
Before MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, ADAM J. PYONIN, and
PHILLIP A. BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.
BENNETT, 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 1–10, 25, and 28–46. Claims 11–24,
26, and 27 are cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Intel
Corporation. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2019-002075
Application 13/854,236

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to an analyzing human gestural commands.
Claim 1, reproduced below with a disputed limitation emphasized in italics,
is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method comprising:
detecting a hand gestural command;
detecting the hand that made the hand gestural command;
detecting an arm connected to the hand;
detecting a human body connected to the arm;
detecting a face connected to the body; and
associating the hand gestural command from one person
of a plurality of persons by associating the hand with the face
using computer video analysis of the one person’s hand, arm,
body, and face.
Appeal Br. 9 (Claims Appendix).
REFERENCES2
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Hildreth US 2009/0079813 A1 Mar. 26, 2009
Khouri US 2011/0074911 A1 Mar. 31, 2011
Tardif US 2011/0301934 A1 Dec. 8, 2011
Dalit US 8,577,810 B1 Nov. 5, 2013
REJECTIONS
Claims 1–6, 25, 28–32, and 37–42 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hildreth and Tardif. Final Act. 3–10.

2 References listed below are named according to their first named inventor.
Appeal 2019-002075
Application 13/854,236

3
Claims 7–10, 33–36, and 43–46 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hildreth, Tardif, Khouri, and Dalit.
Final Act. 10–14.
ISSUES
Has the Examiner erred in finding Hildreth and Tardif teach or
suggest “associating the hand gestural command from one person of a
plurality of persons by associating the hand with the face using computer
video analysis of the one person's hand, arm, body, and face,” as recited in
claim 1?
ANALYSIS
The Examiner’s Findings and Conclusion of Obviousness
In rejecting the claims under §103(a), the Examiner generally finds
that Hildreth teaches the recited detection of a hand gestural command,
hand, arm, body, and face of a user. Final Act. 3–4 (citing Hildreth Figs. 1,
34). The Examiner further finds that Hildreth teaches “associating the hand
gestural command from one person of a plurality of persons by associating
the hand with the face using computer video analysis.” Final Act. 4 (citing
Hildreth ¶ 191). The Examiner acknowledges that Hildreth does not teach
detecting that the various body parts are connected to each other, nor does it
teach that the computer video analysis is performed on “the person’s hand,
arm, body, and face.” Final Act. 4–5. The Examiner introduces Tardif to
address these deficiencies. Specifically, the Examiner finds Tardif teaches a
sign language translation method based on movements of a user that
identifies specific body parts of a person and associates them with the person
using a body part index, and also teaches tracking and analyzing movement
Appeal 2019-002075
Application 13/854,236

4
of each of the body parts. Final Act. 5–6. The Examiner concludes it would
have been obvious to combine the teachings of Hildreth with those of Tardif
“for the purpose of determining the motion of the users and employ[ing]
those detected motions to control a video game or other application.” Final
Act. 7. Summarizing the basis for the combination, the Examiner explains:
Hildreth already teaches disambiguating a hand gesture made by
a user among a plurality of users by connecting the hand making
the gesture with the user's face/head (see Hildreth, Fig. 34).
Tardif is relied upon to teach that, using a skeleton model (see
Tardif, Figs. 1 OA and 1 OC), hand, arm, body, head/face, etc.
of a user are all being analyzed for detecting a gesture, and the
detected hand, arm, body, head/face are all connected.
Modifying Hildreth with Tardif will result in a skeleton model
being associated with each of the plurality of users detected in
Fig. 34 of Hildreth, and thus, the disambiguating of the user
making the hand gesture, taught by Hildreth, can now be
performed utilizing the skeleton model to identify the hand, arm,
body, head/face of the user making the gesture, in the same way
as taught by Tardif. Accordingly, Hildreth, in view of Tardif,
teaches these limitations.
Ans. 19.
Appellant’s Arguments
Appellant offers several arguments against the rejection, which we
address in turn.
First, Appellant argues “there is no suggestion [in Tardif] that, while
multiple users can provide input, the system disambiguates between those
multiple users . . . [and] the only reason body connections are determined is
to understand the substance of the command better, based on information
from other body parts.” Appeal Br. 6–7.
Second, Appellant argues that Tardif provides no information on how
it disambiguates among persons making commands, and therefore does not
Appeal 2019-002075
Application 13/854,236

5
teach the recited “associating the hand with the face using computer video
analysis of the one person’s hand, arm, body, and face.” Appeal Br. 7–8.
Expanding this argument in the Reply Brief, Appellant further asserts that
although Hildreth teaches disambiguating using the hand and face, it does so
based only on distance and not movement, while Tardif only uses the
association between the user’s hand and body and includes “no concept of
facial recognition.” Reply Br. 2.
Third, Appellant argues the Examiner relies on hindsight to pick and
choose among embodiments and references to reach the claimed invention
because there is no suggestion in Tardif of improving disambiguation using
a skeletal model taught in Tardif. Reply Br. 3.
Our Review
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s first argument that Tardif does
not teach disambiguation because we agree with the Examiner that Tardif
teaches, or at least suggests, disambiguating multiple users. In particular,
Tardif teaches “[i]n some embodiments, the system can simultaneously track
multiple users and allow the motion of multiple users to control or effect the
application.” Tardif ¶ 83. Moreover, we agree with the Examiner that
Tardif’s teaching of a motion tracking model that relies on a “a skeletal
model such as vectors with respect to different joints, centroids or node to
illustrate movement changes” also suggests using connected body parts as a
way of disambiguating users. Tardif further teaches that “[e]ach body part is
indexed so it can be identified, other parts of the capture area such as the
furniture in the living room are identified as background, and the users are
indexed so the machine representable data for their respective body parts can
be linked to them.” Tardif ¶ 53. This passage would be understood by a
Appeal 2019-002075
Application 13/854,236

6
person of ordinary skill in the art as demonstrating that connected body parts
are used to distinguish among users.
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s second argument that Tardif
provides no information regarding how disambiguation is carried out
because it does not address the rejection made by the Examiner. As the
Examiner explains in the Answer, Hildreth teaches disambiguating a hand
gesture made by a user along a plurality of users by connecting the hand
making the gesture with the user’s face/head. Ans. 19. Tardif is relied on
primarily to show that it was known to use a skeleton model, including the
connections between a person’s hand, arm, body, and head/face, to identify
users and track their movements. Id. Possessing these teachings, a person
of ordinary skill in the art would have appreciated that the accuracy of
Hildreth’s disambiguation would be improved by utilizing a skeleton model
to connect a person’s hand with their face. Thus, Hildreth teaches how the
disambiguation is performed, while Tardif suggests the improvement of
adding a skeletal model.
Appellant’s third argument—that the Examiner relies on
impermissible hindsight—also is not persuasive. Appellant argues that there
is no suggestion in Tardif for incorporating its skeletal model into the
disambiguation technique of Hildreth. This argument is not persuasive, and
it appears to be based on an incorrect assumption that a suggestion or
motivation to combine must be explicitly set forth in the reference being
modified. This assumption is not consistent with the Supreme Court’s
approach to obviousness, which makes clear that the standard for
determining whether a claim is obvious is “an expansive and flexible
approach.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415 (2007); see also
Appeal 2019-002075
Application 13/854,236

7
MPEP § 2143(G) (“The courts have made clear that the teaching,
suggestion, or motivation test is flexible and an explicit suggestion to
combine the prior art is not necessary.”). Here, we find the Examiner’s
rationale for combining Hildreth and Tardif to be reasonable on its face,
consistent with controlling law, and has rational underpinnings drawn from
evidence in the record. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418
(2007) (“[T]here must be some articulated reasoning with some rational
underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” (quoting In re
Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006))).
Remaining Claims
Appellant makes no arguments with respect to any other claim. As
such, we also sustain the rejections of the remaining claims.
CONCLUSION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
DECISION SUMMARY
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–6, 25,
28–32, 37–
42
103(a) Hildreth, Tardif 1–6, 25,
28–32, 37–
42

7–10, 33–
36, 43–46
Hildreth, Tardif,
Khouri, Dalit
7–10, 33–
36, 43–46

Overall
Outcome
1–10, 25,
28–46

Appeal 2019-002075
Application 13/854,236

8
TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED