Saturn Licensing LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Apr 2, 2020

15298351 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Apr. 2, 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.
15/298,351 10/20/2016 Toshiharu YABE 503601US 5874
22850 7590 04/02/2020
OBLON, MCCLELLAND, MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P.
1940 DUKE STREET
ALEXANDRIA, VA 22314
EXAMINER
NGUYEN, KEVIN M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2628
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/02/2020 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):
OBLONPAT@OBLON.COM
iahmadi@oblon.com
patentdocket@oblon.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte TOSHIHARU YABE and KENICHIRO KOBAYASHI
Appeal 2018-007984
Application 15/298,351
Technology Center 2600

Before JAMES R. HUGHES, STEVEN M. AMUNDSON,
and MICHAEL T. CYGAN, Administrative Patent Judges.

HUGHES, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Claims 17–34 are pending, stand rejected, are appealed by Appellant,1
and are the subject of our decision under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a). See Final Act.
1, 3.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). An Oral Hearing was
held on February 25, 2020.

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 Saturn Licensing
LLC. See Appeal Br. 3.
2 We refer to Appellant’s Specification (“Spec.”), filed Oct. 20, 2016
(claiming benefit of JP 2008-208948, filed Aug. 14, 2008); Appeal Brief
(“Appeal Br.”), filed May 7, 2018; and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.”), filed July
30, 2018. We also refer to the Examiner’s Final Office Action (“Final
Act.”), mailed Nov. 24, 2017; and Answer (“Ans.”) mailed May 30, 2018.
Appeal 2018-007984
Application 15/298,351

2
We REVERSE.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The invention relates “to an information processing apparatus, an
information processing method, and an information processing program”
(Spec. ¶ 1) for extracting and displaying an image of at least the portion of a
human appendage to the user in conjunction with a user interface. See Spec.
¶¶ 5–24; Abstract. Claims 17, 33, and 34 are independent. Claim 17,
reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
17. An information processing apparatus, comprising:
an imaging unit;
a sound input unit configured to receive an audio signal;
and
circuitry configured to
determine whether at least one characteristic of the
received audio signal corresponds to an interface, the interface
identifying at least one element of content viewable by a user;
detect a first movement of a human appendage within
successive images obtained by the imaging unit;
determine whether the detected first movement
corresponds to a first predetermined movement associated with
the interface, wherein the circuitry is configured to perform at
least:
identifying, within pixel regions constituting a
current image of the successive images, (i) a first pixel
region that includes at least a portion of the human
appendage, and (ii) an icon pixel region that includes an
icon enabling the user to access the interface;
calculating a first center-of-gravity for the first pixel
region; and
Appeal 2018-007984
Application 15/298,351

3
determining whether the first center-of-gravity falls
within the icon pixel region; and
generate one or more instructions to:
display the interface and an extracted image of at
least the portion of the human appendage to the user when
the at least one characteristic of the received audio signal
corresponds to the interface such that a location of the
extracted image relative to the interface indicates a
location of the first pixel region relative to the icon pixel
region; and
after the interface is displayed, perform an
operation on the at least one element of content identified
by the interface when the detected first movement
corresponds to the first predetermined movement.
Appeal Br. 13–14 (Claims App.) (emphases added).
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Liu et al. (“Liu”) US 7,095,401 B2 Aug. 22, 2006
Wilson et al.
(“Wilson)
US 2004/0189720 A1 Sept. 30, 2004
Kitaura US 2007/0132725 A1 June 14, 2007
REJECTIONS3
1. The Examiner rejects claims 17–19, 21, 22, 28–30, 33, and 34
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Wilson. See Final Act.
4–19.

3 The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”), Pub. L. No. 112–29, 125
Stat. 284 (2011), amended 35 U.S.C. § 103, e.g., to eliminate subsections of
35 U.S.C. § 103. Because the present application has an effective filing date
(Aug. 14, 2008) prior to the AIA’s effective date for applications (March 16,
2013), this decision refers 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Appeal 2018-007984
Application 15/298,351

4
2. The Examiner rejects claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Wilson and Liu. See Final Act. 19–20.
3. The Examiner rejects claims 23–27, 31, and 32 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Wilson and Kitaura. See Final Act. 21–
23.
OPINION
Obviousness Rejection of Claims 17–19, 21, 22, 28–30, 33, and 34
The Examiner rejects independent claim 17 (as well as independent
claims 33 and 34, and dependent claims 18, 19, 21, 22, and 28–30) as being
obvious over Wilson. See Final Act. 4–8; Ans. 3. Appellant contends
Wilson does not teach the disputed limitations of claim 17. See Appeal Br.
10–12; Reply Br. 1–3. Specifically, Appellant contends that Wilson does
not describe “displaying the interface and an extracted image of at least the
portion of the human appendage, but instead merely describes” icons (e.g.,
hand icon 720 (Fig. 7)), which “is displayed when a corresponding gesture
728 is recognized.” The hand icon of Wilson, however, “is not an extracted
image of at least the portion of the human appendage but is instead simply
an icon.” Appeal Br. 11; See Appeal Br. 10–11; Reply Br. 1–3.
We agree with Appellant that the Examiner-cited portions of Wilson
(see Wilson ¶¶ 42, 70, 71; Fig. 7) do not teach or suggest an extracted image
of at least the portion of the human appendage as required by Appellant’s
claim 17. See Appeal Br. 11; Reply Br. 2–3. The Examiner-cited portions
of Wilson describe detecting and tracking an object, such as a user’s hand
(see Wilson ¶ 42), detecting hand gestures that are interpreted as commands
to be executed by a computer (see Wilson ¶¶ 47, 70), and displaying a pre-
determined icon corresponding to a recognized gesture (command) (see
Appeal 2018-007984
Application 15/298,351

5
Wilson ¶¶ 70, 71). The cited portions of Wilson, however, do not describe
displaying a portion of an actual user’s hand (an extracted image of a user’s
hand (appendage)) interacting with a user interface. See e.g., Spec. ¶¶ 32–
34, 44, 46, 48, 111, 112; Fig. 11. The Examiner does not explain
sufficiently how the cited portions of Wilson at least suggest the disputed
feature of an extracted image.
Consequently, we are constrained by the record before us to find that
the Examiner erred in finding that Wilson renders obvious Appellant’s claim
17. Independent claims 33 and 34 include limitations of commensurate
scope. Claims 18, 19, 21, 22, and 28–30 depend from and stand with claim
17.
Obviousness Rejections of Claims 20, 23–27, 31, and 32
The Examiner rejects dependent claim 20 as being obvious over
Wilson and Liu. See Final Act. 19–20. The Examiner rejects dependent
claims 23–27, 31, and 32 as being obvious over Wilson and Kitaura. See
Final Act. 20–23.
The Examiner does not suggest, and we do not find, that the additional
cited references (Liu or Kitaura) cure the deficiencies of Wilson (supra).
Therefore, we reverse the Examiner’s obviousness rejections of dependent
claims 20, 23–27, 31, and 32 for the same reasons set forth for claim 17
(supra).
CONCLUSION
Appellant has shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 17–
34 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). We, therefore, do not sustain the Examiner’s
rejections of claims 17–34.
Appeal 2018-007984
Application 15/298,351

6
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
17–19, 21, 22,
28–30, 33, 34
103(a) Wilson 17–19, 21, 22,
28–30, 33, 34
20 103(a) Wilson, Liu 20
23–27, 31, 32 103(a) Wilson, Kitaura 23–27, 31, 32
Overall
Outcome
17–34

REVERSED