ABB TECHNOLOGY AG

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jul 1, 2020

14054531 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jul. 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.
14/054,531 10/15/2013 Jens DOPPELHAMER 65040-256133 9776
141164 7590 07/01/2020
Barnes & Thornburg LLP (ABB)
11 S. Meridian Street
Indianapolis, IN 46204
EXAMINER
LAM, VINH TANG
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2628
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/01/2020 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):
INDocket@btlaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JENS DOPPELHAMER, KRISTOFFER HUSOY, MARTIN
HOLLENDER, MIKKO RISSANEN, and TORGEIR ENKERUD
Appeal 2019-000927
Application 14/054,531
Technology Center 2600
Before DEBRA K. STEPHENS, JON M. JURGOVAN, and
ADAM J. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
STEPHENS, 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, 4–15, and 19–25 (see Final Act. 1).2
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.

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 the assignee, ABB
Schweiz AG, (Appeal Br. 2).
2 Claims 2, 3 and 16–18 have been withdrawn from consideration (Final
Act. 1).
Appeal 2019-000927
Application 14/054,531

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a device and method for the gesture control
of a screen in a control room (Spec., Abstract, ¶ 5). Claim 1, reproduced
below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1 An operating and observation system for a technical
installation, the operating and observation system comprising:
a gesture controller configured to operate components of
the technical installation and for presenting at least one of
measured values, process variables and state messages from the
components of the technical installation in a control room;
at least one large display screen in the control room, and a
plurality of user workstations for presenting, in the control room,
the components of the technical installation and the at least one
of the measured values, process variables and state messages
from the components of the technical installation; and
a plurality of sensors each configured to recognize
gestures constituting physical movements,
wherein the large display screen and the user workstations
respectively have therein installed a motion recognition and
motion controller configured to recognize and control motion,
wherein the motion recognition and motion controller is
configured to allow at least one of operation and polling of at
least one of the components, the measured values, the process
variables and the state messages from the components of the at
least one of the technical installation by means of a gesture from
at least one user in the control room, the gesture constituting a
physical movement,
wherein the motion recognition and motion controller
comprises a position recognition controller configured to
determine a position of individual users of the technical
installation within the control room, by using a model of the
control room to identify a target system to which a gesture of the
at least one user relates, the model using a first component to
depict the control room and showing where at least one device is
situated in the control room, and
wherein the motion recognition and motion controller is
configured to, based on the gesture of the at least one user, send
Appeal 2019-000927
Application 14/054,531

3
selection and position information to the identified target system
for evaluation and initiation of appropriate actions.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Gilbert
Friedrich
Thorn
Geppert
Ihara
Vennelakanti
Park
Christiane
US 2007/0132779 A1
US 2008/0100570 A1
US 2009/0164896 A1
US 2010/0246571 A1
US 2013/0120449 A1
US 2013/0241834 A1
US 2013/0265226 A1
DE 102004021379
June 14, 2007
May 1, 2008
June 25, 2009
Sep. 30, 2010
May 16, 2013
Sep. 19, 2013
Oct. 10, 2013
June 16, 2005

REJECTIONS3
Claim 15 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Christiane (Final Act. 30–33).
Claims 1, 9, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Christiane and Ihara (id. at 34–39).
Claims 4, 5, 10, and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Christiane, Ihara, and Vennelakanti (id. at 39–43).
Claims 6–8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Christiane, Ihara, and Friedrich (id. at 43–46).

3 The rejection of claim 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a); claims 1, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10,
13, 15, 19–21, and 23–25 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f); and claims 1–20 under
35 U.S.C. § 112(b) have been withdrawn by the Examiner (Ans. 3).

Appeal 2019-000927
Application 14/054,531

4
Claims 12–14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Christiane, Ihara, Vennelakanti, and Friedrich (id. at 46–
49).
Claim 19 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Christiane, Ihara, and Geppert (id. at 49–51).
Claims 21 and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Christiane, Ihara, and Gilbert (id. at 51–55).
Claims 23 and 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Christiane, Ihara, and Thorn (id. at 55–57).
Claim 25 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Christiane, Ihara, and Park (id. at 58–59).
We have only considered those arguments that Appellant actually
raised in the Briefs. Arguments Appellant could have made but chose not to
make in the Briefs have not been considered and are deemed to be waived
(See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv)).
OPINION
35 U.S.C. § 102(b): Claim 15
Appellant contends the invention, as recited in claim 15, is not
anticipated by Christiane (Appeal Br. 7). The issue presented by the
arguments is whether Christiane discloses:
wherein the operation of the motion recognition and motion
controller comprises operating a position recognition controller
to determine a position of individual users of the technical
installation within the control room, by using a model of the
control room to identify a target system to which a gesture of the
at least one user relates, the model using a first component to
depict the control room and showing where at least one device is
situated in the control room,
Appeal 2019-000927
Application 14/054,531

5
as recited in claim 15. Appellant argues “Christiane describes presenting
information to a user regarding components of an industrial plant on a
screen, in a hologram, in acoustic signals, or in haptic signals, and sending
commands from the user back to the remote components of the industrial
plant” (id. at 8). According to Appellant,
[w]hile the commands in Christiane may be determined based on
gestures of the user, the commands are directed to remote
components in the industrial plant (comparable to the recited
‘technical installation’, which is recited separately from the
‘control room’ in claim 15), rather than to target systems that are
gestured towards in the control room and identified based on a
model of the control room
(id.).
We do not find Appellant’s argument persuasive. Christiane describes
“user inputs to operate the system are detected by means of the command
detection unit” and “[t]he command detection unit advantageously has an
image recognition unit for detecting a body movement of a user”
(Christiane, 2 ¶¶ 1, 10). Christiane describes these body movements may be
“gestures and facial expressions” (id. ¶ 11; Final Act. 33).
The Examiner finds:
The “control room” is NOT remote as argued by the appellant.
[Christiane at page 1 ¶ 4] explicitly state[s] that “central control
rooms … operator panels equipped. These operator panels are
mainly to be found in manufacturing plants”. This would mean
that the “control room” is located inside the industrial plant.
(id. (emphasis added)).
We agree with the Examiner’s finding. Indeed, Christiane discloses
“the user 14 may be located at one of the system 2 remote location”
Appeal 2019-000927
Application 14/054,531

6
(Christiane, 3, emphasis added). Therefore, (1) the user 14 may be located
at (i.e., within) the system 2 (the claimed “technical installation”), or (2) the
user 14 may be located remote from the system 2. Thus, Christiane does not
require the user to be located remotely, but rather, offers it as an option.
Appellant argues “the control room is a subset of the technical
installation” (Reply Br. 2–3); however, this is not recited in the claims, nor
is the relationship clear from the claims. Appellant points to paragraph 384
of the Specification as support for their interpretation; however, this
description does not explicitly define either term and is described as “an
exemplary embodiment.” [L]imitations are not to be read into the claims
from the specification” (In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir.
1993) (citing In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321 (Fed. Cir. 1989)). We note that
to the extent that one (or more) disclosed embodiment of Appellant’s
invention may be narrower, the Appellant is not precluded during continuing
prosecution from amending the claims to limit them to this narrower
embodiment.
Appellant proffers an additional argument in the Reply Brief that
“Christiane does not disclose a model at all, and certainly does not disclose
a model of a control room” (Reply Br. 3). Appellant had an opportunity to
raise this argument in the Appeal Brief, and has provided this record with no
showing of good cause for not doing so. In the absence of a showing of
good cause by Appellant, the new arguments by Appellant are deemed
waived (see 37 C.F.R. § 41.41(b)(2); cf. Optivus Tech., Inc. v. Ion Beam
Appl’ns S.A., 469 F.3d 978, 989 (Fed. Cir 2006) (“[A]n issue not raised by

4 Appellant identifies this paragraph as paragraph 41; however, in the as-
filed Specification, this is paragraph 38.
Appeal 2019-000927
Application 14/054,531

7
an appellant in its opening brief ... is waived.”) (internal citations and
quotation marks omitted)).
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding
Christiane discloses the limitation as recited in claim 15. Therefore, we
affirm the rejection of claim 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by
Christiane.

35 U.S.C. § 103(a): Claims 1, 9, and 20
Appellant argues claim 1 on the same basis as set forth in claim 15
and further added that Ihara fails to cure the deficiencies of Christiane
(Appeal Br. 9–10). As explained, Christiane is not deficient, so the above
discussion applies equally well to claim 1.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding
Christiane and Ihara teach the limitation as recited in claim 1. Dependent
claims 9 and 20 thus fall with claim 1, from which they depend. Therefore,
we affirm the rejection of claims 1, 9, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over Christiane and Ihara.

35 U.S.C. § 103(a): Claims 4 and 5
Appellant contends the invention, as recited in claim 4, is not obvious
over Christiane, Ihara, and Vennelakanti (Appeal Br. 10). The issue
presented by the arguments is whether the combination of Christiane, Ihara,
and Vennelakanti teaches or suggests “wherein the motion recognition and
motion controller is further configured to: provide an identification for a
person who is in front of the large screen and an identification of the person
Appeal 2019-000927
Application 14/054,531

8
is usable as a basis for presenting views tailored specifically to the identified
person,” as recited in claim 4. (Appeal Br. 16, claim 4 (emphasis added)).
Appellant argues “Vennelakanti makes no mention or suggestion of
identifying a person in front of a screen and using that identification to
present views on the screen that are tailored specifically to that identified
person” (Appeal Br. 11). Appellant further emphasizes “it follows that the
facial recognition in Vennelakanti is not used as a basis for presenting views
tailored for the recognized person” (Reply Br. 4).
The Examiner finds Vennelakanti teaches this limitation (Final Act.
40–41 (citing Vennelakanti ¶ 23; Table 1)). We are unable to find where in
the reference the feature of “an identification of the person is usable as a
basis for presenting views tailored specifically to the identified person” can
be found. The Examiner finds “F[igure] 4 explicitly teaches ‘a face
recognition’ would obviously provide identification of a person ... Table 1
explicitly teaches the ‘face recognition’ positively identifies the person as
‘Ron’ and presents views for ‘Ron’ as ‘That is Ron’” (Ans. 5). This
description in Vennelakanti, however, teaches “possible tags,” but the
Examiner has not shown or explained why Vennelakanti’s teaching of
recognition of responses and assigning tags to the relevant portions of
speech, teaches using the recognition of responses “as a basis for presenting
views tailored specifically to the identified person,” as recited in claim 4.
Accordingly, Appellant has persuaded us the Examiner failed to show the
combination of Christiane, Ihara, and Vennelakanti teaches or suggests the
limitation as recited in claim 4. Therefore, we do not sustain the rejection of
claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for obviousness over Christiane, Ihara, and
Vennelakanti.
Appeal 2019-000927
Application 14/054,531

9

35 U.S.C. § 103(a): Claims 6–8, 10, 11, 19, and 21–25
Claims 6–8, 10, 11, 19, and 21–25 depend from independent claim 1.
Appellant did not separately argue these claims; therefore, these claims fall
with independent claim 1. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claims
6–8, 10, 11, 19, and 21–25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejections are affirmed-in-part.
More specifically,
We affirm the rejection of claim 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Christiane.
We affirm the rejection of claims 1, 9, and 20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Christiane and Ihara.
We affirm the rejection of claims 6–8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Christiane, Ihara, and Friedrich.
We affirm the rejection of claims 12–14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Christiane, Ihara, Vennelakanti, and Friedrich.
We affirm the rejection of claim 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Christiane, Ihara, and Geppert.
We affirm the rejection of claims 21 and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Christiane, Ihara, and Gilbert.
We affirm the rejection of claims 23 and 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Christiane, Ihara, and Thorn.
We affirm the rejection of claim 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Christiane, Ihara, and Park.
Appeal 2019-000927
Application 14/054,531

10
We reverse the rejection of claims 4 and 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Christiane, Ihara, and Vennelakanti.

DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
15 102(b) Christiane 15
1, 9, 20 103(a) Christiane and Ihara 1, 9, 20
4, 5, 10, 11 103(a) Christiane, Ihara, and
Vennelakanti
10, 11 4, 5
6–8 103(a) Christiane, Ihara,
Vennelakanti, and
Friedrich
6–8
19 103(a) Christiane, Ihara, and
Geppert
19
21, 22 103(a) Christiane, Ihara, and
Gilbert
21, 22
23, 24 103(a) Christiane, Ihara, and
Thorn
23, 24
25 103(a) Christiane, Ihara, and
Park
25
Overall
Outcome:
1, 6–8, 9–
11, 15, 19–
25
4, 5

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)).
Appeal 2019-000927
Application 14/054,531

11
AFFIRMED-IN-PART