Ex Parte Jeon

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 16, 2017

13373930 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 16, 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.
13/373,930 12/06/2011 Kwang Ha Jeon 0203-0615 4039
68103 7590
Jefferson IP Law, LLP
1130 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 420
Washington, DC 20036
EXAMINER
NGUYEN, KIMBINH T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2612
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/18/2017 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):
u sdocketing @ j effersonip .com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte KWANG HA JEON
Appeal 2015-008116
Application 13/373,930
Technology Center 2600
Before ERIC S. FRAHM, TERRENCE W. McMILLIN, and
STEVEN M. AMUNDSON, Administrative Patent Judges.
FRAHM, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2015-008116
Application 13/373,930
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the final
rejection of claims 1—14. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We
reverse.
The Examiner has rejected claims 1—14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Kim, Ji-Sun, Tangible User Interface for CA VE™
based on Augmented Reality Technique, pp. 1—119 (December 2005)
(hereinafter, “Kim”) and Izumi (US 2011/0141009 Al; published June 16,
2011 and effectively filed Dec. 2, 2010) (Final Act. 2—8; Ans. 3—8).
We have reviewed Appellant’s arguments in the Briefs (App. Br. 2—5;
Reply Br. 2—3), the Examiner’s rejection (Final Act. 2—8; Ans. 3—8), and the
Examiner’s response (Ans. 8—10) to Appellant’s arguments.
Appellant discloses and claims the use of a stencil buffer (see Spec.,
Fig. 1, element 170; Fig. 2, element 260; Fig. 3, step 331). Spec. Tflf 7, 27,
42-47. The Examiner relies upon Izumi (see Tffl 3, 98, 102, 103, 114—124,
128-130, 138, 139; Figs. 3, 10, 11, 13, 14, 30, 32-35, 38-41, 4A46) as
teaching a stencil buffer (Final Act. 4; Ans. 4; Adv. Act. 2). However, we
find no disclosure in Izumi of a stencil buffer, or even a buffer, as recited in
independent claims 1 and 8, and as similarly recited in remaining dependent
claims 2—7 and 9—14. Although the Examiner determines (Ans. 4, 8—10) that
Izumi discloses a computer 110 for extracting the tip of a finger 601 using
image extraction unit 302 shown in Figure 3 in order to control an object in a
virtual monitor 111, nothing in the record supports an interpretation that
2
Appeal 2015-008116
Application 13/373,930
Izumi discloses, teaches, or even suggests a stencil buffer as disclosed and
claimed by Appellant.1
Izumi discloses controlling an object of the virtual monitor 111 using
an extracted finger tip of a finger 601 extracted by an image extraction unit
302 as shown in Figure 3. However, Izumi is silent as to using a buffer, and
specifically a stencil buffer, to perform the operations recited in claim 1.
And, we will not resort to speculation or assumptions to cure the deficiencies
in the Examiner’s fact finding. See In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017
(CCPA 1967). Therefore, we concur with Appellant’s arguments (App. Br.
4; Reply Br. 2—3) that the Examiner erred in finding that Izumi, and thus the
combination of the references, teaches or suggests a stencil buffer as recited
in claims 1 and 8.2
As such, we find that the Examiner improperly relies upon Izumi to
teach or suggest the disputed claim limitation. In addition, we note that Kim
does not remedy the above-noted deficiencies in Izumi. It follows that the
Examiner has erred in concluding that the combination of Kim and Izumi
renders independent claims 1 and 8 unpatentable.
1 Claim 1 recites, in pertinent part, “a stencil buffer configured to buffer
information of the finger tip not to render the image of the finger in the
virtual monitor such that an object of the virtual monitor is controlled by the
fingertip extracted from the image of the user’s finger.”
2 We recognize that Appellant’s arguments present additional issues.
Because we were persuaded of error by this issue concerning the presence of
a stencil buffer as set forth in claim 1 and similarly recited in claim 8, we do
not reach the additional issues.
3
Appeal 2015-008116
Application 13/373,930
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejections
of independent claims 1 and 8, as well as claims 2—7 and 9—14 depending
respectively therefrom.
CONCLUSION
Appellant has persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s decision to
reject claims 1—14.
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1—14 is reversed.
REVERSED
4