Ex Parte Katz et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 25, 2019

15144209 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 25, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
15/144,209 05/02/2016 Itay Katz
22852 7590 01/29/2019
FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER
LLP
901 NEW YORK A VENUE, NW
WASHINGTON, DC 20001-4413
UNITED ST A TES OF AMERICA
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
l 1968.00ll-05000 1055
EXAMINER
CHOWDHURY, AFROZA Y
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2628
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/29/2019 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):
regional-desk@finnegan.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte IT A Y KATZ and AMNON SHENFELD
Appeal2018-007358
Application 15/144,209
Technology Center 2600
Before JOHNNY A. KUMAR, JASON J. CHUNG, and
NORMAN H. BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judges.
KUMAR, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL 1
1 Appellants have filed related Appeals in copending applications: U.S.
Patent Application No. 14/345,592; U.S. Patent Application No. 15/060,533;
U.S. Patent Application No. 15/090,527; U.S. Patent Application No.
15/096,674; and U.S. Patent Application No. 15/256,481. Br. 3.
Appeal2018-007358
Application 15/144,209
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellants2 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § I34(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 57-76. Claims 1-56 have been cancelled. Br. 30-34. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Illustrative Claim
Illustrative claim 57 under appeal reads as follows:
57. An augmented reality device, comprising:
at least one processor configured to:
receive, from an image sensor, video frames of
image information associated with a real world scene;
detect, in the image information, a predefined hand
gesture performed by a user;
designate an area of selected image information in
the video frames, wherein the selected image information
is associated with the real world scene that does not
include the user's hand, the designated area being
associated with the detected predefined hand gesture; and
track the selected image information associated
with the real world scene in the designated area.
Rejection on Appeal
Claims 57-76 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I02(e) as being
anticipated by Ota (US 2013/0050069 Al, published Feb. 28, 2013).
Appellants ' Contentions
1. Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 57,
68, and 76 under 35 U.S.C. § I02(e) because
Ota fails to disclose, for example, "designat[ing] an
area of selected image information in the video frames,
wherein the selected image information is associated with the
2 Appellants identify eyeSight Mobile Technologies Ltd., as the real party in
interest. Br. 2.
2
Appeal2018-007358
Application 15/144,209
real world scene that does not include the user's hand ... ;
and track[ing] the selected image information" as recited in
claim 57, and similarly recited in independent claims 68 and 76.
Br. 8-21.
2. Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 58
and 69 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) because
Ota fails to disclose "wherein the predefined hand gesture
includes drawing a contour of the designated area," as
recited in claims 5 8 and 69.
Br. 21-24.
3. Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 63
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) because
Ota fails to disclose "captur[ing] a frame from the video frames
of image information in associated with a second predefined
hand gesture detected," as recited in claim 63.
Br. 24--23.
Issue on Appeal
Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 57-76 as being anticipated?
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejection in light of Appellants'
arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants'
conclusions. Except as noted herein, we adopt as our own: ( 1) the findings
and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which the appeal is
taken (Final Act. 3-15); and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the
Examiner's Answer (Ans. 2-7) in response to the Appellants' Appeal Brief.
We concur with the conclusions reached by the Examiner. We highlight the
following.
3
Appeal2018-007358
Application 15/144,209
As to Appellants' above contention 1, we are not persuaded the
Examiner erred. We agree with the Examiner that Ota teaches all the claim
elements of claims 57, 68, and 76. Final Act. 10-12; Ans. 2-7 (citing Ota
,r,r 45, 48-50, and 61). In particular, we agree with the Examiner's finding
regarding Ota's disclosure:
Note: any real world content or object ( e.g. knob, slide bar,
picture, etc.) without user's touch (before superimposed) is
interpreted as "the selected image information is associated
with the real world scene that does not include the user's
hand") ....
Once the user's hand or other object is detected the feature point
can be continuously tracked in time to detect the motion of the
hand).
Ans. 3--4 ( emphasis omitted).
As to Appellants' contentions 2 and 3 regarding claims 58, 63, and 69
(Br. 8-28), the Examiner has rebutted each of those arguments supported by
sufficient evidence. (Ans. 5-7). Therefore, we adopt the Examiner's
findings and underlying reasoning, which are incorporated herein by
reference. We see no error in these unrebutted findings.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's § 102 rejection of claims 5 7,
58, 63, 68, 69, and 76 as well as dependent claims 59, 60-62, 64--67, and
70-75 not separately argued.
We observe no Reply Brief is of record to rebut the Examiner's
findings and responses to Appellants' arguments about the disputed features.
Therefore, in the absence of persuasive rebuttal evidence or argument to
persuade us otherwise, we adopt the Examiner's findings and underlying
reasoning, which are incorporated herein by reference. Consequently, we
sustain the rejection of claims 57-76.
4
Appeal2018-007358
Application 15/144,209
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's rejections of claims 57-76 as being
anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § I02(e).
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
5