Ex Parte Katz et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 25, 2019

15090527 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 25, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
15/090,527 04/04/2016 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-03000 7244
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 ITAY KATZ and AMNON SHENFELD
Appeal2018-006065
Application 15/090,527
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. 15/256,481; U.S. Patent Application No.
15/096,674; and U.S. Patent Application No. 15/144,209. Br. 3.
Appeal2018-006065
Application 15/090,527
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellants2 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § I34(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 57-78. Claims 1-56 have been cancelled. Br. 36. 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, image information associated
with a real world scene;
detect, in the image information, a predefined hand gesture
performed by a user; and
record at least one of video information or audio
information associated with a time prior to the detected
predefined hand gesture and based, at least in part, on the
detection.
Rejections on Appeal
Claims 57---61, 68, 74, and 78 are provisionally rejected on the ground
of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 57, 58,
61-63, and 74 of copending Application No. 15/096,674. 3
Claims 57, 61, 62, and 65-78 are rejected underpre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ I02(e) as being anticipated by Ota (US 2013/0050069 Al, published Feb.
28, 2013).
2 Appellants identify eyeSight Mobile Technologies Ltd., as the real party in
interest. Br. 2.
3 Arguments are not presented for this provisional rejection. Therefore, we
affirm the Examiner's rejection proforma. Except for our ultimate decision,
this rejection of these claims is not discussed further herein.
2
Appeal2018-006065
Application 15/090,527
Claims 59 and 60 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
being unpatentable over Ota (US 2013/0050069) in view of Vadhavana et al.
(US 2012/0062602 Al, published Mar. 15, 2012).
Claims 58, 63, and 64 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § I03(a)
as being unpatentable over Ota (US 2013/0050069) in view of Chau (US
2009/0147991 Al, published June 11, 2009).
Appellants ' Contentions
1. Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 57
under 35 U.S.C. § I02(e) because
Ota fails to disclose, for example, "record at least one of video
information or audio information associated with a time prior to the
detected predefined hand gesture and based, at least in part, on
the detection," as recited in claim 57.
Br. 9-13.
2. Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 61
and 72 under 35 U.S.C. § I02(e) because
Ota does not disclose the "sounds recorded by a microphone" recited
in claim 61, and similarly recited in claim 72.
Br. 13-16.
3. Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 66
under 35 U.S.C. § I02(e) because
Ota does not disclose "captur[ing] a frame from the video information
in response to the detected second predefined hand gesture," as recited
in claim 66.
Br. 16-21.
3
Appeal2018-006065
Application 15/090,527
4. Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 59
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 because
Ota and Vadhavana, alone or in combination, fail to disclose the
combination of dependent claim 59, including, for example, "cause a
video or audio recording associated with the image information to be
tagged based, at least in part, on the detection or detection of a
second predefined hand gesture.
Br. 22-28.
5. Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 58
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 because
Ota and Chau, alone or in combination, fail to disclose the
combination of dependent claim 58, including, for example, "wherein
the time is a predefined amount of time defined by the user:"
Br. 28-30.
Chau fails to disclose "a predefined amount of time" prior to detection
of a predefined hand gesture"
Br. 30-31.
6. Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 63
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 because
Ota and Chau, alone or in combination, fail to disclose the
combination of dependent claim 63, including, for example, "stop
recording the at least one of video information or audio information in
response to the detected second predefined hand gesture."
Br. 31-33.
7. Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 64
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 because
Ota and Chau, alone or in combination, fail to disclose the
combination of dependent claim 64, including, for example, "change a
recording mode from a first mode to a second mode."
Br. 33-35.
4
Appeal2018-006065
Application 15/090,527
Issues on Appeal
Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 57, 61, 62, and 65-78 as being
anticipated?
Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 58---60, 63, and 64 as being
obvious?
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections 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. 7-23); and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the
Examiner's Answer (Ans. 2-10) in response to the Appellants' Appeal
Brief. We concur with the conclusions reached by the Examiner. We
highlight the following.
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 claim 57. Final Act. 7-9, and 18-19; Ans. 2-3 (citing Ota
,r,r [0045], [0050], [0063], and [0066]). In particular, we agree with the
Examiner that "Ota's cameras and/or detectors are capable of recording
user's hand associated with a time prior to the detected predefined hand
gesture and based, at least in part, on the detection." Ans. 3 ( emphasis
omitted).
As to Appellants' contentions 2 through 7 regarding claims 58, 59, 61,
63, 64, and 66 (Br. 13-35), the Examiner has rebutted each of those
arguments supported by sufficient evidence. (Ans. 4--10). Therefore, we
5
Appeal2018-006065
Application 15/090,527
adopt the Examiner's findings and underlying reasoning, which are
incorporated herein by reference. We see no error in these unrebutted
findings.
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 57-78.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's rejections of claims 57-60, 63---66, and 70-
73 as being anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).
We affirm the Examiner's rejections of claims 61, 62, 67-69, and 74--
76 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
We summarily affirm the Examiner's provisional rejection of claims
57, 61, 63, and 67 on the ground ofnonstatutory obviousness-type double
patenting.
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
6