Ex Parte Kutliroff et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 7, 2017

13972621 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 7, 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.
13/972,621 08/21/2013 Gershom Kutliroff 42P60721 7870
45209 7590 03/09/2017
BLAKELY SOKOLOFF TAYLOR & ZAFMAN
1279 Oakmead Parkway
Sunnyvale, CA 94085-4040
EXAMINER
MAZUMDER, TAPAS
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2616
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/09/2017 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):
inteldocs_docketing @ cpaglobal. com
Database_Group@bstz.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte INTEL CORPORATION1
Appeal 2016-007521
Application 13/972,621
Technology Center 2600
Before BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, JEREMY J. CURCURI, and
AMBER L. HAGY, Administrative Patent Judges.
BAUMEISTER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejections of claims 1—20. App. Br. 3.2 We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.
1 Gershom Kutliroff and Maoz Madmoni are named as inventors.
2 Rather than repeat the Examiner’s positions and Appellant’s arguments
their entirety, we refer to the following documents for their respective
details: the Final Action mailed July 22, 2015 (“Final Act.”); the Appeal
Brief filed January 5, 2016 (“App. Br.”); the Examiner’s Answer mailed
June 3, 2016 (“Ans.”); and the Reply Brief filed August 2, 2016
(“Reply Br.”).
Appeal 2016-007521
Application 13/972,621
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant describes the present invention as follows:
Systems and methods for projecting graphics onto an
available surface, tracking a user’s interactions with the
projected graphics, and providing feedback to the user regarding
the tracked interactions are described. In some embodiments, the
feedback is provided via updated projected graphics onto the
surface. In some embodiments, the feedback is provided via an
electronic screen.
Abstract.
Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the appealed
claims:
1. A method comprising:
projecting an image onto a surface;
acquiring depth data of a user interacting with the
projected image on the surface;
tracking movement of a user’s body part interacting with
the image using the acquired depth data;
processing the user’s interactions with the projected image
based on the tracked movements;
causing to be displayed a representation of the user's body
part interacting with the projected image.
Claims 1,3,5, 13, 15, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as obvious over Roeber (US 2004/0136564 Al; published July 15, 2004) in
view ofYagishita (US 2013/0307773 Al; published Nov. 21, 2013).
Claims 2 and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious
over Roeber in view ofYagishita and Kim (US 2014/0254883 Al; published
Sept. 11,2014).
2
Appeal 2016-007521
Application 13/972,621
Claims 4, 6, 8, 9, 16, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as obvious over Roeber in view of Yagishita and Stamer (US 8,228,315 Bl;
issued July 24, 2012).
Claims 10-12 and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over Roeber in view of Yagishita, Wang (US 2013/0249786 Al;
published Sept. 26, 2013) and Kapur (US 2013/0336550 Al; published
Dec. 19, 2013).
Claims 7 and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious
over Roeber in view of Yagishita, Stamer, and Areas (US 2014/0267588 Al;
published Sept. 18, 2014).
We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues
identified by Appellant, and in light of the arguments and evidence produced
thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential).
FINDINGS AND CONTENTIONS
The Examiner finds that Roeber teaches every limitation of
independent claim 1 except for the last limitation of “causing to be displayed
a representation of the user’s body part interacting with the projected
image.” Final Act. 6—7. The Examiner finds that Yagishita teaches this
final limitation (id. at 7—8) and that motivation existed to modify Roeber so
as to incorporate this teaching of Yagishita (id. at 8).
Appellant asserts that “neither Roeber nor Yagishita disclose[s] or
suggests] a process of displaying representation of a user’s body part
interacting with a projected image.” App. Br. 10. Appellant notes that
Yagishita discloses performing an action of pressing a button
icon on the projected image by bringing a finger into a projection
optical path so that the finger comes close to the button icon. As
3
Appeal 2016-007521
Application 13/972,621
a result, a shadow produced by the finger changes its shape from
a first shape to a second shape so as to move from an upper part
toward a lower part of the screen.
Id. In Appellant’s view, “there is no disclosure or suggestion in Yagishita of
displaying [a] representation of the user’s finger interacting with the button
icon since a shadow is not a displayed representation.” Id.
In response, the Examiner further explains the rationale underlying the
rejection: “if a shadow (representation of user’s body part/finger) is
produced on a screen and the shadow is working as a feedback to the user,
then representation of shadow on the screen is displayed on the screen.”
Ans. 4.
The Examiner also relies on extrinsic evidence to demonstrate the
reasonableness of the adopted construction of the term “display.” Id. (citing
a general purpose dictionary, which defines “display” as, inter alia, “to
make evident”). The Examiner reasons that “when a shadow of a finger is
produced on a display screen and [the] user can see the shadow, [the]
produced shadow [reasonably may be interpreted as constituting] a displayed
representation of [a] body part.” Id.
ANALYSIS
As noted by the Examiner (Ans. 4), Appellant has not proffered any
alternative definition of the claim term “display.” See generally App. Br.;
Reply Br. Nor has Appellant pointed to any evidence in support of its
position that the Examiner’s construction of the term was unreasonably
broad. Based on the record before us, then, Appellant has not persuaded us
of error in the Examiner’s construction of the term “display,” and we adopt
that construction. It is well settled that arguments of counsel cannot take the
4
Appeal 2016-007521
Application 13/972,621
place of factually supported objective evidence. See, e.g., In re Huang, 100
F.3d 135, 139-40 (Fed. Cir. 1996);
In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
Accordingly, we will sustain the obviousness rejection over Roeber
and Yagishita of independent claim 1, as well as claims 3,5,13,15, and 20,
which are not argued separately. See App. Br. 7—11; see also 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
We likewise sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejections of
dependent claims 2, 4, 6—12, 14, and 16—19 over the additionally cited prior
art listed above. Appellant has not particularly pointed out errors in the
Examiner’s reasoning regarding the additional teachings of the further cited
art, but merely asserts patentability based upon these claims’ dependency
from independent claims 1 and 13. App. Br. 10—11.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—20 is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
5