Ex Parte Kutliroff et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 7, 201713972621 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 7, 2017) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation