Ex Parte Matthews

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 24, 2016

12144114 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 24, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 12/144,114 06/23/2008 Kim Matthews 47394 7590 03/28/2016 HITT GAINES, PC ALCA TEL-LUCENT PO BOX 832570 RICHARDSON, TX 75083 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. MATTHEWS29 1858 EXAMINER ELAHEE,MDS ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2653 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/28/2016 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): docket@hittgaines.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) u-NITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte KIM MATTHEWS Appeal2014-004965 Application 12/144, 114 Technology Center 2600 Before JOHN P. PINKERTON, JEFFREY A. STEPHENS, and SCOTT B. HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judges. STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant 1 seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from the Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1-21, which are all the claims pending in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). We reverse. 1 The real party in interest is identified as Alcatel-Lucent USA Inc. (App. Br. 3.) Appeal2014-004965 Application 12/144, 114 Claimed Subject Matter The claimed invention generally relates to a video conferencing device. (Title.) Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative: 1. A video conferencing device for use with a communications device, comprising: a data collection module for collecting data regarding an orientation of a face of a participant in a video conference relative to a camera, said camera being configured to capture images of said face for transmission by said communications device during said video conference; and a facial correction module associated with said data collection module, said facial correction module being configured to modify said captured images by modifying an orientation of said face therein such that said communications device transmits said modified images during said video conference, the facial correction module being configured to perform said modifying based on the collected data. Rejections Claims 1-3, 6-10, 13-17, 20, and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 102(e) as anticipated by Kim (US 2007/0200925 Al, published Aug. 30, 2007). (Final Act. 3--4.) Claims 4, 5, 11, 12, 18, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Kim and Oliver (US 6,693,672 Bl, issued Feb. 17, 2004). (Final Act. 5---6.) ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellant's arguments the Examiner erred (App. Br. 5-7; Reply Br. 2--4). We concur with Appellant's argument (App. Br. 6; Reply Br. 2-3) that the Examiner 2 Appeal2014-004965 Application 12/144, 114 has not shown Kim discloses said facial correction module being configured to modifj; said captured images by modifj;ing an orientation of said face therein such that said communications device transmits said modified images during said video conference, as recited by claim 1. Appellant argues that "[i]nstead of the face of the participant in a modified orientation, the portions of Kim cited in by the office action disclose the real-time concealment of a user's image and the transmission of a substituted image, described as an 'overlay' or 'decorative' image." (App. Br. 6.) The Examiner concludes the claim does not require "transmitting the actual face of the participant in a modified orientation during a video conference," and focuses on claim 1 's limitation that the communications device transmits said modified images during said video conference. (Ans. 6.) The Examiner finds "Kim teaches that during video conference, user's real time movement/moving images is captured and superimposed [i.e., modified] by user's selected image or graphics to create a combined image [i.e., modified images]." (Ans. 6 (alterations in original).) Although the Examiner is correct that claim 1 recites transmitting modified images, the images must be modified by modifj;ing an orientation of said face therein. Having reviewed the portions of Kim cited by the Examiner, we agree with Appellant that "[i]t is the position and/or orientation of this overlay or decorative image that is modified by Kim, not the captured image of the face of a participant." (Reply Br 2.) Thus, the cited portions of Kim do not disclose modifying an orientation of said face, as recited in claim 1. Because this issue is dispositive with respect to all claims on appeal, we need not reach the second issue presented by 3 Appeal2014-004965 Application 12/144, 114 Appellant's arguments, which is whether the claim precludes any other modification of the images (see App. Br. 5---6). In view of the foregoing, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 102(e) as anticipated by Kim. For the same reasons, we do not sustain the rejection of independent claims 8 and 15, which recite limitations commensurate in scope with the limitations of claim 1 discussed herein, and we do not sustain the rejection of dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-21. DECISION We reverse the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-21. REVERSED 4