Ex Parte Mistry et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 27, 2018

14015926 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 27, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
14/015,926 08/30/2013 Pranav Mistry
121588 7590 03/29/2018
Baker Botts L.L.P./Samsung
2001 Ross Avenue
SUITE 700
Dallas, TX 75201
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.
082499.0108 5561
EXAMINER
PATEL, PREMAL R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2623
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/29/2018 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):
PTOmaill@bakerbotts.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte PRANA V MISTRY, SAJID SADI, LINING YAO, and
JOHN SNA VEL Y 1
Appeal2017-010511
Application 14/015,926
Technology Center 2600
Before ERIC B. CHEN, MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, and
MICHAEL M. BARRY, Administrative Patent Judges.
BARRY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1 and 3-52, which are all the pending claims. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm.
1 Appellants identify the Applicant, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., as the
real party in interest. App. Br. 3.
Appeal 2017-010511
Application 14/015,926
Introduction
Appellants' disclosure and claims relate to a wearable electronic
device. Spec. i-f 2, Title. A device worn on a limb of a user detects "a
gesture-recognition-activation event" as well as movement of the limb, and
then processes the gesture as an input to the device. Spec., Abstract.
Independent claims 33 and dependent claim 52 are representative of
the claims on appeal:
33. A method comprising:
detecting, by one or more of the sensors of the wearable
computing device when worn on a limb of a user, at least one of
a plurality of gesture-recognition-activation events that each
activate recognition of one or more gestures specifically
associated with that activation event, each gesture comprising a
predetermined movement of the limb of the user, the plurality
of gesture-recognition activation events comprising:
a first gesture-recognition activation event
associated with a first set of one or more gestures; and
a second gesture-recognition activation event
associated with a second set of one or more gestures,
wherein the second set is different than the first set;
detecting, by one or more sensors of the wearable
computing device worn on the limb of the user, a movement of
the limb;
determining, by the wearable computing device, that at
least part of the detected movement corresponds to at least one
of the gestures specifically associated with at least one of the
activation events; and
processing, by the wearable computing device, the
gesture as input to the computing device.
2
Appeal 2017-010511
Application 14/015,926
52. The wearable computing device of Claim 1,
wherein:
each gesture-recognition activation event comprises an
orientation of:
the limb of the user; or
the wearable device; and
each gesture comprises a movement of the limb of
the user or of the device relative to the orientation
corresponding to the gesture-recognition activation event.
App. Br. (Claims App'x) 21-22, 25.
Rejections and References
Claims 1, 3, 6-11, 15, 17-19, 22-27, 31, 33-35, 38--43, 47, 49, 50,
51, and 52 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Cauwels et al. (US 2013/01201016 Al; May 16, 2013), Tong et al. (US
2013/ 0278504 Al; Oct. 24, 2013), and Perski et al. (US 2012/0200494 Al;
Aug. 9, 2012). Final Act. 2-18.
Claims 4, 5, 12-14, 16, 20, 21, 28-30, 32, 36, 37, 44--46, and 48 stand
rejected under§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Cauwels, Tong, Perski, and
various other references. Final Act. 18-31.
ANALYSIS
The Board "reviews the obviousness rejection[ s] for error based upon
the issues identified by appellant, and in light of the arguments and evidence
produced thereon," and treats arguments not made as waived. Ex Parte
Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential) (cited with
approval in In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011)); see also
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
3
Appeal 2017-010511
Application 14/015,926
Appellants argue the independent claims 1, 17, and 33 together as a
group. App. Br. 8-12. We select claim 33 as representative of the group.
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). Appellants separately argue dependent claim
52. App. Br. 12-14. Appellants argue claims 3-16, 18-32, and 34--51 based
solely on dependency from the independent claims, see App. Br. 14, and,
therefore, those dependent claims stand or fall with claim 33. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
Claim 33
In rejecting claim 33, the Examiner finds Perski teaches the recited
requirements for detecting a "plurality of gesture-recognition activation
events comprising: a first gesture-recognition activation event associated
with a first set of one or more gestures; and a second gesture-recognition
activation event associated with a second set of one or more gestures,
wherein the second set is different than the first set." Final Act. 14--15
(citing Perski i-f 73). Appellants argue the Examiner errs in this finding
because Perski discloses first and second initializing gestures for a first and
second set of "controls," not for a first and second set of "gestures." App.
Br. 10. Appellants further contend that
even if Perski discloses a "first set of one or more gestures" and
a "second set of one or more gestures" the disputed part of
Appellant's independent claims is the requirement that the
second set of gesutres [sic] is different than the first set of
gestures. The Examiner fails to identify any portion of Perski
that discloses that feature.
Reply Br. 2 (brackets in original omitted).
Appellants' arguments are unpersuasive. Perski discloses "when the
initializing gesture is identified, switching to the second stage, the second
stage to detect a hand movement, ... and to control the device based on the
4
Appeal 2017-010511
Application 14/015,926
hand movement." Perski i-f 72. We agree with the Examiner that Perski's
initializing gestures constitute "gesture-recognition activation events," as
recited, that Perski teaches using these initialization gestures for switching
on (i.e., "activating") recognition of a corresponding "set of controls," and
that the set of controls is associated with a corresponding "set of gestures."
See Ans. 33.
Specifically, Perski discloses first and second initializing gestures that
activate switching to corresponding first and second next stages in which
there are "a first set of controls" and "a second (and typically different) set
of controls to achieve a new functionality of the device (e.g., a first set of
controls to control a media player mode and a second set of control[ s] to
operate an application such as Power-pointâ„¢)." Perski i-f 73. In the "second
stage" after the initialization gesture, for subsequent control of application
functionality, Perski teaches "to detect hand movement" and "control the
device based on the hand movement." Id. i-f 72.
The artisan of ordinary skill is "not an automaton." KSR Int 'l Co. v.
Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421 (2007). The artisan would have understood
that the controls for PowerPointâ„¢ differ from the controls for a media
player, and that the corresponding sets of hand gestures for those controls
also differ. In view of this, Appellants' contention that Perski neither
explicitly nor inherently discloses different sets of gestures for different
controls, see Reply Br. 3--4, is unpersuasive-the rejection relies on Perski's
explicit disclosure, not inherency, and we agree Perski's disclosure teaches
the disputed limitation.
Moreover, as the Examiner finds, and we agree, Tong also teaches a
"gesture-recognition activation event" associated with a set of gestures.
5
Appeal 2017-010511
Application 14/015,926
Ans. 33 (citing Tong i-fi-120, 42). Specifically Tong discloses "recogniz[ing]
a pre-defined start or initiation hand gesture that may be used by start/end
module 208 to initiate operation of gesture recognition engine 102 so that
gesture identification module 206 provides gesture commands 120 in
response to the recognition of dynamic hand gestures." Tong i142. Thus,
both Tong and Perski teach using an initial activating gesture to enable
recognition of a set of gestures for controlling an application. See Final Act.
3-5; Ans. 32-35.
Appellants argue the ordinarily skilled artisan would not have been
motivated to combine the teachings of Cauwels and Tong with Perski. App.
Br. 11-12. Specifically, Appellants contend "all the functionality of the
Cauwels-Tong system is available without multiple activation events, and
the Office has not identified any improvement that would occur by adding
multiple activation events to that system." Id. at 12; see also Reply Br. 3--4
( arguing "the Examiner's stated motivation is not supported by the
references" and "[t]he Examiner does not identify any support for the
assertion that Tang's functionality is limited").
Appellants do not persuade us of Examiner error in the finding of a
motivation to combine Perski with the teachings of Tong and Cauwels.
Cauwels does not teach gesture-recognition activation, and Appellants do
not challenge the Examiner's combination of Cauwels and Tong. As
discussed above, Tong teaches detecting only a single gesture-recognition
activation event. Perski teaches detecting multiple gesture-recognition
activation events. Thus, Perski teaches functionality beyond that taught by
Tong. The Examiner reasonably finds a skilled artisan would have been
motivated to combine Perski's detecting multiple gesture-recognition events
6
Appeal 2017-010511
Application 14/015,926
to enable different controlling different applications with Cauwels and Tong
because it adds to functionality. Ans. 35-36.
Appellants argue the Examiner's finding is akin to the scenario in
Active Video Networks, Inc. v. Verizon Communications, Inc., 694 F.3d 1312,
1327-28 (Fed. Cir. 2012), in which the rationale of"want[ing] to build
something better," that was "more efficient, cheaper," and was "something
new" was held to be insufficient as generic and conclusory. App. Br. 12.
While we recognize the danger of hindsight bias, Appellants do not persuade
us of Examiner error. Our reviewing court, the Federal Circuit, has
"repeatedly held that an implicit motivation to combine exists ... when a
suggestion may be gleaned from the prior art as a whole," and
[b ]ecause the desire to enhance commercial opportunities by
improving a product or process is universal-and even
common-sensical-we have held that there exists in these
situations a motivation to combine prior art references even
absent any hint of suggestion in the references themselves. In
such situations, the proper question is whether the ordinary
artisan possesses knowledge and skills rendering him capable
of combining the prior art references."
DyStar Textilfarben GmbH & Co. Deutsch/and KG v. CH Patrick Co., 464
F.3d 1356, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2006).
As the Examiner finds, adding Perski' s teaching of detecting multiple
gesture-recognition activation events essentially creates a "multiple" of
Tong's single gesture-recognition activation event teaching. Ans. 35-36.
This is akin to "duplication of parts," which has "no patentable significance
unless a new and unexpected result is produced." In re Harza, 274 F.2d
669, 671(CCPA1960). There is no evidence this would have been
"uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art" or
"represented an unobvious step over the prior art." Leapfrog Enters. Inc. v.
7
Appeal 2017-010511
Application 14/015,926
Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing KSR, 550
U.S. at 418-19). Nor have Appellants provided objective evidence of
secondary considerations which our reviewing court guides "operates as a
beneficial check on hindsight." Cheese Sys., Inc. v. Tetra Pak Cheese and
Powder Sys., 725 F.3d 1341, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2013). Given the closeness of
the functionalities combined from the teachings of Perski and Tong, we are
persuaded that here, the principle applies that "[ t ]he combination of familiar
elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does
no more than yield predictable results." KSR, 550 U.S. at 416.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 33. In doing so, we
adopt as our own the findings and reasons of the Examiner as set forth in the
Final Rejection and in the Answer. We also, accordingly, sustain the
rejections of claims 3-51, for which Appellants offer no arguments separate
from those for claim 1.
Claim 52
Appellants further argue the Examiner errs in rejecting claim 52
because the rejection "does not assert that any alleged initializing gesture in
Perski is an orientation of the limb of the user or the wearable device as
Claim 52 requires." App. Br. 13. This argument is unpersuasive. The
Examiner relies on Cauwels, not Perski, for teaching the added limitations of
claim 52. See Final Act. 18 (citing Cauwels i-fi-f 140, 163---64, 166) (also
explaining that Perski and Tong teach features recited in parent claim); see
also Ans. 36 (additionally citing Cauwels i-f 141).
Cauwels discloses a wearable device such as a watch with a motion
sensor that detects device orientation and that detects when the user makes a
gesture such as a sweeping hand motion. Cauwels i-f 140-41, 163---64, Figs.
8
Appeal 2017-010511
Application 14/015,926
16-18, 24. We agree with the Examiner this teaches the added requirements
of claim 52.
Appellants contend the Examiner "does not address at all Appellants'
argument that the Examiner has failed to identify any prior art reference that
discloses Claim 52's requirements of two separate orientations of the limb of
the user or the wearable device, each of which is associated with a different
set of gestures comprising a movement of the limb or device relative to that
orientation." Reply Br. 5. We disagree.
The rejection of claim 52 states that "Perski teaches the first
initializing gesture and a second initializing gesture as explained for claim 1
above." Final Act. 18. The rejection finds that Cauwels, which teaches the
wearable device attached to the wrist for detecting gesture movement and
orientation of the device, in combination with Perski, teaches claim 52 's
requirement for "each gesture-recognition activation event compris[ing] an
orientation of ... the wearable device." Id. The Examiner also finds that
Cauwels in combination with Perski teaches "each gesture comprises a
movement ... of the device relative to the orientation corresponding to the
gesture recognition activation event," as recited. Id. The requirements
related to "a different set of gestures" are not recited in claim 52, and,
regardless, were addressed in the rejection of the parent independent claim,
as discussed above for claim 33.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 52. In doing so, we
adopt as our own the Examiner's findings and reasons as set forth in the
Final Rejection and in the Answer.
9
Appeal 2017-010511
Application 14/015,926
DECISION
For the above reasons, we affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting
claims 1 and 3-52 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 3 7 C.F .R. § 1.13 6( a )(1 )(iv).
AFFIRMED
10