Ex Parte Publicover et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 8, 2019

15131273 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 8, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
15/131,273 04/18/2016
125070 7590 03/12/2019
GoogleLLC
c/o Davidson Sheehan LLP
6836 Austin Center Blvd.
Suite 320
Austin, TX 78731
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Nelson George Publicover
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.
1500-Gl4023T-USC3 8828
EXAMINER
HE,WEIMING
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2612
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/12/2019 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):
docketing@ds-patent.com
Google@ds-patent.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte NELSON GEORGE PUBLICOVER,
LEWIS JAMES MARGGRAFF, ELIOT FRANCES DRAKE, and
SPENCER JAMES CONNAUGHTON
Appeal2018-005362 1
Application 15/131,273 2
Technology Center 2600
Before JAMES B. ARPIN, HUNG H. BUI, and
PHILLIP A. BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.
ARPIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) the Examiner's final
rejection of claims 31-39, 41-56, and 58---61, all of the pending claims.
Final Act. 2; see Ans. 2. Claims 1-30, 40, and 57 are canceled.
1 In this Decision, we refer to Appellants' Appeal Brief ("App. Br.,"filed
January 11, 2018) and Reply Brief ("Reply Br.," filed April 27, 2018); the
Final Office Action ("Final Act.," mailed July 14, 2017); the Examiner's
Answer ("Ans.," mailed February 27, 2018); and the originally-filed
Specification ("Spec.," filed April 18, 2016). Rather than repeat the
Examiner's findings and determinations and Appellants' contentions in their
entirety, we refer to these documents.
2 Appellants assert Google LLC is the real party-in-interest. App. Br. 1.
Appeal2018-005362
Application 15/131,273
App. Br. 17, 19, 22 (Claims App.). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ).
We affirm.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants' recited methods
relate[] generally to systems and methods for Discerning the
Intent of a User (DIU) and subsequently controlling and
interacting with computing and other devices primarily using
one's eyes with optional ancillary input support. The system
utilizes techniques within the fields of Human-Machine
Interfaces (HMis ), wearable computing, human physiology,
image processing, and deep learning.
Spec. ,r 3. The Specification describes that
a challenge when using eye position as an input data stream for
interaction and control is to discern the intent of a user (DIU)
based on eye movements. One of the goals of the systems and
methods herein is to distinguish between movements of the eye
that are associated with normal daily activities versus conscious
or voluntary movements, herein referred to as "eye signals," that
are intended to interact with, and control[] a smart device.
Id. ,I 6.
As noted above, claims 31-39, 41-56, and 58---61 are pending.
Claims 31, 34, 43, and 52 are independent. App. Br. 17-22 (Claims App.).
Claims 32, 33, and 61 depend directly from claim 31; claims 35-39, 41, and
42 depend directly or indirectly from claim 34; claims 44--51 depend directly
or indirectly from claim 43; and claims 53-56 and 58---60 depend directly or
indirectly from claim 52. Id. at 17-23 (Claims App.).
Claim 31, reproduced below, is illustrative.
31. A method for providing a graphical user interface
to determine intent of a user based at least in part on
2
Appeal2018-005362
Application 15/131,273
Id. at 17.
movement of the user's one or both eyes, the method
compnsmg:
identifying, with a detector, when the user's one or
both eyes are directed at an object at an object location;
identifying, with the detector, a first saccade of the
user's one or both eyes from the object location towards a
target at a target location;
confirming, with the detector, that the first saccade
is completed at an intermediate location closer to the target
location than the object location;
identifying, with the detector, one or more
corrective saccades of the user's one or both eyes from the
intermediate location moving closer towards the target
location;
confirming, with the detector, that at least one of the
corrective saccades is completed within a pre-determined
distance from the target location; and
replacing the target with an icon corresponding to
one of the object and the object location based at least in
part on determining that the target location and not the
intermediate location is the intended destination of the
user's one or both eyes from the object location.
REFERENCES AND REJECTIONS
The Examiner relies upon the following references: 3
Name Number Issued/Pu bl' d Filed
Ambros US 2015/0212576 Al Jul. 30, 2015 Jan.28,2014
Venable US 2014/0380230 Al Dec. 25, 2014 Jun.25,2013
Bar-Zeev US 2012/0154277 Al Jun.21,2012 Dec. 17, 2010
3 All reference citations are to the first named inventor only.
3
Appeal2018-005362
Application 15/131,273
Name Number
Poulos US 2014/0237366 Al
Kidennan US 2012/0081666 Al
Reschke US 6,932,090 B 1
Leinonen US 2014/0362346 Al
Issued/Pu bl' d Filed
Aug. 21, 2014 Feb. 19,2013
Apr. 5, 2012 Apr. 6, 2011
Aug.23,2005 Feb. 6,2003
Dec. 11, 2014 Mar. 9, 2012
The Examiner rejects the pending claims on the following grounds.
(1) Claims 34, 37-39, 41, and 42 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ I03(a) as rendered obvious over the combined teachings of Venable, Bar-
Zeev, and Poulos. Final Act. 7-11.
(2) Claims 43 and 46-51 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a)
as rendered obvious over the combined teachings of Venable and Kiderman.
Id. at 12-15.
(3) Claims 31, 32, and 61 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a)
as rendered obvious over the combined teachings of Venable, Kiderman, and
Poulos. Id. at 16-20.
(4) Claims 35, 52-56 and 58---60 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ I03(a) as rendered obvious over the combined teachings of Venable,
Kiderman, Bar-Zeev, and Poulos. 4 Id. at 11-12, 20-26.
4 See In re Bush, 296 F.2d 491,496 (CCPA 1961) ("[W]here a rejection is
predicated on two references each containing pertinent disclosure which has
been pointed out to the applicant, we deem it to be of no significance, but
merely a matter of exposition, that the rejection is stated to be on A in view
of B instead of on B in view of A, or to term one reference primary and the
other secondary.").
4
Appeal2018-005362
Application 15/131,273
(5) Claims 44 and 45 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
rendered obvious over the combined teachings of Venable, Kiderman, and
Reschke. Id. at 26-28.
(6) Claim 33 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as rendered
obvious over the combined teachings of Venable, Kiderman, Poulos, and
Leinonen. Id. at 28. Claim 36 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
rendered obvious over the combined teachings of Venable, Bar-Zeev,
Poulos, and Leinonen. Id.
We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues
identified by Appellants, and in light of the arguments and evidence
produced thereon. 5 Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010)
(precedential). Arguments not made are waived. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.3 7 ( c )( 1 )(iv). Unless otherwise indicated, we adopt the Examiner's
findings in the Answer as our own and add any additional findings of fact
appearing below for emphasis. We address the rejections below. 6
ANALYSIS
A claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) if the differences
between the claimed subject matter and the prior art are such that the subject
matter, as a whole, would have been obvious at the time the invention was
5 Appellants do not argue the dependent claims separately from their
independent base claims. App. Br. 15.
6 We do not address the Examiner's objections to claims 32 and 45 in this
decision because such objections are not proper subject matter for appeal.
Final Act. 6; see MPEP §§ 706.01, 1201.
5
Appeal2018-005362
Application 15/131,273
made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter
pertains. KSR Int 'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007).
1. Independent Claim 34
The Examiner determines that claim 34 is rendered obvious over the
combined teachings of Venable, Bar-Zeev, and Poulos. Final Act. 2--4, 7-
10; see Ans. 2-5.
Appellants contend: ( 1) the Examiner fails to demonstrate that a
person of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to combine the
teachings of Venable and Bar-Zeev to supply the limitations of Claim 34
missing from Venable; and (2) the Examiner fails to demonstrate that a
person of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to combine the
teachings of Venable and Bar-Zeev with those of Poulos to supply the
limitations of Claim 34 missing from Venable and Bar-Zeev. App. Br. 7-
12; see Reply Br. 2-5.
We are persuaded, however, that the Examiner has demonstrated that
a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to combine the
teachings of Venable, Bar-Zeev, and Poulos to achieve the method recited in
Claim 34.
a. Reason to Combine Venable and Bar-Zeev
Claim 34 recites "predicting, based on the saccade, a landing location
of the saccade7 on a target object at a target location on a display." App.
7 See Spec. ,r,r 14 ("If one attempts to 'sweep' with one's eyes, unless eyes
move in conjunction with real or virtual objects, one has little or no
perception of any objects within the sweep pathway and one loses the ability
to view what happened at the location where the sweep was initiated. It is
also difficult to distinguish between an intentional eye sweep and a
6
Appeal2018-005362
Application 15/131,273
Br. 18 (Claims App.). The Examiner acknowledges, "Venable doesn't
explicitly teach 'predicting a landing location of the saccade. "' Ans. 7.
However, Bar-Zeev teaches "[t]he user eye position is tracked, and a next
eye position calculated, to position the portion of the image at a next
position coincident with the user's movement of the eye to the next position .
. . . A predictive algorithm is used to determine the potential next positions
of a user's eye." Bar-Zeev ,r,r 31-32 (emphases added); see also Final Act. 8
(citing Bar-Zeev ,r 145). Thus, the Examiner concludes that "[i]t would have
been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to
modify the invention of Venable with the teaching of Bar-Zeev so as to use a
predictive algorithm to determine the potential next positions of a user's eye
(Bar[-]Zeev, [0032])." Final Act. 8; see Ans. 2-3.
Appellants contend that:
Venable relates to a method of determining intent of a user's gaze
on interaction with interactive targets. For example, FIGS. 4A-
4C of Venable teach determining user intent by tracking the
user's gaze based on interaction with a sequential order of
interactive targets ( e.g., gazing at the interactive targets in a
predetermined order). See also Venable, paras. [0028]-[0030]
and FIGS. 4A-4C. In a different example, FIGS. 5A-5C of
Venable teach determining user intent using smooth pursuit in
which the user's eyes follow the movement of an interactive
target on the display screen. See e.g[.], Venable, para. [0035].
App. Br. 8. Appellants further contend that because Venable is directed
toward "tracking the actual positions of a user's eye gaze to determine
momentary glance or saccade to an object that might have attracted
attention,for example, within the peripheral visual field of the device user.")
( emphasis added), 89 (Voluntary eye movements may include "saccades. ");
see also Venable ,r 26 ( asserting "sequential eye gestures" may comprise
"saccades"); Kiderman ,r 9 ( defining "saccades").
7
Appeal2018-005362
Application 15/131,273
whether the eyes are following targets in a pre-determined manner," there is
no reason for a person of ordinary skill in the art to add predicted eye
position to Venable's eye position tracking. Id. at 9. We do not find these
contentions persuasive.
Initially, we note that, Venable' s teachings are not limited to the
embodiments of its Figures 4A--4C and 5A-5C, which depict following
multiple sequential targets and following an interactive target to multiple
locations, via "sequential eye gestures," respectively. See Venable ,r,r 29,
35. Regarding Figures IA-IC, Venable teaches, "the sequential eye gesture
is performed between the user interface element and a single depicted
interactive target." Id. ,r 28; see id., Abstract ("Embodiments are disclosed
herein that relate to selecting user interface elements via a periodically
updated position signal."). As Venable explains:
The term "sequential eye gesture" as used herein signifies that
the location of gaze moves from a starting location to an ending
location on the user interface in one or more sequential segments
of movement. Such gestures may allow natural eye movements,
such as saccades, to be used to peiform the gesture.
Id. ,r 26 (emphasis added). Considering Venable's teachings as a whole, we
find Venable broadly teaches selecting user interface elements via position
signals derived from sequential eye gestures that may include saccades.
Bar-Zeev teaches advantages of predicting the next position of the
user's eyes in the field of view. Bar-Zeev ,r,r 31 ("The user's field of view,
which is the environment or space that the user is looking at, is determined.
An image optimized for use with respect to the field of view is rendered.");
see id. ,r 56 ("[I]n order to move the portion of the optimized image to the
next location of a user's eye movement coincident with that movement, in
8
Appeal2018-005362
Application 15/131,273
order to provide a suitable visual experience."). In view of Venable's and
Bar-Zeev's teachings, the Examiner concludes that:
Bar-Zeev's modification can be used to analyze eye movement
and help find the intent of user's eye movement in order to move
the portion of the optimized image to the next location of a user's
eye movement coincident with that movement, in order to
provide a suitable visual experience (Bar-Zeev, [0056]).
Obviously, Bar-Zeev's modification on the invention of Venable
won't render Venable unsatisfactory for its intended purpose.
Ans. 3; see id. at 2 (citing Bar-Zeev ,r 32). We agree with the
Examiner.
b. Reason to Combine Venable and Bar-Zeev with Poulos
Claim 34 further recites "performing an action that includes
replacing, prior to completion of the saccade, the target object at the target
location with an icon corresponding to one of the first object and the first
object location in response to predicting." App. Br. 18 (Claims App.)
( emphasis added). The Examiner acknowledges that neither Venable nor
Bar-Zeev teaches this "replacing" step. Final Act. 8. However, Poulos
teaches the "user gazing at first object 410 to select the first object in
[(Poulos ,r 30)]; 'representations of commands associated with the selected
object may be overlaid on one or more regions in the augmented reality
environment' in [(id. ,r 38)]." Final Act. 9. Thus, the Examiner concludes
"[i]t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time
of the invention to modify the invention of Venable and Bar-Zeev with the
teaching of Poulos so as to display a menu items for further sub-menu
9
Appeal2018-005362
Application 15/131,273
selection in response one click of object in the control interface." Id. at 10;
see Ans. 3-5.
Appellants contend, "Poulos only speaks to how to display commands
after objects have been selected." App. Br. 10 (citing Poulos ,r,r 38-39).
Appellants further contend that the Examiner fails to show that a person of
ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to combine Venable's
following of sequential targets with Poulos's overlaying of available actions
for the selected object afterwards to achieve the "replacing" step. Id. at 11.
Thus, Appellants assert "[i]n particular, the object of Venable is not selected
and the overlaying of submenu options of Poulos cannot occur until it is
determined where the user is actually gazing (i.e., entirely opposite that of
predicting where a saccade will land and replace the object prior to
completion of the saccade)." Id.
Initially, referring to the Specification's Figures IA-IE, replacing a
target object at a target location with an icon may involve placing an icon
proximate to the target location. Ans. 4--5 ( citing Spec. ,r 124 ); see also
Reply Br. 4 ("As a first matter, Appellant notes that although there is
nothing about the term 'replacing' that inherently requires the new object
replacing an older object to occupy the same exact space."). Moreover, as
noted above, Venable's teachings are broader than following sequential
targets. See Venable ,r,r 27-29, 35, Figs. IA-IC. 4A--4C, 5A-5C. Further,
as Poulos explains, "as shown in FIG. 5, presentation of commands
associated with the selected object may be activated by user/object
proximity." Poulos ,r 36; see Final Act. 3 (quoting Ambros ,r 85); see also
Ambros, Claim 17 (Claim 17 recites "the displaying one or more options
10
Appeal2018-005362
Application 15/131,273
includes displaying a radial menu including the one or more options
overlaying the selectable object." ( emphasis added)).
A rejection based on the combined teachings of a plurality of
references, may not, be overcome by attacking the references individually.
See In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). We
determine that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood
Poulos in combination with Venable and Bar-Zeev to teach that the
proximity of a gaze to a selectable object may cause generation the
associated icon. The Examiner relies on the combined teachings of Venable
and Bar-Zeev, and the Examiner demonstrates a person of ordinary skill in
the art would have had reason to combine the teachings of Venable and Bar-
Zeev regarding "predicting a landing location of the saccade" with those of
Poulos, regarding the placement of an icon proximate to such a location to
achieve the recited method of claim 34.
Thus, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in determining
that the combined teachings of Venable, Bar-Zeev, and Poulos render
independent claim 34, and the claims dependent therefrom, obvious, and we
sustain those rejections.
2. Independent Claims 31 and 52
The Examiner determines that claim 31 is rendered obvious over the
combined teachings of Venable, Kiderman, and Poulos (Final Act. 2--4, 16-
19; see Ans. 6-7), and claim 52 is rendered obvious over the combined
teachings of Venable, Kiderman, Bar-Zeev, and Poulos (Final Act. 20-24;
see Ans. 6-7). Claim 31 recites "identifying, with the detector, one or more
corrective saccades of the user's one or both eyes from the intermediate
location moving closer towards the target location; [ and] confirming, with
11
Appeal2018-005362
Application 15/131,273
the detector, that at least one of the corrective saccades is completed within a
pre-determined distance from the target location." App. Br. 17 (Claims
App.). Claim 52 recites similar features. Id. at 12.
The Examiner acknowledges "Venable doesn't directly use the claim
language 'corrective saccade, '" but finds that "Kiderman further directly
teaches 'corrective saccade' by 'a primary saccade movement 12 followed
by a first corrective saccade 14 and a second corrective saccade 16 prior to
reaching a final fixation position 18' in [Kiderman ,r 27]." Final Act. 4.
Thus, the Examiner concludes, "[t]here is the motivation to modify
Venable's identifying saccade with the teaching of Kiderman's corrective
saccade so as to correct displacements in eye position produced by drifts
(Kiderman [,I 14])." Id.
Appellants contend, "Venable does not teach or suggest identifying
saccadic eye movement towards a target that includes corrective saccades
from intermediate locations between a starting object location and the target
at a target location." App. Br. 12-13. In particular, Appellants contend that:
The Examiner is impermissibly conflating Venable's teachings
of smooth pursuit (e.g., tracking voluntary change in gaze to
follow movement of interactive targets on the screen) to the
recited saccades. It is noted that there is a distinct difference
between saccadic movements, which are very fast jumps from
one eye position to another, as opposed to smooth pursuit
movements in which eyes move smoothly instead of in jumps.
Id. at 13 ( citing Spec. ,r,r 118-119) ( emphasis added).
However, Venable does not disclose that the user's eyes "smoothly"
pursue the target. Instead, Venable teaches that, with respect to Figure 5B,
"[i]ntersection of the gaze location with the interactive target (potentially for
a threshold time duration) may start motion of the interactive target
12
Appeal2018-005362
Application 15/131,273
smoothly away from the location of gaze and toward the destination position
504." Venable ,r 35 (emphasis added). As noted above, Venable explains
that the term "sequential eye gesture" means that "the location of gaze
moves from a starting location to an ending location on the user interface in
one or more sequential segments of movement," and that such gestures may
include saccades. Id. ,r 26. Thus, as noted above, Appellants read Venable's
teaching of sequential eye gestures too narrowly, and we are not persuaded
that Venable's sequential eye gestures are distinguishable from the
"corrective saccades" and "saccadic eye movements" recited in claims 31
and 52, respectively. See Spec. ,r 118 ("In other words, unless substantial
and specialized training by an observer has taken place, an attempt to initiate
a smooth pursuit absent the ability to track a moving target simply results in
an observer making one or more saccadic movements.").
Further, to the extent that Kiderman teaches corrective saccades (Final
Act. 4; see Ans. 6), Appellants contend that
the cited portion of Venable is directed to tracking pursuit-type
eye movements and, contrary to the Examiner's suggestions, is
unrelated to tracking of saccadic eye movement. There is no
reason why one of ordinary skill in the art would add saccadic
movement tracking to Venable 's embodiment of smooth pursuit
eye motion tracking, as adding such saccadic movement tracking
does not improve tracking of pursuit-type eye movements as
taught by Venable, but would instead add unnecessary
processing operations.
App. Br. 13-14 (emphasis added). Again, however, Appellants rely on their
improperly narrow characterization of Venable' s gestures as "smooth" as
reason why a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have combined the
teachings of Venable and Kiderman.
Kiderman, like Appellants' Specification, teaches advantages of
13
Appeal2018-005362
Application 15/131,273
determining corrective saccades. Kiderman ,r,r 27--42; see Spec. i-fi-f41, 104.
As the Examiner explains, "[t]here is the motivation to modify Venable's
identifying saccade with the teaching of Kiderman's 'corrective saccade' so
as to help adjustment of the saccade located at the final target position with
the high accuracy." Ans. 7; see Kiderman ,r,r 17, 36.
Thus, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in determining
that the combined teachings of Venable, Kiderman, and Poulos, alone or in
combination with Bar-Zeev, render independent claim 31 or 52, and the
claims dependent therefrom, obvious, and we sustain those rejections.
3. Independent Claim 43
The Examiner determines that claim 34 is rendered obvious over the
combined teachings of Venable and Kiderman. Final Act. 4---6, 12-14; see
Ans. 7-9. Claim 43 recites: "identifying, based at least in part on the head
velocity and the eye velocity occurring concurrently, a vestibulo-ocular
movement of the one or both of the user's eyes; [ and] confirming that the
one or both of the user's eyes are directed at a viewed object at a viewed
object location based at least in part on the determined vestibulo-ocular
movement of the one or both of the user's eyes." App. Br. 19-20 (Claims
App.). Referring to Figure 4, the Specification explains that:
If the right and left eye move in the same direction at 436 and
this direction is opposite the direction of the head at 437 with an
approximate correspondence in movement magnitudes, then the
eye movement is classified as vestibulo-ocular at 439. If the right
and left eye move in the opposite directions at 436 with roughly
the same movement magnitude, then the eye movement is
classified as vergence at 438.
Spec. ,r 224; see also Kiderman ,r 12 ("During such gaze saccades, first the
eye produces a saccade to get gaze on target, whereas the head follows more
14
Appeal2018-005362
Application 15/131,273
slowly and the vestibulo-ocular reflex causes the eyes to roll back in the
head to keep gaze on the target."). In particular, the Examiner acknowledges
that Venable is not limited to "head-fixed saccades" and that Venable
teaches that its system may employ natural user input ("NUI") componentry,
including a head tracker, eye tracker, accelerometer, and/or gyroscope for
motion detection. Final Act. 6 ( citing Venable ,r 51 ); see Ans. 8-9. The
Examiner finds that Kiderman teaches:
["]The vestibular system stabilizes vision with head movement
through the mechanoreceptors of the labyrinth, sensing the
direction and speed of head acceleration and moving the eyes
accordingly" in [Kiderman ,r 7]. Kiderman explicitly discloses
"but in normal conditions saccades are far smaller, and any shift
of gaze larger than about 20° is accompanied by a head
movement. During such gaze saccades, first the eye produces a
saccade to get gaze on target, whereas the head follows more
slowly and the vestibulo-ocular reflex causes the eyes to roll back
in the head to keep gaze on the target" in [(id. ,r 12)].
Final Act. 5; see Ans. 8. The Examiner concludes that "[i]t would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to
combine the invention of Venable with the teaching of Kiderman so as to
correctly locate the target locations of the saccades during the head
movement." Final Act. 14.
Appellants contend that, although Kiderman teaches the concept of
vestibule-ocular eye movements, Kiderman does not teach or suggest
identifying vestibule-ocular movement of the eye. App. Br. 14; see Reply
Br. 5. However, Kiderman only is relied upon to teach that vestibulo-ocular
movement, such as that recited in claim 43, is one known type of head
movement. See Kiderman ,r 12. Because Venable teaches that the accuracy
of user interface selections by saccades may be improved by considering the
15
Appeal2018-005362
Application 15/131,273
effect ofhead movement on the saccade (Ans. 9; see Venable ,r 51), the eye
tracking system of Venable may be combined with the particular method of
detecting head movement taught by Kiderman. Final Act. 14.
Thus, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in determining
that the combined teachings of Venable and Kiderman render independent
claim 43, and the claims dependent therefrom, obvious, and we sustain those
rejections.
Accordingly, on this record, we sustain the Examiner's obviousness
rejections of independent claims 31, 34, 43, and 52. Appellants do not argue
the dependent claims separately, and we sustain the rejections of those
claims for substantially the same reasons given for independent claims.
CONCLUSIONS
(1) The Examiner did not err in rejecting:
(a) Claims 34, 37-39, 41, and 42 as rendered obvious over the
combined teachings of Venable, Bar-Zeev, and Poulos;
(b) Claims 43 and 46-51 as rendered obvious over the
combined teachings of Venable and Kiderman;
( c) Claims 31, 32, and 61 as rendered obvious over the
combined teachings of Venable, Kiderman, and Poulos;
( d) Claims 35, 52-56 and 58---60 as rendered obvious over the
combined teachings of Venable, Kiderman, Bar-Zeev, and
Poulos;
( e) Claims 44 and 45 as rendered obvious over the combined
teachings of Venable, Kiderman, and Reschke;
(f) Claims 33 as rendered obvious over the combined teachings
of Venable, Kiderman, Poulos, and Leinonen; and
16
Appeal2018-005362
Application 15/131,273
(g) Claim 3 6 as rendered obvious over the combined teachings
of Venable, Bar-Zeev, Poulos, and Leinonen.
(2) Claims 31-39, 41-56, and 58---61 are not patentable.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's rejections of claims 31-39, 41-56, and 58-
61.
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
17