Ravishankar R. Iyer et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardDec 16, 2019

14498704 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Dec. 16, 2019)

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. 14/498,704 09/26/2014 Ravishankar R. Iyer P68604 (884.R16US1) 1633 45457 7590 12/16/2019 SCHWEGMAN LUNDBERG & WOESSNER/Intel P.O. Box 2938 MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402 EXAMINER YOON, ERIC ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2143 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/16/2019 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): SLW@blackhillsip.com uspto@slwip.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte RAVISHANKAR R. IYER, OMESH TICKOO, and GLEN J. ANDERSON ____________ Appeal 2018-007813 Application 14/498, 704 Technology Center 2100 ____________ Before JOHNNY A. KUMAR, CATHERINE SHIANG, and LINZY T. McCARTNEY, Administrative Patent Judges. SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 3–8, 10–15, 17–23, which are all the claims pending and rejected in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm-in-part. 1 We use “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies Intel Corporation as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2018-007813 Application 14/498,704 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction The present invention relates to “gesture recognition and more specifically to gesture recognition and interaction using a wearable device.” Spec. ¶ 1. Generally discussed herein are systems and apparatuses for gesture-based augmented reality. Also discussed herein are methods of using the systems and apparatuses. According to an example a method may include detecting, in image data, an object and a gesture, in response to detecting the object in the image data, providing data indicative of the detected object, in response to detecting the gesture in the image data, providing data indicative of the detected gesture, and modifying the image data using the data indicative of the detected object and the data indicative of the detected gesture. Abstract. Claim 1 is exemplary: 1. A device comprising: a camera to capture image data including video; a display to provide a view of the video captured by the camera; an object recognition module including circuitry to analyze the image data to recognize a first object and one or more fingers in the video, and in response to recognizing the first object, to provide data indicative of the recognized first object and in response to recognizing the one or more fingers, to extract data corresponding to the one or more fingers from the video; a gesture recognition module including circuitry to analyze the video to recognize a first gesture performed by the recognized one or more fingers, and in response to recognizing the first gesture, to provide data indicative of the first recognized gesture; wherein the object recognition module, in response to the data indicative of the first recognized gesture, is further to issue Appeal 2018-007813 Application 14/498,704 3 a command to circuitry of an image rendering module that causes the image rendering module to render a still image including the first object; wherein the camera is to continue to capture second video while the display is providing the view of the still image; wherein the object recognition module is to, while the display is providing the view of the still image, extract data corresponding to the one or more fingers from the second video; the image rendering module including circuitry to modify the still image to include the extracted one or more fingers from the second video overlaid on the still image, to alter pixel values of or around the first object in the still image, and to augment the first object based on data indicative of a second recognized gesture; and wherein the image rendering module is further to cause the display to provide a view of the modified still image including the augmented first object with the extracted one or more fingers from the second video overlaid thereon. References and Rejections2 Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § References/Basis 5, 6, 14, 21 112(b) Indefiniteness 1, 3, 4, 7, 8, 10, 12, 15, 17, 19 103 Maeda (W02014/147686 A1, pub. Sept. 25, 2014), Cardoso (US 8,405,680 B1, iss. Mar. 26, 2013) 5, 14, 20 103 Maeda, Cardoso, Balram (2015/0059002 A1,pub. Feb. 26, 2015), Teller (US 8,812,419 B1, iss. Aug. 19, 2014) 2 Throughout this opinion, we refer to the (1) Final Office Action dated Sept. 7, 2017 (“Final Act.”); (2) Appeal Brief dated Apr. 2, 2018 (“Appeal Br.”); (3) Examiner’s Answer dated May 25, 2018 (“Ans.”); and (4) Reply Brief dated July 19, 2018 (“Reply Br.”). Appeal 2018-007813 Application 14/498,704 4 6 103 Maeda, Cardoso, Balram, Teller, Rhodes (US 8,873,147 B1, iss. Oct. 28, 2014) 11, 18 103 Maeda, Cardoso, Rhodes 13 103 Maeda, Cardoso, LeBeau (US 2016/0034254 A1, pub. Feb. 4, 2016) 21 103 Maeda, Cardoso, Balram, Teller, Rhodes, Normandin (US 2007/0219792 A1, Sept. 20, 2007), Jawalebhoi (D. Jawalebhoi, “List of Common Password Reset/Challenge Questions,” published July 14, 2008, downloaded from http://curiousdeveloper.blogspot.com/2008/07 /list- of-common-password-resetchallenge.html) 22 103 Maeda, Cardoso, Gluncic (US 2014/0328517 A1, pub. Nov. 6, 2014) 23 103 Maeda, Cardoso, Bilbrey (US 8,400,548 B2, iss. Mar. 19, 2013) ANALYSIS Indefiniteness Because Appellant does not argue against the Examiner’s rejection, we summarily sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 5, 6, 14, and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b). Obviousness We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection in light of Appellant’s contentions and the evidence of record. We concur with Appellant’s contentions that the Examiner erred in finding the cited portions of Maede teach wherein the object recognition module, in response to the data indicative of the first recognized gesture, is further to issue a command to circuitry of an image rendering module that Appeal 2018-007813 Application 14/498,704 5 causes the image rendering module to render a still image including the first object; wherein the camera is to continue to capture second video while the display is providing the view of the still image; as recited in independent claim 1 (emphases added). See Appeal Br. 12–16; Reply Br. 2–4. The Examiner finds: For example, the image of the real object Rol with an indicator IN22 on it is still and not moving. This image and similarly situated regions or images can each be considered to be the claimed "still image" The camera for the HMD is continuing to capture video and track the user’s gestures or interactions e.g., see Maeda Fig. 5, camera 101, [0024]. This can also be seen in the transition between Figs. 20-21, which shows how some objects/images remain still while the display/HMO continues to record the movements/video indicating user gestures e.g., the motion of the user’s hand, as seen in Figs. 20-21 and represented by operation body Hl; see also Maeda [0077-0078]. Ans. 34; see also Final Act. 6. We disagree with the Examiner. It is well established that during examination, claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification and should be read in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art, but without importing limitations from the specification. See In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (citations omitted); SuperGuide Corp. v. DirecTV Enters., Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875 (Fed. Cir. 2004). In this case, the Specification does not specifically define the term “still Appeal 2018-007813 Application 14/498,704 6 image.” Therefore, we interpret the term according to the knowledge of one skilled in the art and consistent with the Specification. We agree with Appellant that one skilled in the art would understand “still image” is a term of art and is different from a video, and a video showing a non-moving object is still a video—not “a still image,” as required by claim 1. See Appeal Br. 12–16; Reply Br. 2–4. As a result, the Examiner has not persuasively explained why Maede teaches wherein the object recognition module, in response to the data indicative of the first recognized gesture, is further to issue a command to circuitry of an image rendering module that causes the image rendering module to render a still image including the first object; wherein the camera is to continue to capture second video while the display is providing the view of the still image; as required by claim 1 (emphases added). Because the Examiner fails to provide sufficient evidence or explanation to support the rejection, we are constrained by the record to reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1. For similar reasons, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 3– 8, 10–15, and 17–23, as each of those claims also recites a “still image,” and the Examiner applies the same findings (discussed above) to those claims. See claims 3–8, 10–15, 17–23; Final Act. 9–34. CONCLUSION We sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 5, 6, 14, and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b). Appeal 2018-007813 Application 14/498,704 7 We reverse the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 3–8, 10–15, 17–23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 5, 6, 14, 21 112(b) Indefiniteness 5, 6, 14, 21 1, 3, 4, 7, 8, 10, 12, 15, 17, 19 103 Maeda, Cardoso, 1, 3, 4, 7, 8, 10, 12, 15, 17, 19 5, 14, 20 103 Maeda, Cardoso, Balram, Teller 5, 14, 20 6 103 Maeda, Cardoso, Balram, Teller, Rhodes 6 11, 18 103 Maeda, Cardoso, Rhodes 11, 18 13 103 Maeda, Cardoso, LeBeau 13 21 103 Maeda, Cardoso, Balram, Teller, Rhodes, LeBeau, Normandin, Jawalebhoi 21 22 103 Maeda, Cardoso, Gluncic 22 23 103 Maeda, Cardoso, Bilbrey 23 Overall Outcome 5, 6, 14, 21 1, 3–4, 7–8, 10–13, 15, 17–20, 22– 23 Because we affirm at least one ground of rejection with respect to claims 5, 6, 14, and 21 on appeal, we affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 5, 6, 14, and 21. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(a)(1). Appeal 2018-007813 Application 14/498,704 8 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)(iv). See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f). AFFIRMED-IN-PART