Appeal No. 2005-2290
Application No. 09/896,199
show that people prefer to use hand gestures in combination with speech in a virtual
environment, since they allow the user to interact without special training or special
apparatus” (page 121 of Pavlovic-the examiner’s emphasis, at page 4 of the answer).
Appellant responds by arguing that Inagaki’s system merely detects the presence
of speech (specifically, the presence of speech of a speaking attendee, and then
highlights the PIP of the speaking attendee). Inagaki does not however, contends
appellant, disclose or suggest the changing of a PIP display characteristic in response
to a received audio command and a related gesture from a user. Since Inagaki does
not detect any content of the speech of the speaking attendee, appellant contends that
it cannot be said that Inagaki determines if a command is being spoken. Accordingly,
argues appellant, there would have been no motivation for combining Inagaki with the
gestures taught by Pavlovic.
We have considered the evidence before us, including the arguments of
appellant and the examiner, and we conclude therefrom that the examiner has
established a prima facie case of obviousness which has not been overcome by
appellant. Accordingly, we will sustain the rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C.
§103.
Inagaki clearly teaches the movement of a camera to a different conference
attendee, dependent on the attendee’s voice (see column 11, line 65, through column
12, line 25). Since a different attendee will appear larger on the display screen, clearly
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007