Appeal No. 2005-2290
Application No. 09/896,199
would have been obvious to the artisan that the teaching, by Pavlovic, of moving the
position of an object by spoken command/hand gesture would be applicable to the
movement of any object on a display screen, including the PIP display of Inagaki.
Accordingly, we will sustain the rejection of claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. §103.
Specifically with regard to independent claim 11, appellant argues that neither of
the cited references teaches or suggests “determining whether the received audio
indication is one of a plurality of expected audio indications.”
We agree with the examiner that Figure 7 of Pavlovic clearly shows a plurality of
expected hand gestures as well as a plurality of expected speech commands. In fact, in
order to make the correct movement of an object, the system of Pavlovic must
determine whether it has received an expected command, such as “move left,” which, in
combination with the correct hand gesture, will effect that movement.
Accordingly, we will sustain the rejection of claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. §103.
Finally, appellant argues that the limitations of claims 5 and 6 are not taught or
suggested by the cited references. In particular, appellant argues that since Pavlovic
discloses issuing a spoken command and a gesture simultaneously, it cannot meet the
claim language requiring the analysis of image information after the audio indication is
received to identify the change in the PIP display characteristic that is expressed by the
received gesture (see page 17 of the brief).
We agree with the examiner that the broad claimed subject matter language
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007