Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG Document 145-5 Filed 12/03/21 Page 1 of 6 PageID #: 5794
`
`Exhibit 7
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG Document 145-5 Filed 12/03/21 Page 2 of 6 PageID #: 5795
`Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG Document 145-5 Filed 12/03/21 Page 2 of 6 PagelD #: 5795
`
`Application # 11/980,710
`Docket # P06410US04/RFH
`
`REMARKS
`
`Responsive to Office
`Action of 1/21/2009
`
`ATTACHMENT - REMARKS
`
`By this Amendment, independent claim 1 has been amendedfor clarity and to
`
`better define the invention. Consistent with the changes to claim 1, claim 3 has been
`
`canceled; and non-elected claim 4 has also been canceled.
`
`It will be noted that new
`
`claims 5-17 have been addedto claim additional features of the invention; and that new
`
`independent claim 18 and dependent claims 19-20 have also been addedto further
`
`claim the present invention consistent with the restriction requirement (previously made
`
`without traverse).
`
`It is submitted that the present application is in condition for
`
`allowance for the following reasons.
`
`In the Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 section of the DETAILED ACTION,
`
`independent claim 1 and dependentclaims 2-3 were rejected underfor being non-
`
`statutory. By this Amendment, independent claim 1 has been amendedsothat the
`
`steps recited therein are more clearly tied to a handheld device and to a video display;
`
`and in particular whereby an image on the video display is controlled by the handheld
`
`device (as by the selection of a displayed icon on the video display).
`
`It is submitted that
`
`such a recitation is clearly within the requirements for statutory subject matter, so that
`
`this rejection of the claims should now be withdrawn.
`
`In the following Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 section of the Action,
`
`independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2-3 wereall rejected as failing to comply
`
`
`
`
`
`with the written requirement.Inparticular,theexaminerthatthestepsofasserted
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`_complywiththewrittenrequirement.description This rejection was associated with
`
`
`
`
`
`5241.T:20140:102693:1: ALEXANDRIA
`
`1 of 5
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG Document 145-5 Filed 12/03/21 Page 3 of 6 PageID #: 5796
`Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG Document 145-5 Filed 12/03/21 Page 3 of 6 PagelD #: 5796
`
`Application # 11/980,710
`Docket # P06410US04/RFH
`
`REMARKS
`
`Responsive to Office
`Action of 1/21/2009
`
`both of the related principles that one skilled in the art would not recognize that the
`
`inventor “had possession of the claimed invention” and/or that one skilled in the art
`
`would not be able to “make\use the invention’.
`
`It is initially noted that in making the determination of sufficiency of disclosure
`
`under either principle, as recited in MPEP § 2163,
`
`[w]hat is conventional or well known to oneof ordinary skill in the art need
`not be disclosed in detail. See Hybritech Inc. v. MonoclonalAntibodies,
`Inc., 802 F.2d at 1384, 231 USPQ at 94”.
`
`Therefore, with this understanding, the following will be noted.
`
`
`
`_patents/applicationsthereinbyreference).incorporated See, for example,the present
`
`
`
`
`
`inventor’s prior noted patents USP 6,301,763 and USP 5,982,352.
`
`Further, the Amenta patent cited by the examiner in the art rejection also
`
`contains the following discussion:
`
`The processor 120 determines a position of the image pickup device
`110 for each frame of the sequence of m frames obtained from the image
`pickup device 110. This may be done using any method by which the
`position of known points in the image frames are used to determine the
`relative position of the image pickup device 110. (Emphasis added - See
`column 4, lines 14-19.)
`
`524LT:20140:102693:1: ALEXANDRIA
`
`2o0f 5
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG Document 145-5 Filed 12/03/21 Page 4 of 6 PageID #: 5797
`Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG Document 145-5 Filed 12/03/21 Page 4 of 6 PagelD #: 5797
`
`Application # 11/980,710
`Docket # P06410US04/RFH
`
`REMARKS
`
`Responsive to Office
`Action of 1/21/2009
`
`
`
`
`
`_Thisreferenceto“anymethod”isfurtherthattherearemanysuchmethods_evidence
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`forperformingtheabovenotedstepsknowntothoseofordinaryskillintheartatthe
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`timethatthepresentinventionwasmade.—
`
`
`
`
`
`The Amenta patent and such references and incorporations by reference as
`
`made in the present specification clearly show that the level of ordinary skill in this art
`
`was such that those of ordinary skill would appreciate that the inventor wasin
`
`possession of the claimed invention, and/or would know how to make and use the
`
`present invention. Therefore, it is submitted that the rejection of the claims under § 112
`
`should now be withdrawn.
`
`In the Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 section, independent claim 1 and
`
`dependentclaims 2-3 were rejected under 35 USC § 102 as being anticipated by the
`
`Amenta patent. However,for the following reasons, it is submitted that all of the
`
`presently pending claims are allowable over this reference.
`
`The Amenta patent discloses a method and apparatus for tracking the motion of
`
`an image recording device usingalight field (“any representation of a three-dimensional
`
`scene by the radiance induced onthesetof incidentlines in three-dimensional free
`
`space R*” (see column 1, lines 20-22). The invention of the Amenta patentlocates the
`
`image recording device's position and orientation in each frame of the light field very
`
`precisely by checking the radiance seen along lines captured in previous frames. The
`
`invention thus provides an interactive system that provides the operator with feedback,
`
`to capture a sequenceof frames that sufficiently cover the light field, and to provide
`
`sufficient data for reconstruction of three-dimensional structures.
`
`§24LT:20140:102693:1!:ALEXANDRIA
`
`3 0f 5
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG Document 145-5 Filed 12/03/21 Page 5 of 6 PageID #: 5798
`Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG Document 145-5 Filed 12/03/21 Page 5 of 6 PagelD #: 5798
`
`Docket#POS410USO4/RFH
`
`—
`
`"petionof1/21/2008
`
`While the present invention and that of the Amenta patent do have in common
`
`the determination of the orientation of a handheld camera or the like, the purpose and
`
`result of the present invention is obviously quite different from that of the Amenta patent.
`
`With the present invention, as now particularly claimed in amended claim 1, it is the
`
`orientation of the handheld electronic device with respect to a video display which is
`
`particularly desired to be determined. This is donebyfirst acquiring an image of a
`
`plurality of discrete points proximate this video display. Then, by processing this TV
`
`camera image, information concerning these specific points is determined, so that the
`
`orientation of the handheld device with respectto the video display is used to control an
`
`image presented on the video display. The Amenta patent contains no teachings or
`
`suggestionsfor the imaging and control of a video display, particularly where the
`
`orientation of the imaging device is used to control the imaged video display.
`
`Therefore, for the foregoing reasons, it is submitted that amended independent
`
`claim 1 is neither disclosed nor made obvious by the Amenta patent so that
`
`independentclaim 1
`
`is allowable. And for these same reasons, it is submitted that
`
`dependent claims 2-3 and (new claims) 5-17 are also all allowable.
`
`New independentclaim 18 is similar to amended independent claim 1, but recites
`
`that the handheld device determinesthe position of an object (such as a finger of the
`
`user) which movesrelative to the handheld device and thereby controls the handheld
`
`device. Such a methodis also neither disclosed nor made obvious by the Amenta
`
`patent so that new independentclaim 18 is allowable. And for these same reasons, it is
`
`also submitted that new dependent claims 19-20 are all allowable.
`
`524LT:20140:102693:1:ALEXANDRIA
`
`4o0f 5
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG Document 145-5 Filed 12/03/21 Page 6 of 6 PageID #: 5799
`Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG Document 145-5 Filed 12/03/21 Page 6 of 6 PagelD #: 5799
`
`Application # 11/980,710
`Docket # P06410US04/RFH
`
`REMARKS
`
`Responsive to Office
`Action of 1/21/2009
`
`For all of the foregoing reasons, it is submitted that the present application is in
`
`condition for allowance and such action is solicited.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`Date:
`
`July 20, 2009
`
`
`/Douglas E. Jackson/
`Signed By Name: Douglas E. Jackson
`Attorney of Record
`Registration No.: 28,518
`STITES & HARBISON PLLC ¢ 1199 North Fairfax St. * Suite 900 « Alexandria, VA 22314
`TEL: 703-739-4900 * FAX: 703-739-9577 * CUSTOMER NO. 881
`
`$24LT:20140:102693:1:ALEXANDRIA
`
`5of 5
`
`