Federal Circuit disposition — 24-1038

N OTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
IN RE: GESTURE TECHNOLOGY PARTNERS, LLC,
Appellant
______________________
2024-1038
______________________
Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark
Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. 90/014,903.
______________________
Decided: January 27, 2025
______________________
J OHN WITTENZELLNER, Williams Simons & Landis
PLLC, Philadelphia, PA, argued for appellant. Also repre-
sented by ERIC CARR, MARK J OHN E DWARD MCCARTHY ,
F RED WILLIAMS , Austin, TX.
SARAH E. CRAVEN, Office of the Solicitor, United States
Patent and Trademark Office, Alexandria, VA, argued for
appellee Coke Morgan Stewart. Also represented by MARY
L. K ELLY, AMY J. N ELSON, F ARHEENA YASMEEN RASHEED,
P ETER J OHN SAWERT .
______________________
Before L OURIE, D YK, and HUGHES , Circuit Judges.
L OURIE, Circuit Judge.
Case: 24-1038 Document: 49 Page: 1 Filed: 01/27/2025

-- 1 of 6 --

IN RE: GESTURE TECHNOLOGY PARTNERS, LLC 2
Gesture Technology Partners, LLC (“Gesture”) appeals
from an ex parte reexamination decision of the United
States Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) Patent Trial
and Appeal Board (“the Board”) holding claims 8–18 of U.S.
Patent 8,878,949 (“the ’949 patent”) unpatentable as obvi-
ous. In re Gesture Tech. Partners, No. 2023-001857, Reex-
amination 90/014,903 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 8, 2023) (“Decision”),
J.A. 1–29. For the reasons provided below, we affirm.
BACKGROUND
The ’949 patent is directed to a portable device that
uses a sensor to scan a field of vision and detect a user com-
mand, i.e., a gesture. When the device detects a gesture,
its processing unit controls a digital camera to capture an
image.
On appeal, Gesture directs its arguments to claims 13,
15, and 18, stating, as did the Board, that resolution of is-
sues relating to those claims resolves the appeal of claims
8–12, 14, 16, and 17. We therefore also address only those
claims.
Independent claim 13 of the ’949 patent recites:
13. An image capture device comprising:
[13.a] a device housing including a forward
facing portion, the forwarding facing por-
tion encompassing a digital camera
adapted to capture an image and having a
field of view and encompassing a sensor
adapted to detect a gesture in the digital
camera field of view; and
[13.b] a processing unit operatively coupled
to the sensor and to the digital camera,
wherein the processing unit is adapted to:
[13.b.i] detect a gesture has been
performed in the electro-optical
sensor field of view based on an
Case: 24-1038 Document: 49 Page: 2 Filed: 01/27/2025

-- 2 of 6 --

IN RE: GESTURE TECHNOLOGY PARTNERS, LLC 3
output of the electro-optical sensor,
and
[13.b.ii] correlate the gesture de-
tected by the sensor with an image
capture function and subsequently
capture an image using the digital
camera, wherein the detected ges-
ture is identified by the processing
unit apart from a plurality of ges-
tures.
’949 patent col. 16, ll. 23–39 (numbering and emphasis
added). Claim 15 depends from claim 13 and recites that
“the detected gesture includes a pose.” Id. at col. 16, ll. 42–
43. Claim 18 also depends from claim 13 and recites that
“the sensor is fixed in relation to the digital camera.” Id.
at col. 16, ll. 49–50.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. filed a request for ex
parte examination of the ’949 patent, contending that U.S.
Patent 6,115,482 (“Sears”) raises a substantial new ques-
tion of patentability as to the challenged claims. Sears dis-
closes an electronic reading device that converts text to
synthesized speech and allows users to navigate within
text and select text using manual command gestures. [J.A.
391, 398–401] The PTO granted the request, and an ex-
aminer rejected claims 8–18 on the ground that Sears
would have rendered the claims obvious. Gesture appealed
the rejection to the Board, which affirmed.
Gesture timely appeals to this Court. We have juris-
diction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(4)(A).
D ISCUSSION
“Obviousness is a mixed question of fact and law.” No-
vartis AG v. Torrent Pharms. Ltd., 853 F.3d 1316, 1327
(Fed. Cir. 2017). We review the Board’s legal conclusion of
obviousness de novo and its factual findings for substantial
evidence. See In re Enhanced Sec. Rsch., LLC, 739 F.3d
Case: 24-1038 Document: 49 Page: 3 Filed: 01/27/2025

-- 3 of 6 --

IN RE: GESTURE TECHNOLOGY PARTNERS, LLC 4
1347, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Whether a reference qualifies
as analogous prior art is also a question of fact that we re-
view for substantial evidence. Airbus S.A.S. v. Firepass
Corp., 941 F.3d 1374, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2019). We interpret
claim terms by looking to their ordinary meaning in light
of the specification and prosecution history. Vasudevan
Software, Inc. v. MicroStrategy, Inc., 782 F.3d 671, 677
(Fed. Cir. 2015).
The Board determined that Sears teaches claim ele-
ment 13.a’s “forward facing portion [of the device housing]
encompassing a digital camera . . . [and] a sensor” limita-
tion. Decision, J.A. 16–17. Gesture first argues that Sears
is not analogous art because Sears is narrowly directed to-
wards solving problems associated with electronic reading
machines. But the Board found that Sears was analogous
art because it relates to a processing unit that navigates
through a document based on gestures, within the ’949 pa-
tent’s field of endeavor. We agree. Sears is in fact entitled
“Voice-Output Reading System with Gesture-Based Navi-
gation.” It is analogous art.
Gesture further argues, assuming that Sears is analo-
gous art, that the Board’s finding concerning claim element
13.a was not supported by substantial evidence because
claim element 13.a requires: (1) a single portion of the de-
vice housing that includes both the sensor and digital cam-
era, and (2) said portion to face horizontally, and Sears
does not teach either requirement. We disagree. As the
Board explained, Sears primary embodiment discloses a
digital camera and sensor next to each other in a “common”
device housing—i.e., in a single portion of the device hous-
ing. Id., J.A. 17 (citing Sears at Figure 3, col. 18, ll. 15–18).
Sears further discloses an embodiment in which the device,
including the sensor and digital camera, is worn by a user
as glasses that face horizontally on an upright person. De-
cision, J.A. 17 (citing Sears at Figure 4). The Board’s find-
ing that Sears teaches claim element 13a was therefore
supported by substantial evidence.
Case: 24-1038 Document: 49 Page: 4 Filed: 01/27/2025

-- 4 of 6 --

IN RE: GESTURE TECHNOLOGY PARTNERS, LLC 5
The Board next determined that Sears teaches claim
element 13b.’s “processing unit operatively coupled to the
sensor and to the digital camera, wherein the processing
unit is adapted to: detect a gesture . . . and subsequently
capture an image using the digital camera” limitation. Id.,
J.A. 19–20. Gesture contends that finding was not sup-
ported by substantial evidence because claim element 13b
requires: (1) a processing unit, and (2) a digital camera that
starts capturing an image after detecting a gesture, and
Sears does not teach either requirement. We again disa-
gree because the Board’s findings are consistent with
Sears. As the Board noted, Sears discloses a computer that
is operatively coupled to a digital camera and sensor—i.e.,
a “processing unit.” Id., J.A. 20 (citing Sears at col. 18, ll.
9–13). And for the processing unit’s claimed function of
taking a picture after a gesture is detected, Sears discloses
an embodiment where an image capture only “begin[s]”
once a gesture has been identified. Id. (citing Sears at col.
18, ll. 35–38).
Next, the Board concluded that Sears teaches or sug-
gests claim 15: “The image capture device of claim 13
wherein the detected gesture includes a pose.” Id., J.A. 22.
Gesture argues that the Board’s finding was not supported
by substantial evidence because it was dependent on an er-
roneous claim construction. According to Gesture, “pose,”
as used in claim 15, means a gesture that involves a body
part other than a hand and, because Sears makes no such
disclosure, the Board’s finding with respect to claim 15 was
not supported by substantial evidence. But the Board con-
sidered and rejected Gesture’s construction, explaining
that the plain and ordinary meaning of “pose” does not ref-
erence any specific body part, and therefore can include a
hand-only gesture. Decision, J.A. 22 (discussing dictionary
definitions of “pose”). Because Sears discloses hand-only
gestures, e.g., a closed fist, Sears at col. 10, l. 29, the
Board’s finding was supported by substantial evidence.
Case: 24-1038 Document: 49 Page: 5 Filed: 01/27/2025

-- 5 of 6 --

IN RE: GESTURE TECHNOLOGY PARTNERS, LLC 6
The Board finally found that Sears discloses claim 18:
“The image capture device of claim 13 wherein the sensor
is fixed in relation to the digital camera.” ’949 patent col.
16, ll. 49–50. Gesture asserts that the Board did not ade-
quately explain its finding as to claim 18. We disagree.
Gesture overlooks the Board’s well-reasoned explanation
which provides that Sears discloses an embodiment where
the sensor and digital camera are mounted in immovable
positions on the opposite sides of a user’s head, and there-
fore “fixed in relation” to one another. Decision, J.A. 23
(citing Sears at col. 11, ll. 1–7).
Because Gesture does not present separate argument
regarding the remaining claims of the ’949 patent that the
Board found obvious, viz., claims 8–12, 14, 16, and 17, we
do not disturb those findings. Nor do we need to deal with
claims 1–7 of this patent, as we have considered those
claims in a separate opinion to be issued simultaneously
with this opinion. See Apple Inc. v. Gesture Tech. Partners,
LLC, No. 23-1501, slip op. at 3 (Fed. Cir. 2025).
Finally, Gesture argues that the Board lacked jurisdic-
tion over this reexamination proceeding because the ’949
patent has expired. That issue has been resolved, and re-
jected, in the separate opinion of Apple, No. 23-1501, slip
op. at 5–7.
CONCLUSION
We have considered Gesture’s remaining arguments
and find them unpersuasive. For the foregoing reasons, we
affirm the decision of the Board.
AFFIRMED
Case: 24-1038 Document: 49 Page: 6 Filed: 01/27/2025

-- 6 of 6 --