Federal Circuit disposition — 24-1037

N OTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
IN RE: GESTURE TECHNOLOGY PARTNERS, LLC,
Appellant
______________________
2024-1037
______________________
Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark
Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. 90/014,900.
______________________
Decided: January 27, 2025
______________________
ERIC CARR, Williams, Simons, and Landis PLLC, Aus-
tin, TX, argued for appellant. Also represented by MARK
J OHN EDWARD MC CARTHY , F RED WILLIAMS ; J OHN
WITTENZELLNER, Philadelphia, PA.
MARY L. K ELLY , Office of the Solicitor, United States
Patent and Trademark Office, Alexandria, VA, argued for
appellee Coke Morgan Stewart. Also represented by 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: 24-1037 Document: 50 Page: 1 Filed: 01/27/2025

-- 1 of 4 --

IN RE: GESTURE TECHNOLOGY PARTNERS, LLC 2
Gesture Technology Partners, LLC (“Gesture”) appeals
from an ex parte reexamination decision of the Patent Trial
and Appeal Board (“the Board”) holding claims 1–9, 11, 12,
and 14–30 of U.S. Patent 8,553,079 (“the ’079 patent”) un-
patentable. In re Gesture Tech. Partners, LLC, No. 2023-
001713, Reexamination No. 90/014,900 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 25,
2024), J.A. 1–30. For the following reasons, we affirm.
BACKGROUND
The ’079 patent generally relates to gesture-based com-
munication technology. Specifically, it discloses a method
and apparatus “for determining a gesture illuminated by a
light source . . . [within] a work volume above the light
source” and “a camera . . . positioned to observe and deter-
mine the gesture performed in the work volume.” ’079 pa-
tent at Abstract. The Board granted a third party’s petition
for ex parte reexamination and found claims 1, 4–9, 11, 12,
and 17–20 of the ’079 patent anticipated by U.S. Patent
5,982,853 (“Liebermann”). J.A. 13–16. The Board also de-
termined that claims 2, 3, 14, and 15 were obvious over the
combination of Liebermann and U.S. Patent 6,115,482
(“Sears”). J.A. 17–25. Liebermann and Sears both relate
to computer-implemented methods and apparatuses that
enable gesture-based communication by using cameras ori-
ented to observe a work volume. Liebermann at Abstract;
Sears at Abstract.
Gesture timely appealed with respect to claims 1–9, 11,
12, 14, 15, and 17–20,1 and we have jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. § 1295(a)(4)(A).
1 The Board additionally determined that claims 16
and 21–30 were obvious over Liebermann and other vari-
ous prior art, but those claims are not at issue on appeal.
J.A. 28–29.
Case: 24-1037 Document: 50 Page: 2 Filed: 01/27/2025

-- 2 of 4 --

IN RE: GESTURE TECHNOLOGY PARTNERS, LLC 3
D ISCUSSION
Gesture first argues on appeal that the Board’s antici-
pation analysis regarding claims 1, 4–9, 11, 12, and 17–20
was flawed because the Board applied an incorrect con-
struction of the term “apparatus” in claim 11.2 Gesture
further argues that, even absent the Board’s legal error,
the Board’s anticipation finding was not supported by sub-
stantial evidence because the Board misapplied Lieber-
mann. We disagree.
The Board properly rejected Gesture’s narrow con-
struction of “apparatus” as precluding a distributed system
because the term’s plain meaning “include[s] either a sin-
gular device or a combination of devices.” J.A. 10. Accord-
ingly, the Board properly rejected Gesture’s non-
anticipation argument that relied on Liebermann’s distrib-
uted system operating over several different devices. Id. at
13.
The Board also properly rejected Gesture’s argument
that Liebermann fails to anticipate claims 1 and 11’s “de-
termining a gesture” limitation because Liebermann’s sys-
tem determines gesture data indirectly through
Liebermann’s “identifiers” instead of direct camera output.
Id. at 12–14. Because neither claim limits how the gesture
data are sent to the processing unit (i.e., directly or indi-
rectly from the camera), we agree with the Board that
Liebermann’s system anticipates representative claims 1
and 11.
Finally, the Board separately addressed dependent
claim 8, finding that it was anticipated by Liebermann. Id.
at 16. We conclude that the Board’s finding was supported
by substantial evidence because, contrary to Gesture’s
2 The Board’s anticipation analysis addressed repre-
sentative claims 1 and 11, as also applying to their depend-
ent claims 4–9, 11, 12, and 17–20, and separately
addressed dependent claim 8.
Case: 24-1037 Document: 50 Page: 3 Filed: 01/27/2025

-- 3 of 4 --

IN RE: GESTURE TECHNOLOGY PARTNERS, LLC 4
argument, Liebermann does in fact characterize how its
system determines a “point on a user,” as recited by claim
8. Id.
Gesture next argues that the Board’s obviousness de-
termination regarding claims 2, 3, 14, and 15 was flawed
because Sears is nonanalogous art, and even if Sears is
analogous art, the combination of Liebermann and Sears
fails to render any claims of the ’079 patent obvious. We
disagree.
First, substantial evidence supports the Board’s find-
ing that Sears is analogous art because both the ’079 patent
and Sears relate to performing functions based on detect-
ing gestures under the field of endeavor test, and regard-
less, Sears is reasonably pertinent to the ’079 patent’s
identified problem of selecting an appropriate light source.
Id. at 18–22.
Second, the Board correctly determined it would have
been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute
Sears’ LEDs into Liebermann’s lamps 48 to illuminate the
claimed work volume given Liebermann’s disclosures
about the need to ensure adequate lighting of the user’s
hands, face, and body. Id. at 23–25. As the Board ex-
plained, replacing Liebermann’s lamps with Sears’ LEDs
was a matter of “simple substitution” for a person of ordi-
nary skill in the art. Id. at 25.
Finally, Gesture argues that the Board lacked jurisdic-
tion over this reexamination proceeding because the ’079
patent has expired. That issue has been resolved, and re-
jected, in the separate opinion of Apple Inc. v. Gesture Tech.
Partners, LLC, No. 23-1501, slip op. at 5–7 (Fed. Cir. 2025).
CONCLUSION
We have considered Gesture’s remaining arguments
and find them unpersuasive. For the foregoing reasons, we
affirm.
AFFIRMED
Case: 24-1037 Document: 50 Page: 4 Filed: 01/27/2025

-- 4 of 4 --