Benjamin Hendricks

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Oct 22, 2019

13756097 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Oct. 22, 2019)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
13/756,097 01/31/2013 Benjamin Hendricks 201104392.02 6862
51518 7590 10/22/2019
MAYER & WILLIAMS PC
55 Madison Avenue
Suite 400
Morristown, NJ 07960
EXAMINER
KWON, YONG JOON
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2486
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/22/2019 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
docket@mwpatentlaw.com
kwilliams@mwpatentlaw.com
mwolf@mwpatentlaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
_____________

Ex parte BENJAMIN HENDRICKS1
_____________

Appeal 2018-008895
Application 13/756,097
Technology Center 2400
______________

Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, DENISE M. POTHIER, and BETH Z. SHAW,
Administrative Patent Judges.

NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Final
Rejection of claims 1, 6 through 9 and 18 through 21. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Sony Pictures
Technologies. App. Br. 2
Appeal 2018-008895
Application 13/756,097

2

INVENTION
The invention is directed to a method to correct for rotational
differences in images between stereo cameras. Spec. ¶ 26. Claim 1 is
illustrative of the invention and is reproduced below:
1. A method for correcting stereo images,
comprising:
receiving a first set of images from a first
physical camera, and from the first set of images
determining a position and orientation of the first
camera;
receiving a second set of images from a
second physical camera, and from the second set
of images determining a position and orientation of
the second camera;
providing a first virtual camera and a second
virtual camera, the first virtual camera having a
location and orientation coincident with the first
physical camera, and the second virtual camera
having a location and orientation coincident with
the second physical camera;
determining a perspective shift between the
first physical camera and the second physical
camera based on the position of the first camera,
the orientation of the first camera, the position of
the second camera, and the orientation of the
second camera;
performing a homographic transformation to
adjust the orientation of the first or second virtual
camera based on the determined perspective shift;
and
performing an equivalent homographic
transformation on the second set of images based
at least in part on the determined perspective shift,
such that differences in images caused by
misalignment of the second physical camera
relative to the first physical camera are corrected.
Appeal 2018-008895
Application 13/756,097

3

REJECTIONS AT ISSUE
The Examiner has rejected claims 1, 6 through 9 and 18 through 212
under 35 U.S.C. § 112 (a) as failing to comply with the written description
requirement. Final Act. 7–9.3
The Examiner has rejected claims 1, 6, 7, 9, and 19 through 20 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Tytgat (US 2012/0007943
A1, published Jan. 12, 2012), and Levin (US 8,564,641 B1, issued Oct. 22,
2013). Final Act. 10–14.
The Examiner has rejected claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Tytgat, Levin, and Chen (US 8,194,993 B1, issued June 5,
2012). Final Act 14–15.
The Examiner has rejected claim 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Tytgat, Levin, Chen, and Liu (US 7,327,899 B2,
issued Feb. 5, 2008). Final Act. 15.
The Examiner has rejected claim 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Tytgat, Levin, and Sambongi (US 2006/0222260
A1, published Oct. 5, 2006). Final Act. 15.

2 The Examiner mistakenly included claim 22, which does not exist, in the
rejection’s heading. Final Act. 7.
3 Throughout this Opinion, we refer to the Appeal Brief, filed March 12,
2018 (“App. Br.”), the Reply Brief, Filed September 17, 2018 (Reply Br.);
the Examiner’s Answer, mailed July 17, 2018 (“Answer”), and the Final
Office Action, mailed September 12, 2017 (“Final Act.”).
Appeal 2018-008895
Application 13/756,097

4

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed Appellant’s arguments in the Briefs, the
Examiner’s rejections, and the Examiner’s response to Appellant’s
arguments. Appellant’s arguments have persuaded us of error in the
Examiner’s rejections of claims 1, 6 through 9 and 18 through 21 under 35
U.S.C. § 112(a), but have not persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s
rejections of claims 1, 6 through 9 and 18 through 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.

Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a)
The Examiner rejected claim 1 as not complying with the written
description requirement as:
the specification does not indicate that the inventors had
possession of the details of particular software or instructions
that would implement “receiving a first set of images from a
first physical camera, and from the first set of images
determining a position and orientation of the first camera” and
“receiving a second set of images from a second physical
camera, and from the second set of images determining a
position and orientation of the second camera”.

Final Act. 7–8. Further, the Examiner states that the Specification
does not demonstrate Appellant had possession of the details
concerning un-warping and re-warping. Id.4
Appellant argues that the written description rejection is in error as the
disputed limitations are recited in the originally filed claims. App. Br. 5,
Reply Br. 5. Further, Appellant argues that the Specification discusses

4 We note that the Examiner withdrew the written description rejection as to
the limitations concerning perspective shift, homograph transformations, and
equivalent homographic transformations. Answer 2.
Appeal 2018-008895
Application 13/756,097

5

determining positons and orientation of the camera from images through the
use of match moving techniques. App. Br. 5–11 (citing Spec. ¶ ¶ 12, 28, and
38), Reply Br. Appellant asserts that the match move technique is a known
technique to obtain camera position and orientation. App. Br. 9–10, Reply
Br. 2–5. To support this assertion, Appellant points out that Levin, a
reference used in the obviousness rejections, teaches using match moving for
the purpose of determining position and orientation information of cameras.
Reply Br. 4–5.

The Examiner responds to Appellant’s arguments stating that the
Specification does not proved an adequate written description of match
moving and Appellant has provided insufficient evidence to show match
moving is well known. Answer 3–4. Thus, the Examiner considers there to
be insufficient written description to demonstrate Appellant possessed the
claimed invention. Answer 5–7. Further, with respect to the limitation
directed to un-warping and re-warping, the Examiner states that the
Specification merely discloses using the steps of un-warping and re-warping
but does not provide a written description. Answer 7.
We agree with the Appellant that the Specification, which includes the
originally filed claims, demonstrates Appellant possessed the claimed
invention. The written description requirement serves “to ensure that the
inventor had possession, as of the filing date of the application relied on, of
the specific subject matter later claimed by him; how the specification
accomplishes this is not material.” In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 262
(CCPA 1976). As argued by Appellant, the originally filed claims, e.g.,
claim 5, recite determining the position of the cameras by using the match
Appeal 2018-008895
Application 13/756,097

6

moving technique. Further, as identified by Appellant, the originally filed
Specification (¶¶12, 15, 28, and 38) discusses using match moving for the
purpose of determining position and orientation information of cameras from
images. Additionally, we find that Levin demonstrates that match making is
a known technique for determining camera position from images to those
having ordinary skill in the art. See Levin, Col. 4, ll. 21–28. Thus, the
discussion of using match making in Appellant’s Specification would
convey reasonably to the skilled artisan that Appellant possessed the claim
limitations directed to determining positions and orientations of the camera
from images as claim 1 recites. Accordingly, we find the originally filed
Specification demonstrates that Appellant possessed using the known
technique in the claimed method.
With respect to the recitation directed to un-warping and re-warping
(in appealed claims 8 and 18), these limitations were recited in Appellant’s
originally filed claim 8 and discussed in Appellant’s Specification, see e.g.,
¶¶. 18, 29, and 36. . Thus, we find the originally filed Specification
demonstrates that Appellant possessed using the known techniques in the
claimed method.
Accordingly, we are persuaded of error, and do not sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 6 through 9 and 18 through 21 under 35
U.S.C. § 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description
requirement.

Appeal 2018-008895
Application 13/756,097

7

Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103
Claim 1
Appellant argues that the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 is in error
on pages 13 through 16 of the Appeal Brief. Appellant argues that Tytgat
does not teach a) providing first and second virtual cameras having locations
and orientations coincident with their respective physical cameras; b)
determining a perspective shift between the two physical cameras based
upon determined positions; and c) performing a homograph shift based upon
determined perspective shift. App. Br. 12–13. Further, Appellant argues
that Levin does not teach performing a homographic transformation to adjust
the orientation of the virtual cameras based upon the determined perspective
shift or performing equivalent homographic transformation on a set of
images. App. Br. 14 (citing Final Act. 4, and Levin, col. 4, l. 48 – col. 5 l.
23). Appellant argues that Levin is concerned with adjusting physical
cameras and does not perform a transformation on a set of images. App. Br.
16, Reply Br. 6. Finally, Appellant argues that the Examiner’s rationale to
combine the references is conclusory. App. Br. 17, Reply Br. 6–7.5
The Examiner responds to Appellant’s arguments, identifying that the
arguments directed to the teachings of Tytgat are not persuasive because

5 We note for the first time in the Reply Brief, that Appellant also argues the
Examiner’s rationale to combine is in error as Tytgat is mutually exclusive
with Levin and the combination would “eviscerate the very point of Tytgat.”
Reply Br. 7. These new arguments in the Reply Brief could have been
presented in the Appeal Brief, are not prompted by the Examiner’s Answer,
and are not based on any new arguments or grounds of rejection in the
Examiner’s Answer. As a result, Appellant has waived such untimely
arguments because Appellant has not shown good cause for belatedly raising
the new argument. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.41(b)(2). We have not considered
these waived arguments.
Appeal 2018-008895
Application 13/756,097

8

Levin was relied upon for teaching the first and second virtual cameras,
determining the perspective shift, and performing the homographic shift.
Answer 8. Further, in response to Appellant’s arguments directed to Levin,
the Examiner states:
Levin teaches adjusting stereo images by creating left
and right images in a 3D virtual setting based on real left and
right cameras (Col.4 lines 50-60). Then the virtual cameras are
transformed by homographic transformation, including camera
tilt, roll, zoom, and pan (Levin: Col.12 liens 27-36), based on
interocular distance between two cameras to correct
discrepancies between the actual and recorded settings (Levin:
Col.4 lines 61-67 to Col.5 lines 1-5). Then the updated virtual
camera settings can be used to modify the settings for the
physical stereoscopic camera (Levin: Col.12 lines 37-44). Levin
adjusts virtual camera's tilt, roll, zoom and pan, i.e.
homographic transformation, based on interocular distance, i.e.
perspective shift, between real cameras.

Answer 8.

We concur with the Examiner and similarly find Appellant’s
arguments concerning Tytgat are not persuasive of error. The
Examiner’s rejection relied upon Tytgat to teach the limitation of
receiving images from a first and second camera to determine relative
position and orientation of the cameras from the images and not for
the limitations argued by Appellant. Final Act. 10. We additionally
note that Appellant’s arguments, when addressing the lack of written
description rejection, identify that Levin’s “Matchmoving” also
teaches the feature of determining a camera position from a series of
images. See, e.g., Reply Br. 4–5.
Appeal 2018-008895
Application 13/756,097

9

Further, Appellant’s arguments directed to Levin are not
persuasive of error. Initially, we note that Appellant’s arguments only
addressed the Examiner’s finding concerning columns 4–5 of Levin
and not the teachings in column 12 of Levin. We concur that the cited
portions of Levin teach adjusting the orientation of the first and
second virtual cameras. See Levin, col. 5, ll. 8–12. While we concur
with Appellant that Levin teaches the physical cameras are adjusted
based upon the modified settings from the adjusted virtual cameras
(see id., e.g., col. 12, ll. 38–40), we also find that Levin teaches in
other embodiments the images from the actual cameras are
transformed based upon the modified settings from the adjusted
virtual cameras (see id., e.g., col. 12, ll. 40–44 and col. 8, ll. 42–43,
52–58).
Further, we are not persuaded of error by Appellant’s argument
concerning the Examiner’s rationale to combine the Tytgat and Levin.
In KSR, the Supreme Court stated that “there must be some articulated
reasoning with [a] rational underpinning to support the legal
conclusion of obviousness.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.
398, 418 (2007). Here, the Examiner has provide a reasoned rationale
based upon the teaching of the references. Final Act. 12 (citing Levin,
Abstract and discussing reducing discrepancies). We have reviewed
this rationale and the evidence cited to support and consider the
Examiner to have provide an adequate rationale. That the rationale
only cites to Levin is not persuasive of error because the rejection
addresses the teaching of both references, and as discussed above, the
Examiner relied upon Tytgat to teach determining the positions of two
Appeal 2018-008895
Application 13/756,097

10

cameras from images, a feature with Appellant admitted is also taught
by Levin.
As Appellant’s arguments have not persuaded us of error in the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 1, we sustain the rejection of claim 1,
and claims 6, 7, 9, and 19 through 20, which are similarly rejected and
not separately argued.
Claims 8 and 21
Appellant has not presented arguments directed to the rejections of
these claims other than they are similarly in allowable condition. App. Br.
16. As Appellant has not persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s rejection
of independent claim 1, we sustain the Examiner’s rejections of claims 8 and
21 for the same reasons.
Claim 18
Appellant argues that the Examiner’s rejection of claim 18 is in error
as the combination of Tytgat, Levin, Chen, and Liu do not teach “warping
[of the image] is in any way related to preserving natural characteristics of
original photography.” App. Br. 16.
The Examiner responds to Appellant’s arguments stating:
Appellant does not explicitly disclose what preserving
natural characteristics of original photography entails.
Examiner interprets the limitation to be read by Liu because the
main purpose of warping and stitching images is to create a
panoramic image that preserves the natural characteristic of
original image, alleviating distortion and perception problems
associated with warped images (Liu: col.1 lines 17-22).
Answer 10.
We are not persuaded of error in the Examiner’s rejection.
Claim 18 recites re-warping images “whereby natural characteristics
Appeal 2018-008895
Application 13/756,097

11

of original photography are preserved.” Appellant has not identified a
definition or description in the Specification of what constitutes the
“natural characteristics” of a photograph that are being preserved. In
the absence of any specific definition or description, we find the
Examiner’s interpretation of Liu’s teaching as preserving the natural
characterizes of the original image is reasonable. Accordingly, we
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 18.

Other issues
Appellant argues on page 18 of the Appeal Brief that this application
should be afforded the benefit of the filing date of the provisional
application 61/667,135. We note the prior art cited in the obviousness
rejections all pre-date the filing date of the provisional application. Thus,
we do not reach this issue because it is not pertinent to deciding the appealed
obviousness rejections.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 6 through 9 and 18
through 21 is affirmed.

Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 6–9, 18–21 112 (a) Written Description 1, 6–9, 18–21
1, 6, 7, 9, 19–
20
103(a) Tytgat, Levin 1, 6, 7, 9, 19–
20

8 103(a) Tytgat, Levin, Chen 8
Appeal 2018-008895
Application 13/756,097

12

Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
18 103(a) Tytgat, Levin, Chen,
Liu
18
21 103(a) Tytgat, Levin,
Sambongi
21
Outcome 1, 6–9, 18–21

No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED