Brant Candelore

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 30, 2020

15046804 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Mar. 30, 2020)

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.
15/046,804 02/18/2016 Brant Candelore 201505539.01 4015
36738 7590 03/30/2020
ROGITZ & ASSOCIATES
4420 Hotel Circle Court
SUITE 230
SAN DIEGO, CA 92108
EXAMINER
ALSOMIRI, MAJDI A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3662
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/30/2020 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):
John@rogitz.com
Noelle@rogitz.com
eofficeaction@appcoll.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte BRANT CANDELORE

Appeal 2019-002486
Application 15/046,804
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before JENNIFER D. BAHR, JOHN C. KERINS, and
DANIEL S. SONG, Administrative Patent Judges.

KERINS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–5 and 8–22.1 We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM IN PART.

1 The term “Appellant” is used herein to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Sony Corp.
Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2019-002486
Application 15/046,804

2

THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellant’s invention relates to an active window for vehicles. Spec.
1. Claim 1 is illustrative, and is reproduced below:
1. At least one apparatus comprising:

at least one computer memory that is not a transitory signal and
that comprises instructions executable by at least one processor
to:
receive an image from a camera on a vehicle of background
surroundings of the vehicle;

access data representing a first orientation of the camera relative
to the vehicle;

based at least in part on the data representing the first orientation
of the camera relative to the vehicle, present a first object on a
display on the vehicle;

cause the camera to move relative to the vehicle;

access data representing a second orientation of the camera
relative to the vehicle;

based at least in part on the data representing the second
orientation of the camera relative to the vehicle, present a second
object on a display on the vehicle;

present at least one user interface (UI) with a first selector
selectable to enable and/or disable presenting images from the
camera on the display, a second selector selectable to cause video
to be presented on the display, an option to cause still
photographs to be presented on the display, and an
option to cause the processor to correlate a third object in the
image to a physical object in surroundings of the vehicle and at
least in part based on correlating the third object in the image to
the physical object, superimposing the third object in the image
onto the physical object.
Appeal 2019-002486
Application 15/046,804

3

THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejects:
(i) claim 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(d) as being of improper dependent
form;
(ii) claims 1–3, 5, 8, and 15–222 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Ricci (US 2014/0309864 A1, published Oct. 16, 2014) in
view of Yokokohji (US 2005/0264433 A1, published Dec. 1, 2005);
(iii) claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Ricci in
view of Yokokohji and Kim (US 2016/0176372 A1, published June 23,
2016); and
(iv) claims 9–14 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Ricci in view of Yokokohji and Breed (US 7,920,102 B2, issued Apr. 5,
2011).

ANALYSIS
Claim 22--35 U.S.C. § 112(d)
The Examiner takes the position that the subject matter of claim 22
does not constitute a further limitation on claim 21 from which it depends, in
violation of the requirements of Section 112(d). Final Act. 2–3. Appellant
traverses, arguing that claim 22 imposes a further condition not
contemplated by claim 21, and that the conditions set forth in claim 21
continue to be part of the claimed subject matter. Appeal Br. 5.

2 The heading for this rejection omits reference to claims 21 and 22. Final
Act. 4. The body of the rejection makes clear that claims 21 and 22 are
subject to this rejection as well. Id. at 10.
Appeal 2019-002486
Application 15/046,804

4
Appellant’s reading of the interrelationship of claims 21 and 22 is
correct. Two possible conditions are set forth in claim 21, with stated
outcomes for each condition. Claim 22 includes those conditions, as well as
a third, with a third outcome. None of these conditions are obviated by the
existence of the others. Claim 22 thus imposes a further limitation on the
claimed subject matter, as compared to claim 21.
The rejection of claim 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(d) is not sustained.

Claims 1–3, 5, 8, and 15–22--35 U.S.C. § 103--Ricci/Yokokohji
Claims 1–3, 5, and 8
The Examiner cites to Ricci as disclosing many of the limitations
present in claim 1, but, among other things, the Examiner finds that Ricci
does not disclose a processor accessing data representing first and second
orientations of a camera relative to a vehicle on which the camera is
mounted. Final Act. 5. The Examiner takes the position that these and other
related limitations are taught in Yokokohji, and concludes that it would have
been obvious to modify the Ricci system to include the accessing of first and
second camera orientations relative to a vehicle, in order to obtain better
camera alignment with objects and images to be displayed to a driver. Id. at
6.
Appellant maintains that the cited portions of Yokokohji relied on by
the Examiner do not evidence a disclosure in Yokokohji of a camera whose
orientation relative to a vehicle may be changed. Appeal Br. 6. Rather,
according to Appellant, the camera in Yokokohji is stationary and facing
forward on the vehicle, and provides images for a heads-up display on a
front windshield. Id., citing Yokokohji ¶ 114.
Appeal 2019-002486
Application 15/046,804

5
Appellant addresses other portions of the Yokokohji reference
identified by the Examiner as being pertinent to this claim limitation,
pointing out in each instance that nothing is said regarding a changing of an
orientation of the camera relative to the vehicle it is mounted on. Appeal Br.
8–10. Appellant acknowledges that Yokokohji includes embodiments in
which the camera moves, in paragraph 310 in particular, but maintains that
those portions of the disclosure do not indicate that the orientation of the
camera is tracked relative to the vehicle. Id. at 7–8. Appellant points to
paragraph 184 of Yokokohji as disclosing that “the same function can be
implemented with reference to the position and orientation of the external
image sensing camera 100 in place of the position and azimuth of the
vehicle.” Reply Br. 3. Appellant maintains that passage evidences that
orientation of the camera and the position and azimuth of the vehicle are
independent of one another.
Appellant’s position appears to be well-grounded in the evidence,
whereas the Examiner has not adequately explained why it is believed that
the cited passages involve a changing of the orientation of the camera and
employing the vehicle as a frame of reference, such that there would exist
first and second orientations relative to the vehicle, as claimed.
The rejection of claim 1, and that of claims 2, 3, 5, and 8 depending
therefrom, is not sustained.
Claims 15–22
Independent claim 15 recites that the apparatus therein is to be
configured to access data representing orientation of a camera with respect
to a vehicle, but does not indicate that there will be more than one
orientation of the camera with respect to the vehicle. Claim 15 does,
Appeal 2019-002486
Application 15/046,804

6
however, recite that the system is to identify a viewer location, and is to
offset a location of a presentation of an object to account for parallax
between the viewer location and a location of the camera. Appeal Br. 15–16
(Claims Appendix).
As with claim 1 above, the Examiner cites to Yokokohji as disclosing
this feature, and concludes that it would have been obvious to modify Ricci
to include the same. Final Act. 8. The Examiner takes the position that the
limitation is met via Yokokohji’s disclosure of allowing a passenger to
visually observe, through a display device, navigation information
superimposed on an object in the external world. Id.
Appellant notes that Yokokohji does not employ the term “parallax”
anywhere in its disclosure, and the portions of the reference cited to by the
Examiner that discuss generating an image based on the position and
azimuth of the vehicle and the position of an occupant’s head, do not
implicate accounting for parallax between the viewer location and the
camera location. Appeal Br. 11.
Appellant has the better position here. The Examiner provides a
definition of “parallax,” as involving a change in an apparent position of an
object relative to more distant objects caused by a change in the observer’s
line of sight toward the object, but fails to adequately explain how
Yokokohji can be interpreted as disclosing identifying a viewer location, and
offsetting a location of a presentation of an object to account for parallax
between the viewer location and a location of the camera performing in this
manner.
The rejection of claim 15, and of claims 16–22 depending from claim
15, is not sustained.
Appeal 2019-002486
Application 15/046,804

7

Claim 4--35 U.S.C. § 103--Ricci/Yokokohji/Kim
The Examiner does not rely on Kim in any manner that would cure
the deficiencies in the combination of Ricci and Yokokohji in rendering
obvious the subject matter of claim 1, from which claim 4 depends.
Accordingly, the rejection of claim 4 is not sustained.

Claims 9–14--35 U.S.C. 103--Ricci/Yokokohji/Breed
Independent claim 9 is directed to a method that involves presenting
at least one image on a side window of a vehicle, wherein the image is
obtained from a camera movably mounted on the vehicle and is generated,
as least in part, based on an angle of the camera relative to the vehicle; and
the rendered image is displayed at a location corresponding to an azimuth
and elevation at which the camera was oriented when it captured the image.
Appeal Br. 14 (Claims Appendix).
The Examiner takes the position that Yokokohji teaches the limitation
requiring the image from the camera to be “according to an angle of the
camera with respect to the vehicle.” Final Act. 11. The Examiner cites to
several of the passages in Yokokohji cited in rejecting claim 1, as well as
others, and including specific reference to paragraph 67, which is directed to
“measuring roughly a position and orientation of the image sensing device.”
Id.; Yokokohji ¶ 67. The Examiner also again cites to paragraph 310 as
evidencing that Yokokohji includes embodiments in which the camera is
moved dynamically. Final Act. 11; Ans. 8.
Appellant argues that the references, Yokokohji in particular, do not
disclose rendering images on the window at locations on the window
Appeal 2019-002486
Application 15/046,804

8
corresponding to an azimuth and elevation at which the camera was oriented
when it captured the images. Appeal Br. 12; Reply Br. 8–9. Appellant does
not explain why Yokokohji is not seen as disclosing this claim limitation,
and the argument amounts to essentially merely reciting claim elements with
a naked assertion that the corresponding elements are not found in the prior
art. The Federal Circuit has held that 37 C.F.R. § 41.37 is properly
interpreted by the Board as requiring more substantive arguments than this
in order to show Examiner error in the rejection. See In re Lovin, 652 F.3d
1349 (Fed. Cir. 2011)
The rejection of claim 9 is therefore sustained. Claims 10–14 depend
from claim 9 and are not separately argued. The rejection is sustained as to
these claims as well.

DECISION
The rejection of claim 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(d) as being of
improper dependent form is reversed.
The rejection of claims 1–3, 5, 8, and 15–22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Ricci and Yokokohji is reversed.
The rejection of claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Ricci, Yokokohji, and Kim is reversed.
The rejection of claims 9–14 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being
unpatentable over Ricci, Yokokohji, and Breed is affirmed.

Appeal 2019-002486
Application 15/046,804

9
CONCLUSION
In summary:

Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
22 112(d) Improper
Dependent Form
22
1–3, 5, 8,
15–22
103(a) Ricci, Yokokohji 1–3, 5, 8, 15–
22
4 103(a) Ricci, Yokokohji,
Kim
4
9–14 103(a) Ricci, Yokokohji,
Breed
9–14
Overall
Outcome

9–14 1–5, 8, 15–22

AFFIRMED IN PART