Ex Parte Allen

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 21, 2017

13775200 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 21, 2017)

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.
13/775,200 02/24/2013 Corville O. Allen AUS920120427US2 7970
77351 7590
IBM CORP. (AUS)
C/O THE LAW OFFICE OF JAMES BAUDINO, PLLC
2313 ROOSEVELT DRIVE
SUITE A
ARLINGTON, TX 76016
EXAMINER
CHEN, YU
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2613
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/22/2017 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte CORVILLE O. ALLEN
Appeal 2016-000771
Application 13/775,2001
Technology Center 2600
Before HUNG H. BUI, NABEEL U. KHAN, and MICHAEL J. ENGLE,
Administrative Patent Judges.
KHAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection
of claims 1, 4, 6—10, 12, and 14. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We affirm.
1 Appellant identifies International Business Machines Corporation as the
real party in interest. App. Br. 2.
Appeal 2016-000771
Application 13/775,200
STATEMENT OF THE CASE2
The Invention
Appellant’s invention relates to dynamic augmented reality media
creation where real-world and augmentation data is combined and displayed
to the user. The augmentation data may enhance real-world content and be
overlaid onto real-world images or displayed in a manner to enable the user
to view both the real-world content and the augmentation data together. See
Abstract; Spec. 11.
Exemplary independent claim 1 is reproduced below.
1. A method, comprising:
receiving, from a user of a device via an interface of the
device, capture event criteria;
receiving reality data by the device;
analyzing the reality data;
identifying augmentation data based on the analysis of the
reality data;
generating augmented reality content;
displaying the augmented reality content in real time to the
user on the device;
anticipating whether the reality data will correspond to the
capture event criteria; and
2 This application is a continuation of Application No. 13/707,019 (“the ’019
application”). Appellant filed a notice of appeal in the ’019 application on
February 17, 2015 (Appeal No. 2016-000734) and three days later, on
February 20, 2015, filed a notice of appeal in this application. The two
applications involve similar technology, similar claims, and were rejected
over the same prior art references. The appeal in this case is, therefore,
related to the appeal in the ’019 application but Appellant failed to identify
the ’019 application as a related case in the Appeal Brief. Appellant is
reminded that under 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(ii), Appellant is required to
include such an identification in the Appeal Brief.
2
Appeal 2016-000771
Application 13/775,200
responsive to anticipating that the reality data will
correspond to the capture event criteria, automatically capturing
the augmented reality content in anticipation of the reality data
meeting the capture event criteria, and wherein automatically
capturing the augmented reality content comprises:
interfacing with an image rendering engine of the
device;
launching a first thread for capturing a video
segment of the augmented reality content;
launching a second thread for capturing a plurality
of images of the augmented reality content concurrently
with capturing the video segment; and
recording the video segment and the plurality of
images prior to the display of the augmented reality
content to the user on the device.
References and Rejections
1. Claims 1, 4, 6—10, 12, and 14 stand provisionally rejected on
grounds of non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting over claims 7,
10, 12—16, 18, and 24 of co-pending Application No. 13/707,019.
2. Claims 7—10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Meads et al. (US 8,358,903 Bl, Jan. 22, 2013; “Meads”),
Walker et al. (US 2008/0192129, Aug. 14, 2008; “Walker”), and Castillo et
al. (US 2008/0316312 Al, Dec. 25, 2008; “Castillo”).
3. Claims 1, 4, 6, 12, and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Meads, Walker, Castillo, and Obrador et al.
(US 2004/0218059 Al, Nov. 4, 2004; “Obrador”).
3
Appeal 2016-000771
Application 13/775,200
ANALYSIS
A. Double Patenting Rejections
The Examiner provisionally rejects claims 1, 4, 6—10, 12, and 14 on
the grounds of non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting over claims
7, 10, 12—16, 18, and 24 of co-pending Application No. 13/707,019. Final
Act. 3—6. Appellant does not present any arguments against these rejections,
thus waiving any arguments with respect thereto. Accordingly, we
summarily sustain these provisional double patenting rejections.
B. Rejection of Claims 1, 4, 6—10, 12 and 14 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a)
Appellant argues3 the cited references do not teach or suggest
“receiving, from a user of a device via an interface of the device, capture
event criteria,” as recited by claim 1. App. Br. 5. In particular, Appellant
argues in Walker “the user’s personalized database appears to be used
after a new image has been acquired,” and thus the “personalized
database is not used to determine whether criteria are met for
determining whether to capture a new image.” App. Br. 7.
We agree with Appellant and are persuaded of Examiner error.
Walker teaches that a camera may access a personalized image database to
determine what meta-information to associate with a newly captured image.
Walker | 96. The camera or a server may run an image recognition program
that uses the image database to identify people, places, or objects captured in
the new image. Id. If a match occurs, the meta-information used for the
3 Appellant presents additional arguments for the patentability of the
pending claims. However, because the identified argument is dispositive,
we do not reach the merits of these additional arguments.
4
Appeal 2016-000771
Application 13/775,200
matching images in the image database can be used for the captured image
as well. Id. Thus, we agree with Appellants that in Walker, the user’s
personalized image database is used after an image has already been taken,
and therefore the image database is not used to determine whether criteria
are met for taking a new image, which must occur before the new image is
captured.
The Examiner also relies on paragraphs 131, 142, and 265 of Walker
as teaching or suggesting capture event criteria. Final Act. 20; Ans. 2-4.
We do not discern from these cited portions of Walker any teaching or
suggestion of a user inputting capture event criteria used to determine
whether to capture an image as required by claim 1.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
independent claim 1, and similarly independent claims 7 and 12 which
contain the same limitation and their respective dependent claims. See Final
Act. 11-14, and 29-32.
DECISION
The Examiner’s provisional obviousness-type double patenting
rejections of claims 1, 4, 6—10, 12, and 14 are affirmed.
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1, 4, 6—10, 12, and 14 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) are reversed.
Because we have affirmed at least one ground of rejection with
respect to each claim on appeal, the Examiner’s decision is affirmed. See 37
C.F.R. § 41.50(a)(1).
5
Appeal 2016-000771
Application 13/775,200
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.50(f).
AFFIRMED
6