Ex Parte AllenDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 23, 201713707019 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 23, 2017) Copy Citation 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. 13/707,019 12/06/2012 Corville O. Allen AUS920120427US1 2935 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 02/24/2017 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 2016-000734 Application lS/707,0191 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 7, 10, 12—16, 18, and 24. 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 2016-000734 Application 13/707,019 STATEMENT OF THE CASE The Invention Appellant’s invention relates to augmented reality, 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 Spec. 11. Exemplary independent claim 7 is reproduced below. 7. A system, comprising: an imaging device having a processor and an interface configured to receive, from a user of the imaging device, capture event criteria; an augmentation module executable by the processor to: receive reality data; analyze the reality data; identify augmentation data based on the analysis of the reality data; and generate augmented reality content; and display the augmented reality content in real time to the user on the imaging device; and a capture module executable by the processor to: anticipate whether the reality data will correspond to the capture event criteria; and responsive to anticipating that the reality data will correspond to the capture event criteria, capture the augmented reality content in anticipation of the reality data meeting the capture event criteria, and wherein the capture module is operable to: interface with an image rendering engine of the imaging device; 2 Appeal 2016-000734 Application 13/707,019 launch a first thread for capturing a video segment of the augmented reality content; and launch a second thread for capturing a plurality of images of the augmented reality content concurrently with capturing the video segment; and record the video segment and the plurality of images prior to the display of the augmented reality content to the user on the imaging device. References and Rejections 1. Claims 7, 10, 12—16, 18, and 24 stand provisionally rejected on grounds of non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting over claims 1, 4, 6—10, 12, and 14 of co-pending Application No. 13/775,200. 2. Claims 13—16 and 18 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 Al, Aug. 14, 2008; “Walker”), and Castillo et al. (US 2008/0316312 Al, Dec. 25, 2008; “Castillo”). 3. Claims 7, 10, 12, and 24 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”). ANALYSIS A. Double Patenting Rejections The Examiner provisionally rejects claims 7, 10, 12—16, 18, and 24 on the grounds of non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting over claims 1, 4, 6—10, 12, and 14 of co-pending Application No. 13/775,200. Final Act. 3—6. Appellant does not present any arguments against these rejections, thus 3 Appeal 2016-000734 Application 13/707,019 waiving any arguments with respect thereto. Accordingly, we summarily sustain these provisional double patenting rejections. B. Rejection of Claims 7, 10, 12—16, 18, and 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) Appellant argues2 the cited references fail to teach or suggest “an imaging device having ... an interface configured to receive, from a user of the imaging device, capture event criteria,” as recited in claim 7. App. Br. 5—7. 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 (emphasis omitted). 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 196. 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 matching images in the image database can be used for the captured image as well. Id. Thus, we agree with Appellant 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 2 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 2016-000734 Application 13/707,019 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. 21—22; 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 7. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 7, and similarly, independent claims 13 and 24 which contain substantially the same limitation and their respective dependent claims. See Final Act. 11—14, 29—34. DECISION The Examiner’s provisional obviousness-type double patenting rejections of claims 7, 10, 12—16, 18, and 24 are affirmed. The Examiner’s rejections of claims 7, 10, 12—16, 18, and 24 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). 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 5 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation