Ex Parte Baker et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 25, 2016

12606318 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 25, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/606,318 10/27/2009
22879 7590 02/29/2016
HP Inc,
3390 E. Harmony Road
Mail Stop 35
FORT COLLINS, CO 80528-9544
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Mary Baker
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
82259429 2536
EXAMINER
WOO, STELLA L
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2656
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/29/2016 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):
ipa.mail@hp.com
barbl@hp.com
yvonne.bailey@hp.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MARY BAKER, DANIEL GEORGE GELB, and
RAMIN SAMADANI
Appeal2014-002689
Application 12/606,318
Technology Center 2600
Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, and
AARON W. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judges.
STRAUSS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal2014-002689
Application 12/606,318
STATE~vfENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 1 and 5-20. Claims 2--4 are cancelled. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
THE INVENTION
The claims are directed to audiovisual feedback to users of video
conferencing applications. Spec. Title. Claim 1, reproduced below, is
representative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method of providing feedback to a participant in a video
conference, comprising the steps of:
establishing a video conferencing session between
multiple participants, wherein each participant in the video
conferencing session is associated with a video capture device
and an audio capture device; and
establishing presentation requirements for each
participant, wherein the presentation requirements are associated
with the video conferencing session and the video capture and
audio capture devices associated with each participant, wherein
responsive to a failure to meet the presentation requirements,
visual feedback is sent to at least a local participant who has
failed to meet the presentation requirements, and wherein the
visual feedback presents a distorted view to the local participant
by providing a parallax effect view of remote participants
indicating that the local participant has failed to meet the
presentation requirements.
2
Appeal2014-002689
Application 12/606,318
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Hiroaki
Vaszary
Zhang
Chatting
us 5,786,846
US 2006/0023061 Al
US 2010/0149310 Al
US 7,982,762 B2
REJECTIONS
The Examiner made the following rejections:
July 28, 1998
Feb.2,2006
June 17, 2010
July 19, 2011
Claims 1, 12-17, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Zhang and Vaszary. 1 Final Act. 2--4.
Claims 5-11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Zhang, Vaszary, and Chatting. Final Act. 4--5.
Claims 18 and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Zhang, Vaszary, and Hiroaki. Final Act. 5.
APPELLANTS' CONTENTIONS
1. Zhang's remote video image 280, although off-center and partially
outside the display window, is not a distorted, parallax effect view of
remote participants as required by claim 1. App. Br. 7-9.
2. Chatting's disclosure of "changing the opacity of an image based on a
measured quality [] is not the same as replacing an image with a
1 Although the Examiner's Answer includes claim 18 in the rejection under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Zhang and Vaszary (Ans. 4), the Final Action
instead indicates claim 18 is rejected over the combination further including
Hiroaki as per claim 19 (Final Act. 5). In view of Appellants' arguments,
such error is harmless for purposes of this appeal.
3
Appeal2014-002689
Application 12/606,318
different image when requirements are not met, as claimed [by claim
10]." Reply. Br. 3.
3. Because Chatting's image distortion is an alternative to the disputed
parallax effect of claim 1, Chatting teaches away from the
combination of references forming the basis of the rejection of claims
5-10. App. Br. 14--16.
4. Zhang and Vaszary do not teach the limitations of claim 11. App. Br.
10-11.
ISSUES ON APPEAL
Based on Appellants' arguments in the Appeal Brief (App. Br. 5-20)
and Reply Brief (Reply Br. 1-3), the issues presented on appeal are whether
the Examiner erred in finding the prior art teaches or suggests the limitations
contested above.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants'
arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants'
conclusions. We adopt as our own (1) the findings and reasons set forth by
the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken (Final Act. 2---6)
and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner's Answer in
response to Appellants' Appeal Brief (Ans. 3-8) and concur with the
conclusions reached by the Examiner. We highlight the following for
emphasis.
In connection with contention 1, Appellants argue "Zhang describes a
window that occludes or crops a portion of the remote user which is not the
4
Appeal2014-002689
Application 12/606,318
same as a distortion and a parallax effect as claimed." Reply Br. 2. The
Examiner responds by pointing out Appellants' Specification describes how
the "parallax effect creates an off-center view of the remote participants ...
[providing] a visual cue to the local user that they also may not be properly
centered or framed," which "is the same visual feedback taught by Zhang."
Ans. 7, citing Spec. 8:10-20.
We are unpersuaded of Examiner error. Appellants fail to provide
sufficient evidence or a persuasive line of reasoning rebutting the
Examiner's findings that Zhang includes a parallax effect, including an off-
center view as disclosed by Appellants' Specification (p. 8, 11. 10-20). That
is, Appellants do not explain why the disputed parallax effect is not
equivalent to and taught by the off-center view of remote participants as
depicted by Zhang's Figure 9 and disclosed at paragraph 0024. In particular,
Zhang teaches how remote video 170 of a remote conferee may be displayed
on a local videoconferencing display 172 to provide feedback to a local
conferee 174 about his or her position in a local camera's 176 field of view.
When local conferee 174 is at the edge of the camera's 176 field of view, the
image of the conferee 174 is partly or fully out of view. Zhang i-f 24. As
conferee 284 moves closer to the center, area 314 is substantially centered
with the remote conferee. Zhang Fig. 9, i-f 41. Therefore, consistent with
Appellants' Specification, this off-center view teaches or suggests the
disputed parallax effect.
We are also not persuaded by Appellants' argument that, because
Zhang's image may also be cropped or occluded, it fails to teach a distortion
via a parallax view. Reply Br. 1-2. This is because the argued limitation
does not exclude a view of remote participants that is cropped or occluded
5
Appeal2014-002689
Application 12/606,318
such that, under a broad but reasonable interpretation, a parallax effect
includes a view of a participant, either partially or fully displayed, that is off-
centered. Thus, Appellants' argument is premised on limitations not found
in the appealed claims. Furthermore, Appellants' arguments amount to little
more than a naked assertion the disputed claim limitations are not found in
the prior art. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) ("A statement which merely
points out what a claim recites will not be considered an argument for
separate patentability of the claim."); In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed.
Cir. 2011) ("[W]e hold that the Board reasonably interpreted Rule 41.37 to
require more substantive arguments in an appeal brief than a mere recitation
of the claim elements and a naked assertion that the corresponding elements
were not found in the prior art."). Accordingly, Appellants' contention 1 is
unpersuasive of Examiner error.
For the reasons supra, we sustain the rejection of independent claim 1
and independent claims 17 and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), together with
the rejection of dependent claims 12-16, 19, and 20, which are not
separately argued.2
In connection with contention 2, Appellants argue Zhang does not
teach or suggest "wherein when the presentation requirement is not met, an
image of the local participant replaces the image of the remote participant
that is shown when the presentation requirements are met." App. Br. 9-10.
The Examiner responds Chatting, not Zhang, teaches the disputed limitation,
in its rendering of a self-view image's opacity based on the measured quality
of the video. Ans. 7, citing Chatting col. 21, 11. 1-14.
2 Merely restating with respect to a second claim an argument previously
presented with respect to a first claim is not an argument for separate
patentability of the two claims.
6
Appeal2014-002689
Application 12/606,318
Appellants' contention is unpersuasive because, inter alia, it fails to
address the Examiner's findings. Chatting discloses superimposing remote
and local views and applying a dynamic adjustment to the visibility of the
local view based on a measure of the quality of the images. Chatting col. 21,
11. 1-14; col. 18, 11. 30-41. Chatting also describes how the opacity of the
remote image may be reduced, leading to the sidetone/local image becoming
more visually attentive than the remote image. Chatting col. 18, 11. 30-41.
Therefore, as the quality in Chatting adjusts, so does the relative visibility of
the local and remote images. We agree, in light of these teachings, it would
have been obvious to cause a local image to become fully opaque, and
therefore replace a remote image based on a local quality factor, as recited in
claim 10. See KSR Int'!. Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007)
(explaining that "if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a
person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve
similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its
actual application is beyond his or her skill"). Furthermore, contrary to
Appellants' argument, under a broad but reasonable interpretation of the
disputed limitation, the claims do not require the remote view be entirely
replaced. Therefore, even if the remote view is only partially replaced with
a local view based on a quality measure, the disputed claim limitation is
taught or suggested by Chatting. Therefore, for these reasons, we agree with
the Examiner in finding Chatting teaches the replacement of the remote view
with the local view based on a quality factor as required by claim 10.
In connection with contention 3, Appellants argue Chatting teaches
away from providing a parallax effect view of remote participants by
teaching an alternative effect in which a white pixel is replaced by a
7
Appeal2014-002689
Application 12/606,318
corresponding pixel in the sidetone image and black pixels in the remote
image remain unchanged. App. Br. 14--16.
Appellants' argument is unpersuasive because Appellants fail to
provide sufficient evidence or argument that Chatting so disparages effects
other than the disclosed image overly, including the offset image of Zhang,
as to discourage the ordinary artisan from making the combination. See In
re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1471 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (holding that merely
"express[ing] a preference" falls short of discouraging one of ordinary skill
in the art from following a particular path); In re Dunn, 349 F.2d 433, 438
(CCPA 1965) (merely teaching an alternative or equivalent method does not
teach away from the use of a claimed method.). Furthermore, it is the Zhang
reference that discloses the parallax effect, not Chatting. Final Act. 4, Ans.
7. Appellants' argument that Chatting is silent concerning a parallax effect
is unpersuasive because one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking
references individually when the rejection is based on a combination of
references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). Appellants'
contention 3 is unpersuasive of Examiner error.
We are also unpersuaded by Appellants' contention 4, arguing "Zhang,
does not teach, describe or suggest 'wherein the image of the local
participant is blended with the image of the remote participants,' as claimed
[by claim 11]." App. Br. 10. As found by the Examiner, Chatting, not
Zhang, teaches the disputed limitation. Ans. 8.
For the reasons supra, Appellants' contentions of error are
unpersuasive. According, we sustain the rejection of claims 5-11.
DECISION
8
Appeal2014-002689
Application 12/606,318
The Examiner's decision to reject claims 1 and 5-20 is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
9