Ex Parte Blanchflower et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 22, 2016

13023500 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 22, 2016)

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.
13/023,500 02/08/2011 SEAN MARK BLANCHFLOWER 82948391 8831
22879
HP Tnr
7590 12/27/2016 EXAMINER
3390 E. Harmony Road
Mail Stop 35
AMIN, JWALANT B
FORT COLLINS, CO 80528-9544 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2618
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/27/2016 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
y vonne.bailey @ hp. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SEAN MARK BLANCHFLOWER and
MICHAEL RICHARD LYNCH
Appeal 2015-004845
Application 13/023,500
Technology Center 2600
Before JASON V. MORGAN, NABEEL U. KHAN, and
KAMRAN JIVANI, Administrative Patent Judges.
KHAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants1 seek our review, under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), of the
Examiner’s final decisions rejecting claims 9, 17—19, 23, and 28—33. App.
Br., Claims Appx. Claims 1—8, 10—16, 20—22, and 24—27 are cancelled. Id.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Autonomy, Inc.; a
subsidiary of Hewlett-Packard Co. App. Br. 1.
Appeal 2015-004845
Application 13/023,500
THE INVENTION
“Embodiments of the present invention generally relate to the field of
digital image processing, and in some embodiments, specifically relate to
inserting augment information into video streams.” Spec. 11.
Claim 17 is illustrative of the disputed subject matter and reproduced
below.
17. A non-transitory computer-readable media that stores
instructions, which when executed by a first mobile device, cause
the first mobile device to:
extract a pattern of visually distinctive features of points of
interest included in a frame of a video stream captured by the
first mobile device connected to a network using wireless
communication;
send, to a first server computer, the pattern of visually distinctive
features without sending the frame of the video stream to the first
server computer, to cause the first server computer to compare
the visually distinctive features included in the frame with
visually distinctive features of known points of interest included
in an object database to identify a first known point of interest;
receive, from the first server computer, augment information
related to the first known point of interest selected from an
augment information database, wherein the augment information
is to overlay the frame of the video stream prior to the video
stream being presented to a user of the first mobile device;
exchange chirp signals including audio data with at least a second
mobile device, wherein the first mobile device includes a
microphone to detect at least one of the chirp signals from the
second mobile device;
determine a distance and a direction between the first and second
mobile devices based on the chirp signals; and
2
Appeal 2015-004845
Application 13/023,500
cause display of an arrow that overlays the video stream, the
arrow indicating the direction from the first mobile device to the
second mobile device.
THE REJECTIONS
Claims 9, 17, and 28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Athsani (US 2009/0102859 Al; Apr. 23, 2009), Li
(US 2012/0108258 Al; May 3, 2012), Isaac (US 2006/0177073 Al; Aug.
10, 2006), De Waele (US 2010/00678864 Al; Mar. 18, 2010), Ahya
(US 2009/0298419 Al; Dec. 3, 2009), Mizune (US 2003/0013461 Al; Jan.
16, 2003), and Brackney (US 2011/0115816 Al; May 19, 2011). Final Act.
13-21 (June 17, 2014).
Claims 18 and 29 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
patentable over Athsani, Li, Isaac, De Waele, Ahya, Mizune, Brackney, and
Erten (US 2002/0116197 Al; Aug. 22, 2002). Final Act. 22.
Claims 19 and 30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Athsani, Li, Isaac, De Waele, Ahya, Mizune, Brackney,
Erten, and Wither (US 2011/0292076 Al; Dec. 1, 2011). Final Act. 22—24.
Claims 23 and 31 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Athsani, Li, Isaac, De Waele, Ahya, Mizune, Brackney,
and Ramer (US 2011/0258049 Al; Oct. 20, 2011). Final Act. 2A-25.
Claims 32 and 33 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Athsani, Li, Isaac, De Waele, Ahya, Mizune, Brackney,
and Dieguez (US 2006/0234631 Al; Oct. 19, 2006). Final Act. 26.
3
Appeal 2015-004845
Application 13/023,500
CLAIM GROUPINGS
Appellants contend the Appeal Brief sets forth “separate arguments
for various independent and dependent claims” (App. Br. 5); however, the
Appeal Brief presents substantive arguments only for claim 17 {id. at 6—10).
As for the remaining claims, the Appeal Brief merely refers back to the
arguments regarding claim 17. Id. at 10. If Appellants view the arguments
as differently applicable to different claims, then the difference(s) must be
explained. The Board does not speculate as to any argument, much less the
asserted “separateness” of a referenced argument for a given claim. See,
e.g., In reLovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“Lovin’s arguments
for independent claims 8, 17, 23, and 34 merely adopted his arguments for
independent claims 1 and 30, but did not explain why the additional features
in those claims should be separately patentable.”); In re Baxter Travenol
Labs, 952 F.2d 388, 391 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (“It is not the function of this court
to examine the claims in greater detail than argued by an appellant[.]”).
Accordingly, claim 17 is representative.
ANALYSIS
Appellants argue that the Examiner fails to present a prima facie case
of obviousness for several claimed combinations of features. App. Br. 6 et
seq.; see also infra. We are unpersuaded. The Examiner has provided
comprehensive findings supported by evidence. See infra. We adopt those
findings, particularly as presented at the Final Action’s pages 13—20 and the
Answer’s pages 2—6. We provide the following for emphasis.
The Examiner finds Mizune displays an arrow on a mobile device to
indicate the user’s bearing direction—i.e., pointing from the user’s
4
Appeal 2015-004845
Application 13/023,500
foreground position relative to the display screen, toward another mobile
device. Final Act. 20 (citing Mizune ]Hf 27—28). The Examiner further finds
Brackney overlays an arrow on a video image to indicate a direction of
movement therein, e.g., to display an air flow. Ans. 3; Final Act. 20 (citing
Brackney Fig. 3,139).
Appellants argue, “although Brackney depicts arrows over a video
image, the arrows of Brackney have nothing to do with the arrow that is
recited in claim 17. According to claim 17, the arrow that overlays the video
stream indicates the direction from the first mobile device to the second
mobile device.” App. Br. 8. Appellants further argue “[o]n the other hand,
although Mizune refers to using an arrow to indicate the direction of a
communication partner, Mizune is completely silent on overlaying such an
arrow on a video stream on which augment information is also overlaid.”
App. Br. 9.
Appellants’ arguments are unpersuasive because they attack
references as individually failing to teach or suggest a claim limitation;
neglecting that the references are applied in combination against the
limitation. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981) (“[0]ne cannot
show non-obviousness by attacking references individually where, as here,
the rejections are based on combinations of references.”). As admitted by
Appellants (see App. Br. 7), the Examiner relies on Mizune to teach an
arrow indicating the direction of a communication partner, i.e., the direction
from a first mobile device to a second mobile device (Final Act. 20). The
Examiner relies on Brackney to teach that the arrow of Mizune can be
overlaid onto a video stream displayed on a mobile device. Ans. 3; Final
Act. 20. Thus, Appellants’ argument that Mizune’s arrow is not overlaid on
5
Appeal 2015-004845
Application 13/023,500
a video stream is addressed by the Examiner’s findings regarding Brackney,
and Appellants’ argument that Brackney’s arrow has nothing to do with an
arrow indicating the direction from a first mobile device to a second mobile
device is addressed by the Examiner’s findings regarding Mizune.
Appellants further argue “no reason existed that would have prompted
a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the cited references to
achieve the subject matter of claim 17.” App. Br. 9. This is because,
according to Appellants, “Brackney describes using arrows to represent air
flows from diffusers, and thus, provides no teaching or hint whatsoever of
causing display of an arrow that overlays the video stream, where the arrow
indicates the direction from the first mobile device to the second mobile
device.” Id. In addition, “[although Mizune refers to using an arrow to
indicate a direction of a communication partner, Mizune does so in a
completely different way than the manner recited in claim 17.” Id.
Appellants make similar arguments for Li, Isaac, and Ahya, contending that:
Although Li refers to calculating a distance from an
audio signal emitter to a mobile computing device (Li,
Abstract), it is clear that Li provides no teaching or hint that
determining such a distance is performed in the context of
overlaying augment information over a video stream as well as
an arrow that indicates direction from a first mobile device to a
second mobile device over the same video stream. . . . Isaac
and Ahya are similarly deficient in that regard.
App. Br. 10.
Appellants’ arguments are unpersuasive because they attack the
rejection as failing to rely upon an applied prior art feature for its disclosed
purpose, neglecting that an obviousness conclusion need not rely upon only
disclosed uses of prior art features. KSR Int 7 Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.
398, 420 (2007) (“Common sense teaches, however, that familiar items may
6
Appeal 2015-004845
Application 13/023,500
have obvious uses beyond their primary purposes, and in many cases a
person of ordinary skill will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents
together like pieces of a puzzle.”). Thus, because Appellants do not address
whether the Examiner’s findings and reasons are sufficient to support the
conclusion of obviousness, Appellants have not shown “an error in either (1)
an underlying finding of fact upon which the final conclusion of obviousness
was based, or (2) the reasoning used to reach the legal conclusion of
obviousness.” Ex Parte Nancy C. Frye, 94U.S.P.Q.2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI
2010) (precedential). Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejections of
claim 17; claims 9, 18, 19, 23, and 28—33 falling therewith.
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 9, 17—19, 23, and 28—33 are
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
7