Ex Parte Carter et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 21, 201613126666 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 21, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/126,666 04/28/2011 24222 7590 09/23/2016 Maine Cernota & Rardin 547 Amherst Street 3rd Floor Nashua, NH 03063 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Nicholas Laurence Carter 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. XA3262-US 4818 EXAMINER POTTS,RYANP ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2666 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/23/2016 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): patents@mcr-ip.com dwitmer@mcr-ip.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte NICHOLAS LAURENCE CARTER and YOANNPAULGEORGESTHUEUX Appeal2015-007025 Application 13/126, 666 1 Technology Center 2600 Before MARC S. HOFF, SCOTT E. BAIN, and ALEX S. YAP, Administrative Patent Judges. HOFF, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1---6, 10, 11, 13, and 15-18, which constitute all the claims pending in this application. 2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). We affirm-in-part. 1 The real party in interest is BAE Systems, PLC. 2 Claims 7-9, 12, and 14 have been cancelled. Appeal2015-007025 Application 13/126,666 Appellants' invention is a method of selecting a homography model from point correspondences of an associated image pair. One or more sampling constraints are implemented, which provide a more even spread of point selection over the image. Sample consensus is performed, constrained by the sampling constraints, to select the homography model. Spec. 3. CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Claim 1 is exemplary of the claims on appeal: 1. A method of selecting a homography model from point correspondences from a pair of associated images, the method compnsmg: implementing a sampling constraint comprising defining a predetermined exclusion zone; and performing a sample consensus constrained by the sampling constraint to select the homography model, wherein the predetermined exclusion zone is defined before performing the sample consensus, and no points within the predetermined exclusion zone are selected to perform the sample consensus to select the homography model. REFERENCES The Examiner relies upon the following prior art in rejecting the claims on appeal: Nielsen, F.: Randomize Adaptive Algorithm for Mosaicing System, IEICE Trans. Inf. & Syst. E83-D(7), 1386-94 (2000). Kanazawa, Y.: Stabilizing Image Mosaicing by Model Selection, Department of Knowledge-based Information Engineering Toyohashi University of Technology. 2 Appeal2015-007025 Application 13/126,666 Rothganger, F.: 3D Object Modeling and Recognition Using Aj)zne- Invariant Patches and Multi-View Spatial Constraints IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (2003). Zucchelli, M., Multiple Plane Segmentation Using Optical Flow, CV AP & CAS, Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden (2002). REJECTIONS Claims 1, 2, 4---6, 10, 11, and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Nielsen. Claim 3 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Nielsen and Kanazawa. Claim 13 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Nielsen and Rothganger. Claims 16-18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Nielsen and Zucchelli. Throughout this decision, we make reference to the Appeal Brief ("App. Br.," filed Feb. 12, 2015) and the Examiner's Answer ("Ans.," mailed May 1, 2015) for their respective details. ISSUES 1. Does Nielsen disclose implementing a sampling constraint defining a predetermined exclusion zone; performing a sampling consensus constrained by the sampling constraint to select the homography model; wherein no points within the exclusion zone are selected to perform the sample consensus? 2. Does the combination of Nielsen and Zucchelli disclose or suggest partitioning at least one of the images into a plurality of partition zones; 3 Appeal2015-007025 Application 13/126,666 defining the predetermined exclusion zone within the plurality of partition zones; and selecting a plurality of points in the image, each selected point being selected from a respective different one of the plurality of partitioned zones, selecting no points within the exclusion zone? PRINCIPLES OF LAW "A rejection for anticipation under section 102 requires that each and every limitation of the claimed invention be disclosed in a single prior art reference." See In re Buszard, 504 F.3d 1364, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (quoting In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1478-79 (Fed. Cir. 1994)). ANALYSIS CLAIMS 1, 2, 4--6, 10, 11, AND 15 Appellants argue that Nielsen does not implement a sampling constraint defining a predetermined exclusion zone, and perform a sample consensus constrained by the sampling constraint, wherein no points within the predetermined exclusion zone are selected to perform the sample consensus, as recited in claim 1. Nearly identical language is contained in claims 4 and 15. Appellants contend that "Nielsen does not disclose or suggest that only those pixels within the geometric ring are used for a sample consensus." App. Br. 8. Appellants further assert that "pixels outside of the geometric inclusion zone of Nielsen are explicitly examined" (id.), although we can find no such explicit statement in Nielsen. We do not agree with Appellants' characterization. Nielsen's summary of Figure 5 states that "[a] query behaves as a graphics filling 4 Appeal2015-007025 Application 13/126,666 procedure, starting from an initial bucket contained in the geometric ring and examining step by step all the neighbors inside the geometric query until none are left." Nielsen at 1391. Nielsen thus discloses selecting a series of points to perform the sample consensus (i.e., all those inside the ring), step by step. We find that "[u]ntil none are left" means that (a) all the points are selected (sequentially), and (b) once all the points have been selected, the sample consensus is concluded. No points within the predetermined exclusion zone, i.e., no points outside the ring, are selected. We find that the Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1, 2, 4---6, 10, 11, and 15 as being anticipated by Nielsen. We sustain the Examiner's § 102 rejection. CLAIM3 Appellants' only argument concerning claim 3 is that Kanazawa fails to remedy the deficiencies of Nielsen. Because we find supra that Nielsen anticipates the invention of claim 1, we sustain the Examiner's § 103 rejection of claim 3 over Nielsen and Kanazawa, for the same reasons given with respect to the rejection of claim 1. CLAIM 13 Appellants' only argument concerning claim 13 is that Rothganger fails to remedy the deficiencies of Nielsen. Because we find supra that Nielsen anticipates the invention of claim 1, we sustain the Examiner's § 103 rejection of claim 13 over Nielsen and Rothganger, for the same reasons given with respect to the rejection of claim 1. 5 Appeal2015-007025 Application 13/126,666 CLAIMS 16-18 Each of these dependent claims requires "partitioning at least one of the images into a plurality of partition zones," "defining the predetermined exclusion zone within the plurality of partition zones," and selecting "each of the plurality of points ... from a respective different one of the plurality of partitioned zones." The Examiner finds that Zucchelli suggests these limitations because "[t]he underlying geometry of induced homographies is well understood." Ans. 5; Zucchelli at 313. "Zucchelli purposely takes advantage of the underlying geometry in order to avoid searching for point correspondences where projective distortions and other sources of error could yield false or inaccurate data." Ans. 5---6. "The ultimately-selected clusters of point correspondences from each estimated planar surface are processed sequentially while the ambiguous features are removed from consideration." Id. The Examiner does not provide citations to Zucchelli for this material, and we have been unable to locate it in the document. Further, even ifthe Examiner correctly characterizes the content of Zucchelli, we do not agree with the Examiner that any such disclosure corresponds to partitioning the image, defining the exclusion zone within the partition zones, and selecting each of a plurality of points from a respective different one of said partition zones, as claims 16-18 require. The Examiner cites sections 3 .1, 3 .2, and Figure 4 of Zucchelli in the Final Action, but we find that the Examiner's explanation fails to establish that Zucchelli teaches the claimed partitioning or the claimed selection of points from each of the plurality of partition zones. 6 Appeal2015-007025 Application 13/126,666 We conclude that the combination of Nielsen and Zucchelli fails to teach or suggest all of the limitations of claims 16-18. We, therefore, do not sustain the Examiner's § 103 rejection of these claim. CONCLUSIONS 1. Nielsen discloses implementing a sampling constraint defining a predetermined exclusion zone; performing a sampling consensus constrained by the sampling constraint to select the homography model; wherein no points within the exclusion zone are selected to perform the sample consensus. 2. The combination of Nielsen and Zucchelli does not teach or suggest partitioning at least one of the images into a plurality of partition zones; defining the predetermined exclusion zone within the plurality of partition zones; and selecting a plurality of points in the image, each selected point being selected from a respective different one of the plurality of partitioned zones, selecting no points within the exclusion zone DECISION The Examiner's decision to reject claims 1--6, 10, 11, 13, and 15 is affirmed. The Examiner's decision to reject claims 16-18 is reversed. 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-IN-PART 7 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation