Ex Parte Catrein et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 28, 2016

13509812 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 28, 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.
4015-8125/P29514-US1 9405
EXAMINER
GADOMSKI, STEFAN J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2489
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
13/509,812 07/27/2012
24112 7590 11/28/2016
COATS & BENNETT, PLLC
1400 Crescent Green, Suite 300
Cary, NC 27518
Daniel Catrein
11/28/2016 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 DANIEL CATREIN, FRANK HARTUNG,
MARKUS KAMPMANN, and THOMAS RUSERT
Appeal 2016-003080
Application 13/509,812
Technology Center 2400
Before BRUCE R. WINSOR, LINZY T. McCARTNEY, and
NATHAN A. ENGELS, Administrative Patent Judges.
PER CURIAM.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims
19-35. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
Appeal 2016-003080
Application 13/509,812
BACKGROUND
Claim 19 recites the following:
19. A method for synchronizing a plurality of cameras
connected via a telecommunication network for capturing a
multi-view session controlled by a synchronization module, the
method comprising:
receiving disposability information of at least one camera
for capturing a session, the disposability information comprising
at least one capturing parameter of the corresponding camera;
performing a synchronization procedure for synchronizing
the cameras capturing the multi-view session wherein the
synchronization procedure comprises:
determining, based on the capturing parameters of
the individual cameras including the received capturing
parameter, at least one multi-view capturing parameter by
choosing a first multi-view capturing parameter that best
matches the corresponding capturing parameters of the
individual cameras;
selecting cameras suitable for the capturing of the
multi view session using the chosen first multi-view
capturing parameter;
notifying the selected cameras capturing the multi-view
session of the at least one multi-view capturing parameter,
including the first multi-view capturing parameter, for the
selected cameras to use while capturing the multi-view session.
App. Br. 14.
The Examiner rejected claims 19-35 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as
anticipated by Lim1. Final Act. 2—6.
1 Lim et al. (US 2009/0163185 Al; published June 25, 2009) (“Lim”).
2
Appeal 2016-003080
Application 13/509,812
ANALYSIS
Appellants contend Lim does not disclose “choosing a first multi-view
capturing parameter that best matches the corresponding capturing
parameters of the individual cameras” and “selecting cameras suitable for
the capturing of the multi view session using the chosen first multi-view
capturing parameter” as recited in claim 19. See App. Br. 10—11. According
to Appellants, “Lim’s solution ... is not to choose a multi-view capturing
parameter by matching the capturing parameters of the individual cameras
so that cameras suitable for capturing using that parameter may be
selected.'1'’ Id. at 10.
We find Appellants’ arguments persuasive. The Examiner found Lim
discloses the disputed “choosing” and “selecting” limitations because Lim
teaches selecting mobile communication devices to acquire multi-view
images using device information, the device information including device
specification and location information. See Ans. 2—3 (citing Lim || 49, 67);
Adv. Act. 2—3; final Act. 3 (citing Lim 131), 13—14 (citing Lim || 49, 66).
But the cited portions of Lim are silent as to how Lim’s control unit selects
and uses the device information to produce the list of mobile communication
devices. See Lim H 31, 49, 66, 67. Accordingly, the cited portions of Lim
do not explicitly disclose (1) “choosing” an item of device information that
“best matches” the corresponding device information of the individual
mobile communication devices; or (2) “selecting” the list of mobile
communication devices suitable for capturing the multi view session using
the chosen item of device information. See Ans. 2—3; Adv. Act. 2—3; final
Act. 3, 13-14.
3
Appeal 2016-003080
Application 13/509,812
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s anticipation rejection
of claim 19, nor do we sustain the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of
independent claims 31, 34, and 35, and dependent claims 20-30, 32, and 33,
each of which recites a similar limitation. See App. Br. 14—19.
DECISION
For the above reasons, we reverse the rejection of claims 19-35.
REVERSED
4