Ex Parte Chen et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 31, 2016

13154247 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 31, 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.
13/154,247 06/06/2011 Ying Chen 102610U1 1641
15150 7590 03/02/2017
Shumaker & Sieffert, P. A.
1625 Radio Drive, Suite 100
Woodbury, MN 55125
EXAMINER
TRUONG, NGUYEN T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2486
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/02/2017 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):
pairdocketing @ ssiplaw.com
ocpat_uspto@qualcomm.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte YING CHEN, PEISONG CHEN, and MARTA KARCZEWICZ
Appeal 2015-003771
Application 13/154,247
Technology Center 2400
Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, ERIC B. CHEN, and ADAM J. PYONIN,
Administrative Patent Judges.
CHEN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON REQUEST FOR REHEARING
Appellants request rehearing under 37 C.F.R. § 41.52 of our Decision
on Appeal entered September 2, 2016 (“Decision”), in which we affirmed
the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1—50.
The Request for Rehearing is denied.
Appeal 2015-003771
Application 13/154,247
ANALYSIS
Claim 2
Appellants argue that “[regarding claim 2, the Board states that
Appellant has not presented any additional substantive arguments with
respect to this claim” which “is incorrect because Appellant presents
additional substantive arguments with respect to claim 2 on pages 21—23 of
Appellant’s Appeal Brief.” (Req. for Reh’g 3 (footnote omitted).) In
particular, Appellants argue that “such substantive arguments are preceded
by the header ‘Group 3: Claims 2—5, 8—11, 15—18, 21—24, 27—30, 33—36,
40-43, and 46-49.’” (Id.)
With respect to dependent claim 2, page 22 of Appellants’ Appeal
Brief argues the following:
The Final Office Action cited both Kurutepe and Cao as
disclosing the elements of claim 2. In particular, the Final Office
Action cited Kurutepe at Section II, left column ....
The Final Office Action also cited Section IV.B of Kurutepe in
support of the rejection of claim 2. As discussed at length above,
Section IV.B of Kurutepe merely describes dependencies from
depth and anchor streams to corresponding views.
(App. Br. 22 (emphases added).) In addition, page 23 of Appellants’ Appeal
Brief argues the following:
The Final Office Action further cited Cao, “page 5, left column,
first paragraph [§ 3.2]. ”... However, neither possible paragraph
to which this citation may refer . . . discloses or suggests a
relationship between view identifiers and relative horizontal
locations of camera perspectives, per claim 2.
The Final Office Action also cited Cao, FIG. 4 and page 5,
Section 3.2.1, first paragraph. These portions of Cao describe
simul-switching techniques of Cao.
2
Appeal 2015-003771
Application 13/154,247
(App. Br. 23 (emphases added).) Thus, Appellants argue that dependent
claim 2 is distinguishable over Sections II and IV.B of Kurutepe, Section
3.2.1 of Cao, and Figure 4 of Cao.
However, with respect to independent claim 1, page 12 of Appellants’
Appeal Brief argues the following:
The Final Office Action cited both Kurutepe at Section IV.B and
Cao at page 5, § 3.2.1, and FIG. 4 as allegedly disclosing
assigning view identifiers to two or more views such that the
view identifiers correspond to relative horizontal locations of
camera perspectives for the views. However, as discussed in
further detail below, these portions of Kurutepe and Cao fail to
disclose or suggest assigning view identifiers to two or more
views such that the view identifiers correspond to relative
horizontal locations of camera perspectives for the views, per
claim 1.
(App. Br. 12 (emphases added).) Similarly, page 16 of Appellants’ Appeal
Brief argues the following:
In particular, the Final Office Action asserted that Kurutepe
discloses sending an SDP announcement indicative of a
maximum view identifier and a minimum view identifier.71
However, the first cited portion (§ II) of Kurutepe does not
disclose that the SDP announcement includes data indicative of
a maximum view identifier and a minimum view identifier for the
representation to a client device, per claim 1.
(App. Br. 16 (emphases added and footnote omitted).) Therefore,
Appellants argue that claim 1 is distinguishable over Sections II and IV.B of
Kurutepe, Section 3.2.1 of Cao, and Figure 4 of Cao.
Accordingly, Appellants argue that both independent claim 1 and
dependent claim 2 are distinguishable over Sections II and IV.B of
Kurutepe, Section 3.2.1 of Cao, and Figure 4 of Cao. Thus, Appellants have
not presented any additional substantive arguments with respect to claim 2.
3
Appeal 2015-003771
Application 13/154,247
Instead, Appellants merely reiterate similar arguments previously presented
with respect to independent claim 1.
Additionally, under the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent
with the Specification, dependent claim 2 is similar in scope to independent
claim 1.
Page 3, lines 17—21 of our Decision states the following:
Claim 1 recites “video data for two or more views of a
scene . . . assigning view identifiers to the two or more views'”
(emphases added). Because the claim recites the alterative
expression “or,” under the broadest reasonable interpretation,
claim 1 only requires either one of (i) “two . . . views”; or (ii)
more than “two . . . views.”
Independent claim 1 recites: (i) “determining horizontal locations of camera
perspectives for each of the two . . . views”; (ii) “assigning view identifiers
to the two . . . views such that the view identifiers correspond to the relative
horizontal locations of the camera perspectives”; and (iii) “sending
information . . . indicative of a maximum view identifier and a minimum
view identifier for the representation to a client device” (emphases added).
Thus, under the broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 1, information
sent to the “client device” includes the following: (i) a first horizontal
location of a camera perspective assigned to the “minimum view identifier”;
and (ii) a second horizontal location of a camera perspective assigned to the
“maximum view identifier.” Thus, dependent claim 2, which recites
“sending information indicative of a relationship between the view
identifiers and the relative horizontal locations of the camera perspectives to
the client device” (emphasis added) is similar in scope to independent
claim 1.
4
Appeal 2015-003771
Application 13/154,247
Because dependent claim 2 is similar in scope to independent claim 1,
claim 2 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Cao and Kurutepe for
the same reasons discussed with respect to claim 1.
Claim 26
Appellants argue that “[regarding claim 26, the Board states that
Appellant has not presented any additional substantive arguments with
respect to this claim” which “is incorrect because Appellant presents
additional substantive arguments with respect to claim 26 on pages 19—21 of
Appellant's Appeal Brief.” (Req. for Reh’g 5 (footnote omitted).) In
particular, Appellants argue “such substantive arguments are preceded by
the header ‘Group 2: Claims 26, 31, 32, 37—39, 44, 45, and 50’ on page 18
of Appellant’s Appeal Brief.” (Id.)
With respect to independent claim 26, page 18 of Appellants’ Appeal
Brief argues the following:
The Final Office Action cited both Kurutepe at Sections II and
IV.B and Cao at page 5, Section 3.2.1, and FIG. 4 as allegedly
disclosing view identifiers for two or more views that are
assigned such that the view identifiers correspond to relative
horizontal locations of camera perspectives for the views. As
already explained above with respect to the rejections of the
claims of Group 1, however, these cited portions of Kurutepe and
Cao fail to disclose or suggest view identifiers for two or more
views that are assigned such that the view identifiers correspond
to relative horizontal locations of camera perspectives for two or
more views of a representation, per claim 26.
(App. Br. 18 (emphasis added).) In addition, page 19 of Appellants’ Appeal
Brief argues the following:
The Final Office Action acknowledged that Kurutepe does not
explicitly disclose determining a maximum horizontal location
5
Appeal 2015-003771
Application 13/154,247
of a camera perspective for two or more views of a representation
and a minimum horizontal location of a camera perspective for
the two or more views of the representation based on a maximum
view identifier and a minimum view identifier, per claim 26, but
asserted that Cao discloses these features of claim 26. Applicant
respectfully disagrees. The Final Office Action specifically cited
Cao at “page 5, left column, first paragraph 3.2\ ”
(App. Br. 19 (emphasis added).) Therefore, Appellants argue that
independent claim 26 is distinguishable over Sections II and IV.B of
Kurutepe, Section 3.2.1 of Cao, and Figure 4 of Cao.
However, as discussed previously, Appellants also argue that claim 1
is distinguishable over Sections II and IV.B of Kurutepe, Section 3.2.1 of
Cao, and Figure 4 of Cao.
Accordingly, Appellants argue that both independent claims 1 and 26
are distinguishable over Sections II and IV.B of Kurutepe, Section 3.2.1 of
Cao, and Figure 4 of Cao. Thus, Appellants have not presented any
additional substantive arguments with respect to claim 26. Instead,
Appellants merely reiterate similar arguments previously presented with
respect to independent claim 1.
Additionally, under the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent
with the Specification, the disputed limitations of independent claim 26 are
similar in scope to claim 1. Independent claim 26 recites: (i) “determining a
maximum horizontal location of a camera perspective for the two . . . views
of the representation and a minimum horizontal location of a camera
perspective for the two . . . views of the representation based on the
maximum view identifier and the minimum view identifier”; and (ii)
“wherein view identifiers for the two . . . views are assigned such that the
view identifiers correspond to the relative horizontal locations of the camera
6
Appeal 2015-003771
Application 13/154,247
perspectives for the two . . . views” (emphases added). As discussed
previously, independent claim 1 recites: (i) “determining horizontal
locations of camera perspectives for each of the two . . . views”; and (ii)
“assigning view identifiers to the two . . . views such that the view identifiers
correspond to the relative horizontal locations of the camera perspectives”
having “a maximum view identifier and a minimum view identifier.” Thus,
the disputed limitations of claim 26 are similar in scope to independent
claim 1 because both claims recite assigning a “minimum view identifier” to
a first one camera location while assigning a “maximum view identified” to
a second camera location.
Because the disputed limitations of independent claim 26 are similar
in scope to independent claim 1, claim 26 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) over Cao and Kurutepe for the same reasons discussed with respect
to claim 1.
CONCLUSION
The Request for Rehearing has been considered and denied.
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).
REHEARING DENIED
7