Ex Parte Cheng

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 30, 2017

13336812 (P.T.A.B. May. 30, 2017)

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.
13/336,812 12/23/2011 Hui Cheng 55434-240136
(SRI-N15122-
5327
101788 7590 06/01/2017
RARNFS ^ THORNRTTRO T T P
EXAMINER
11 SOUTH MERIDIAN STREET
INDIANAPOLIS, IN 46204
RAO, ANAND SHASHIKANT
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2486
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/01/2017 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):
indocket @ btlaw. com
corich @ btlaw. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte HUI CHENG
Appeal 2017-0012111
Application 13/336,812
Technology Center 2400
Before JEAN R. HOMERE, DEBRA K. STEPHENS, and
JOHN A. EVANS, Administrative Patent Judges.
Per Curiam.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1—20. App. Br. 5. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
1 Appellant identifies the real party in interest as SRI International. App. Br.
2.
Appeal 2017-001211
Application 13/336,812
Appellant’s Invention
Appellant invented a method and system for performing adaptive
image acquisition. Spec. 112. In particular, adaptive image acquisition
system (200) collects images from cameras (110) and (112) to create a
virtual view (216) for an operator of an area under surveillance. Spec. 137,
Fig. 2. System (200) further moves imaging sensors according to an
algorithmically determined motion pattern in response to a reaction of the
user to the virtual view in order to capture objects of interest to the user. Id.
137.
Illustrative Claim
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. An adaptive image acquisition system comprising:
a registration module for registering a first image and a
second image to create a plurality of registered images, wherein
the first image has a higher resolution than the second image;
a virtual view generation module for creating a virtual
view of a scene corresponding to a scene represented in the first
image and the second image, wherein the virtual view is created
using the registered images; and
an interface, coupled to the virtual view generation
module, for enabling a user to control one or more imaging
sensors while viewing the virtual view, wherein at least one of
the one or more imaging sensors are moved according to a
motion pattern in response to a reaction of the user to the virtual
view in order to capture objects of interest to the user, wherein
the motion pattern is algorithmically determined by the adaptive
image acquisition system.
2
Appeal 2017-001211
Application 13/336,812
Krajec
Tan et al.
Prior Art Relied Upon
US 2004/0239688 Al Dec. 2, 2004
US 2009/0073324 Al Mar. 19, 2009
(“Tan”)
Rejection on Appeal
Claims 1—20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Krajec and Tan. Final Act. 2—6.
ANALYSIS
We consider Appellant’s arguments seriatim, as they are presented in
the Appeal Brief, pages 5—9, and the Reply Brief, pages 1—5.2
Appellant argues the combination of Krajec and Tan does not teach or
suggest one or more imaging sensors are moved according to an
algorithmically determined motion pattern in response to a reaction of the
user, as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 8—9; Reply Br. 4—5. Appellant contends
the objects of Tan do not move responsive to any user reaction. App. Br. 8;
Reply Br. 4. According to Appellant, the objects move in a predetermined
pattern to correct for distortion. App. Br. 8. Appellant further asserts
Krajec’s disclosure of moving objects in a pattern related to the user’s
2 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellant and the Examiner, we
refer to the Appeal Brief (filed October 6, 2015), the Reply Brief (filed
October 26, 2016), the Answer (mailed August 26, 2016), and the Final
Office Action (mailed April 7, 2015) (“Final Act.”), for the respective
details. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2012).
3
Appeal 2017-001211
Application 13/336,812
position, is not equivalent to a pattern related to the user’s reaction. App. Br.
8—9; Reply Br. 4—5. These arguments are persuasive.
We agree with Appellant that the Examiner has not shown the
combination of Krajec and Tan teaches the recited one or more image
sensors being moved according to an algorithmically determined motion
pattern in response to a reaction of the user. Ans. 8. Tan teaches a moving
object for rendering specific views. Final Act. 3 (citing Tan H 323—324).
According to the Examiner, the movement of the object of Tan corresponds
to the user’s position of Krajec. Final Act. 3 (citing Krajec Fig. 4). The
Examiner further finds the motion pattern of the dispatcher in Krajec directs
image sensors. Ans. 8 (citing Krajec 139). Although the Examiner
correctly finds the dispatcher is directing the movement of officers on the
scene of the image by directing the position of the image sensor within the
camera, the motion pattern of the sensor is not algorithmically determined
by the image acquisition system, as required by the claim. See Krajec 139.
Because Appellant has shown at least one reversible error in the Examiner’s
rejection, we need not reach Appellant’s remaining arguments.
Consequently, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1, as well as
claims 2—20, which recite the disputed limitations discussed above.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s obviousness rejections under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) of claims 1—20.
REVERSED
4