Ex Parte Geng

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Aug 11, 2008

09821648 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 11, 2008)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte ZHENG J. GENG
____________

Appeal 2008-1153
Application 09/821,6481
Technology Center 2600
____________

Decided: August 11, 2008
____________

Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, ROBERT E. NAPPI, and
SCOTT R. BOALICK, Administrative Patent Judges.

BOALICK, Administrative Patent Judge.

1 Application filed March 29, 2001. Application 09/821,648 is a
continuation-in-part of 09/098,322 filed June 16, 1998. The real party in
interest is Genex Technologies, Inc.
Appeal 2008-1153
Application 09/821,648

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection of
claims 1-14 and 16-44, all the claims pending in the application. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant's invention relates to omnidirectional imaging. In the words
of the Appellant:
the present invention is directed to an efficient omnidirectional
image processing method and system that can obtain, in real-
time, non-distorted perspective and panoramic images and
videos based on the real-time omnidirectional images acquired
by omnidirectional image sensors. Instead of solving complex
high-order nonlinear equations via computation, the invention
uses a mapping matrix to define a relationship between pixels
in a user-defined perspective or panoramic viewing window and
pixel locations on the original omnidirectional image source so
that the computation of the non-distorted images can be
performed in real-time at a video rate (e.g., 30 frames per
second).

(Spec. paragraph [0007].)

Claims 1 and 14 are exemplary:
1. A method for generating a selectable perspective view of
a portion of a hemispherical image scene, comprising the steps
of:

acquiring an omnidirectional image on an image plane
using a reflective mirror that satisfies a single viewpoint
constraint and an image sensor;

2
Appeal 2008-1153
Application 09/821,648

defining a perspective viewing window based on
configuration parameters; and

mapping each pixel in the perspective window with a
corresponding pixel value in the omnidirectional image on the
image plane using a look-up table based on the configuration
parameters.

14. An improved imaging apparatus for generating a two-
dimensional image, comprising:

a reflective mirror configured to satisfy an optical single
viewpoint constraint for reflecting an image scene;

an image sensor responsive to said reflective mirror and
that generates two dimensional image data signals to obtain an
omnidirectional image on an image plane; and

a controller coupled to the image sensor, wherein the
controller defines a perspective viewing window based on
configuration parameters and maps pixels from said
omnidirectional image into said perspective viewing window;
and

a memory for storing a mapping matrix for each of a
plurality of sets of said configuration parameters in a parameter
space, said controller using a said mapping matrix to perform
mapping of pixels from said omnidirectional image into said
perspective viewing window.

The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Mick US 3,988,533 Oct. 26, 1976
Gabriel US 4,908,874 Mar. 13, 1990
Baker US 5,686,957 Nov. 11, 1997
3
Appeal 2008-1153
Application 09/821,648

Chahl US 5,790,181 Aug. 4, 1998
(§ 102(e) date May 1, 1996)
Glatt US 5,870,135 Feb. 9, 1999
(filed Jul. 15, 1997)
Nayar US 6,118,474 Sep. 12, 2000
(filed Dec. 5, 1997)
Korein US 6,226,035 B1 May 1, 2001
(filed Mar. 4, 1998)

Claims 1-6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious
over Nayar and Glatt.
Claims 7-9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious
over Nayar, Glatt, Chahl, and Mick.
Claims 10-13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
obvious over Nayar, Glatt, and Baker.
Claims 14 and 16-23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
obvious over Nayar and Gabriel.
Claims 24 and 25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
obvious over Nayar, Gabriel, Chahl, and Mick.
Claims 26-29 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
obvious over Nayar, Gabriel, and Baker.
Claims 30-38 and 44 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
obvious over Nayar, Gabriel, and Korein.
Claims 39 and 40 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
obvious over Nayar, Gabriel, Korein, Chahl, and Mick.
Claims 41-43 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
obvious over Nayar, Gabriel, Korein, and Baker.

4
Appeal 2008-1153
Application 09/821,648

Rather than repeat the arguments of Appellant or the Examiner, we
make reference to the Briefs and the Answer for their respective details.
Only those arguments actually made by Appellant have been considered in
this decision. Arguments that Appellant did not make in the Briefs have not
been considered and are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii).2

ISSUE
The issue is whether Appellant has shown that the Examiner erred in
rejecting the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

FINDINGS OF FACT
The record supports the following findings of fact (FF) by a
preponderance of the evidence.

1. Nayar is directed to an omnidirectional imaging apparatus 100 that
senses an image of a scene from a single viewpoint using a
substantially paraboloid-shaped reflector 135 and an image sensor
110. (Abstract; col. 1, ll. 19-22; col. 3, ll. 11-17; col. 7, ll. 29-38;
col. 8, ll. 30-40; Fig. 1A) Nayar also explains that hyperboloidal-
shaped reflectors have been used in the prior art. (Col. 2, ll. 40-50,
col. 2, l. 67 to col. 3, l. 1.)

2 Except as will be noted in this opinion, Appellant has not presented any
substantive arguments directed separately to the patentability of the
dependent claims or related claims in each group. In the absence of a
separate argument with respect to those claims, they stand or fall with the
representative independent claim. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
5
Appeal 2008-1153
Application 09/821,648

2. The system of Nayar "enables viewing of any portion of the scene,
enables zooming in on a selected portion, and enables panning of the
scene, all with respect to the single viewpoint and without requiring
image reconstruction of complex frame transformation." (Col. 9,
ll. 56-62.) Nayar teaches that a video signal representative of the
image is sent to a general purpose computer 125, which "is
programmed to allow the user to view any desired portion of the
hemispherical scene, to zoom in on a selected portion of the scene, or
to pan the scene in any desired manner." (Col. 7, ll. 52-66; see also
col. 10, ll. 57-64; Fig. 1A.)

3. Referring to Fig. 5, Nayar teaches that "there is a one-to-one
correspondence between the x-y coordinate of the point of intersection
with the reflector 135 of the orthographically projected ray, and the x-
y coordinate of the point at which that orthographically projected ray
intersects the planar light-sensitive surface of the image sensor 110"
(col. 10, ll. 14-19) and that "mapping of the image into a Cartesian-
coordinate system is a simple task for persons skilled in the art"
(col. 10, ll. 29-30). Nayar teaches that cylindrical-coordinate mapping
may be performed in addition to Cartesian-coordinate mapping.
(Col. 11, ll. 26-55.)

4. Referring to Fig. 6 in light of the one-to-one correspondence taught by
Fig. 5, Nayar teaches "a technique for zooming in on any selected
portion of the substantially hemispherical scene." (Col. 10, ll. 31-33.)
"In order to zoom in at a focal distance f on a selected portion of the
6
Appeal 2008-1153
Application 09/821,648

scene centered around a point 550, with a specified size, only the
image signals of the CCD cells located with the same range of x-y
coordinates as the region of the reflecting surface projecting the
selected portion of the scene are selected for magnification and
viewing." (Col. 10, ll. 35-41; see also col. 10, ll. 42-53; Fig. 6.) "As a
result of the orthographic reflection and the one-to-one
correspondence described above, no image reconstruction or complex
frame transformation is required." (Col. 10, ll. 53-56.) Nayar also
teaches that "[a] general purpose computer 125 can be readily
programmed by one skilled in the art to perform the above steps to
enable viewing of any portion of the hemispherical scene from a
single viewpoint, and to also enable zooming in on any particular
portion to provide an enlarged image of that portion. Furthermore, by
designating successive points along the reflector, the hemispherical
scene can be panned as if one were viewing the scene from a single
viewpoint." (Col. 10, ll. 57-64.)

5. Nayar teaches a program, attached as Appendix I, to "map the sensed
omnidirectional image to an ordinary perspective image that is
suitable for display on computer 125." (Col. 11, ll. 7-9.) "The
program requires the user to input the name, center location, and
radius of the omnidirectional image to be converted. . . . [and] also
requires the user to input a name for the generated perspective image,
as well as a focal length and size for the perspective image." (Col. 11,
ll. 9-14.)
7
Appeal 2008-1153
Application 09/821,648

6. Fig. 10 of Nayar teaches "a method for sensing an image of a
substantially hemispherical or spherical scene from a single
viewpoint." (Col. 12, ll. 16-18.) The method includes the steps of
"mapping the image data into an appropriate coordinate system 1040,"
"specifying a viewing direction, a focal length, and an image size
1045," "zooming in 1050 on a selected portion of the image data," and
"forming a digital image 1070 from the mapped image data." (Col.
12, ll. 20-34.)

7. Glatt describes an image forming and processing device 10 that uses a
fisheye lens 20 and has a substantially hemispherical field of view.
(Abstract; col. 1, ll. 12-15; Fig. 1.) "The invention allows an operator
to view a selected part of the image formed by the fisheye lens as if it
were formed by a normal lens by simulating the panning, tilting or
zooming of the normal lens. . . . without the use of moving parts."
(Col. 1, ll. 15-21; see also col. 5, ll. 13-31, 52-65.) Glatt uses a look-
up table 222, and teaches that:
As pointing device 214 is moved to simulate
panning and/or tilting of the hypothetical camera, the
rectangular coordinates (X;Y) of each pixel in each line
of pixels in sub-area a are generated by area select unit
210 and stored in look-up table ("LUT") 222. The
system also automatically calculates the coordinates
(Xd ;Yd) of the fisheye image . . . . For each set of
normal coordinates (X;Y) in sub-area a, the calculated
coordinates (Xd ;Yd) are stored in LUT 222 as addresses
in [dual-ported image memory ] DPIM 200.
All of the coordinates for the fisheye image could
be pre-calculated or only the coordinates for a particular
area need be calculated as the area is selected. In either
8
Appeal 2008-1153
Application 09/821,648

case, the coordinates are stored in LUT 222 and the
corresponding pixels are stored in DPIM 200. This
allows the pixels corresponding to those calculated
coordinates to be fetched from CCD 180. The fetched
pixels are then displayed on monitor 240 at locations
(X;Y) just as if the image had been formed by the
panning and tilting of a normal camera to coordinates
(X;Y).

(Col. 8, ll. 25-43; Fig. 5.)

8. Gabriel describes a system for spatially transforming images.
(Abstract; col. 1, ll. 23-26; col. 2, ll. 5-9; col. 4, ll. 19-24.) "The
concept however is quite general and includes any odd warping of an
image such as that produced by a fish-eye lens or a fun house mirror."
(Col. 4, ll. 24-26.) Gabriel teaches the use of matrices to perform the
transformations. (Col. 4, l. 28-67; col. 6, l. 16 to col. 8, l. 54.)
Gabriel also teaches that "[t]ranslation, scaling, rotation and shearing
are all special cases of affine transformation. These four taken
together can produce all possible affine mappings." (Col. 7, ll. 5-7.)

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
All timely filed evidence and properly presented arguments are
considered by the Board in resolving an obviousness issue on appeal. See In
re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1472 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
In the examination of a patent application, the Examiner bears the
initial burden of showing a prima facie case of unpatentability. Id. at 1472.
When that burden is met, the burden then shifts to the Applicant to rebut.
Id.; see also In re Harris, 409 F.3d 1339, 1343-44 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (finding
9
Appeal 2008-1153
Application 09/821,648

rebuttal evidence unpersuasive). If the Applicant produces rebuttal evidence
of adequate weight, the prima facie case of unpatentability is dissipated. In
re Piasecki, 745 F.2d at 1472. Thereafter, patentability is determined in
view of the entire record. Id. However, on appeal to the Board it is the
Appellant's burden to establish that the Examiner did not sustain the
necessary burden and to show that the Examiner erred. See In re Kahn, 441
F.3d 977, 985-86 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ("On appeal to the Board, an applicant can
overcome a rejection [for obviousness] by showing insufficient evidence of
prima facie obviousness or by rebutting the prima facie case with evidence
of secondary indicia of nonobviousness.") (quoting In re Rouffet, 149 F.3d
1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 1998)).
"Section 103 forbids issuance of a patent when 'the differences
between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such
that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the
invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said
subject matter pertains.'" KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727,
1734 (2007).
In KSR, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that "[t]he combination of
familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when
it does no more than yield predictable results." Id. at 1739. The Court
explained:
When a work is available in one field of endeavor, design
incentives and other market forces can prompt variations of it,
either in the same field or a different one. If a person of
ordinary skill can implement a predictable variation, § 103
likely bars its patentability. For the same reason, if a technique
has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary
skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar
10
Appeal 2008-1153
Application 09/821,648

devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless
its actual application is beyond his or her skill.
Id. at 1740. The Court also explained that:
[o]ften, it will be necessary . . . to look to interrelated teachings
of multiple patents; the effects of demands known to the design
community or present in the marketplace; and the background
knowledge possessed by a person having ordinary skill in the
art, all in order to determine whether there was an apparent
reason to combine the known elements in the fashion claimed
by the patent at issue.
Id. at 1740-41.
"[R]ejections on obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by mere
conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning
with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of
obviousness." In re Kahn, 441 F.3d at 988. "To facilitate review, this
analysis should be made explicit." KSR, 127 S. Ct. at 1741. However, "the
analysis need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject
matter of the challenged claim, for a court can take account of the inferences
and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ."
Id.
The Supreme Court noted that "[u]nder the correct analysis, any need
or problem known in the field of endeavor at the time of invention and
addressed by the patent can provide a reason for combining the elements in
the manner claimed." Id. at 1742. The Court also noted that "[c]ommon
sense teaches . . . that familiar items may 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." Id.
11
Appeal 2008-1153
Application 09/821,648

"A person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an
automaton." Id.
During examination of a patent application, a claim is given its
broadest reasonable construction consistent with the specification. In re
Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 1404-05 (CCPA 1969). "[T]he words of a claim 'are
generally given their ordinary and customary meaning.'" Phillips v. AWH
Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (internal citations
omitted). The "ordinary and customary meaning of a claim term is the
meaning that the term would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art in
question at the time of the invention, i.e., as of the effective filing date of the
patent application." Id. at 1313.

ANALYSIS
Appellant contends that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-14
and 16-44. Reviewing the record before us and the findings of facts cited
above, we do not agree. We conclude that the Appellant has not shown that
the Examiner failed to make a prima facie showing of obviousness with
respect to claims 1-14 and 16-44 and that Appellant failed to meet the
burden of overcoming that prima facie showing.
Regarding claim 1, Appellant argues that Nayar and Glatt fail to teach
or suggest "using a look-up table based on the configuration parameters" to
map each pixel in the perspective window with a corresponding pixel value
in the omnidirectional image on the image plane, as claimed. (App.
Br. 8-10; Reply Br. 2-4.) In particular, Appellant contends that "Glatt does
not teach or suggest how mapping could or would be performed using a
look-up table for an image that comes, not from a fish-eye lens, but from a
12
Appeal 2008-1153
Application 09/821,648

reflective mirror as claimed" (Reply Br. 2) and therefore "one of skill in the
art cannot take the teachings of Nayar and Glatt and, from them, practice the
method of claim 1" (Reply Br. 4). We do not agree.
As the Examiner correctly found, Nayar teaches generating a
selectable perspective view of a portion of a hemispherical image scene
using a reflective mirror and an image sensor. (Ans. 3-4; FF 1-2.) The
system of Nayar acquires an omnidirectional image on an image plane using
a reflective mirror that satisfies a single viewpoint constraint, defines a
perspective viewing window based on configuration parameters, and maps
each pixel in the perspective viewing window with a corresponding pixel
value in the omnidirectional image on the image plane. (Ans. 3-4; FF 1-6.)
Although Nayar teaches that a "general purpose computer 125 can be readily
programmed by one skilled in the art to perform the above steps to enable
viewing of any portion of the hemispherical scene from a single viewpoint,
and to also enable zooming in on any particular portion to provide an
enlarged image of that portion" (col. 10, ll. 57-62; FF 2) and provides a
mapping program (FF 5), Nayar does not explicitly show the use of a look-
up table to perform the mapping. Glatt, however, teaches the use of a look-
up table for mapping pixels in an image processing device. (Ans. 4; FF 7.)
We agree with the Examiner that it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have used a look-up
table, as taught by Glatt, in the method taught by Nayar. (Ans. 4, 20-22.)
This is no more than the combination of familiar elements according to
known methods, with no unpredictable results. See KSR, 127 S. Ct. at 1739.
Accordingly, we conclude that Appellant has not shown that the
Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
13
Appeal 2008-1153
Application 09/821,648

With respect to independent claim 14, Appellant argues that Nayar
and Gabriel do not teach or suggest "a memory storing a mapping matrix for
each of a plurality of sets of said configuration parameters," (Reply Br. 7
(emphasis in original) as claimed. (App. Br. 11-13; Reply Br. 6-8.) We do
not agree.
We agree with the Examiner that, by teaching a general purpose
computer 125, Nayar suggests a memory. (Ans. 9; FF 2, 6.) We observe
that the claim language "for storing a mapping matrix for each of a plurality
of sets of said configuration parameters in a parameter space" merely
describes the content of the data stored in the memory. Because this content
does not further limit the claimed invention either functionally or
structurally, it essentially constitutes nonfunctional descriptive material.
Nonfunctional descriptive material cannot render nonobvious an invention
that would have otherwise been obvious. In re Ngai, 367 F.3d 1336, 1339
(Fed. Cir. 2004); cf. In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385 (Fed. Cir. 1983)
(when descriptive material is not functionally related to the substrate, the
descriptive material will not distinguish the invention from the prior art in
terms of patentability).
Moreover, even if the limitation "for storing a mapping matrix for
each of a plurality of sets of said configuration parameters in a parameter
space" were to be given patentable weight, we agree with the Examiner that
the combination of Nayar and Gabriel teaches or suggests this limitation.
(Ans. 9, 22-23; FF 1-4, 8.) We find the Examiner's interpretation of the
broad term "configuration parameters" as taught by Gabriel (Ans. 9, 22-23)
to be reasonable and not inconsistent with the Specification. In addition, we
note that the plain language of the claim does not require that a mapping
14
Appeal 2008-1153
Application 09/821,648

matrix actually be stored in the memory, but merely requires that the
memory be capable of storing a mapping matrix. We see no reason why the
memory of the general purpose computer 125 of Nayar would not be capable
of storing a mapping matrix. Although the controller is recited as using "a
said mapping matrix to perform mapping of pixels," under the broadest
reasonable interpretation of the claim the mapping matrix used by the
controller need not be stored in the memory.
Accordingly, we conclude that Appellant has not shown that the
Examiner erred in rejecting claim 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Independent claim 31 was argued on the same basis as independent
claim 14 (App. Br. 12), and we sustain the rejection of claim 31 for the
reasons discussed with respect to claim 14.
With respect to claim 38, Appellant argues that the combination of
Nayar, Gabriel, and Korein does not teach or suggest a memory containing
"a predetermined mapping matrix for every set of configuration parameters
in said parameter space," as claimed and that the Examiner's interpretation of
the claim is unreasonable. (App. Br. 13, Reply Br. 8-9.) We do not agree.
Again, we observe that the claim language "a predetermined mapping
matrix for every set of configuration parameters in said parameter space"
merely describes the content of the data stored in the memory. Because this
content does not further limit the claimed invention either functionally or
structurally, is essentially constitutes nonfunctional descriptive material.
Nonfunctional descriptive material cannot render nonobvious an invention
that would have otherwise been obvious. In re Ngai, 367 F.3d 1336, 1339
(Fed. Cir. 2004); cf. In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385 (Fed. Cir. 1983)
(when descriptive material is not functionally related to the substrate, the
15
Appeal 2008-1153
Application 09/821,648

descriptive material will not distinguish the invention from the prior art in
terms of patentability).
Moreover, even if the limitation "a predetermined mapping matrix for
every set of configuration parameters in said parameter space" were to be
given patentable weight, we agree with the Examiner that the combination of
Nayar and Gabriel teaches or suggests this limitation. (Ans. 14-16, 23-24;
FF 1-4, 8.) We find the Examiner's interpretation of the broad term "set of
configuration parameters" as taught by Gabriel (Ans. 22-23) to be
reasonable and not inconsistent with the Specification. In addition, once a
particular set of configuration parameters were to be stored in a matrix, it
would be trivial for a person of ordinary skill in the art to store additional
sets of parameters -- including storing each and every set of parameters
available in the parameter space.
Accordingly, we conclude that Appellant has not shown that the
Examiner erred in rejecting claim 38 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
No separate arguments in accordance with our rules have been
presented for the rejection of claims 2-6, 16-23, 30, 32-37, and 44 as being
obvious over Nayar in view of various combinations of Glatt, Gabriel,
and/or Korein. Regarding claims 2-5, 18-20, and 34-36, Appellant merely
states that certain limitations of these dependent claims are not taught or
suggested by the applied references and summarily alleges error in the
Examiner's findings. (App. Br. 10-11; Reply Br. 5-6.) But Appellant does
not explain or show with any specificity why the Examiner's findings and
explanations as to where the claim limitations may be found in the applied
references (Ans. 4-5, 10, 16-17, and 22) are wrong. (Id.) Also, Appellant
has not presented any arguments with respect to the rejection of claims 7-13,
16
Appeal 2008-1153
Application 09/821,648

24-29, and 39-43 as being obvious over Nayar in view of various
combinations of Glatt, Gabriel, Chahl, Mick, Baker, and/or Korein.
Therefore, we will sustain the rejection of claims 2-13, 16-30, 32-37,
and 39-44 for the reasons discussed with respect to independent claims 1,
14, and 31, from which they depend.

CONCLUSION OF LAW
Based on the findings of facts and analysis above, we conclude that
Appellant has not shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-14
and 16-44 for obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103.

DECISION
The rejection of claims 1-14 and 16-44 is 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)(1)(iv).

17
Appeal 2008-1153
Application 09/821,648

AFFIRMED

eld

STEVEN L. NICHOLS
RADER, FISHMAN & GRAUER PLLC
10653 S. RIVER FRONT PARKWAY
SUITE 150
SOUTH JORDAN, UT 84095
18