Ex Parte Gordon et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 28, 2014

12823980 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 28, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte DEMIAN GORDON and BRUCE DOBRIN
____________

Appeal 2012-004476
Application 12/823,980
Technology Center 2800
____________

Before BRADLEY R. GARRIS, JEFFREY T. SMITH, and
MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, Administrative Patent Judges.

GARRIS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner's
decision rejecting claims 2-16. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6.

Appeal 2012-004476
Application 12/823,980

2
We AFFIRM.

Appellants claim a quantum nanodot (QD) camera comprising at least
one visible sensor configured to capture scenes in a visible band and at least
one IR sensor configured to capture motions of QD markers tuned to emit
certain IR signals, wherein the aforementioned sensors are configured to
capture motion using the IR sensor substantially simultaneously with
capturing scenes using the visible sensor (independent claims 2 and 14).

A copy of representative claims 2 and 14, taken from the Claims
Appendix of the Appeal Brief, appears below.
2. A quantum nanodot (QD) camera configured to capture motion
made with a plurality of QD markers applied to actors and/or objects in a
capture volume, the camera comprising:
a sensing element comprising:
at least one visible pixel sensor cell configured to capture scenes
within the capture volume including the actors and/or objects in a visible
band;
at least one IR pixel sensor cell configured to capture motions of the
plurality of QD markers tuned to emit narrowband IR signals, each QD
marker individually tuned to emit an IR signal whose frequency bandwidth
does not substantially overlap frequency bandwidths of IR signals emitted
by other QD markers of the plurality of QD markers,
wherein the at least one IR pixel sensor cell and the at least one visible
pixel sensor cell are configured to capture motion using the at least one IR
pixel sensor cell substantially simultaneously with capturing of the scenes
using the at least one visible pixel sensor cell; and
an integration module configured to integrate the scenes captured with
said at least one visible pixel sensor cell with the motions of the actors
and/or objects captured with said at least one IR pixel sensor cell.

Appeal 2012-004476
Application 12/823,980

3
14. A quantum nanodot camera configured to capture motion made
with a plurality of quantum nanodot (QD) markers applied to actors and/or
objects in a capture volume, the camera comprising:
a light splitting apparatus configured to split incoming light into
visible and IR components;
a single unit camera sensor comprising:
a visible sensor portion configured to capture scenes including actors
and/or objects in a visible band; and
an IR sensor portion configured to capture motions of the plurality of
QD markers tuned to emit narrowband IR signals, each QD marker
individually tuned to emit an IR signal whose frequency bandwidth does not
substantially overlap frequency bandwidths of IR signals emitted by other
QD markers of the plurality of QD markers,
wherein the visible component is directed to said visible sensor
portion and the IR component is directed to said IR sensor portion,
wherein the IR sensor portion and the visible sensor portion are
configured to capture motion using the at least one IR pixel sensor cell
substantially simultaneously with capturing of the scenes using the at least
one visible pixel sensor cell.

Under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), the Examiner rejects claims 2 and 4 as
anticipated by Aman (US 6,567,116 B1, issued May 20, 2003) and rejects
claims 14 and 15 as anticipated by Dellacorna (US 5,631,468, issued May
20, 1997).

Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), the Examiner rejects:
claims 5 and 6 as unpatentable over Aman;
claim 16 as unpatentable over Dellacorna in view of Kohler ʼ173 (US
2003/0189173 A1, published October 9, 2003);
claims 2-9, 11, and 12 as unpatentable over Kohler ʼ470 (US
7,109,470 B2, issued September 19, 2006) in view of Frangioni (US
2005/0285038 A1, published December 29, 2005); and
Appeal 2012-004476
Application 12/823,980

4
claims 10 and 13 as unpatentable over Kohler ʼ470, Frangioni, and
additional prior art.

We sustain each of the above rejections based on the findings of fact,
conclusions of law, and rebuttals to arguments1 which are well expressed by
the Examiner in the Final Office Action and the Answer. The following
comments are added for emphasis.

Appellants present arguments against the § 102 rejections of
independent claim 2 and dependent claim 4 based on Aman (Br. 8-9) and of
independent claim 14 based on Dellacorna (id. at 13-14).2 These arguments
are little more than unembellished assertions which fail to address with any
reasonable specificity the particular prior art disclosures relied upon by the
Examiner as support for the findings of anticipation. For example,
Appellants assert that Dellacorna fails to teach the light splitting apparatus of
independent claim 14 (id. at 13). However, as correctly noted by the
Examiner and not disputed by Appellants (i.e., no Reply Brief has been
filed), Appellants fail to explain why this claim 14 limitation is not satisfied
by the beam splitter explicitly disclosed by Dellacorna (Ans. 12).

Concerning each of the § 102 and § 103 rejections of independent
claims 2 and 14, Appellants also argue that the applied references do not

1 The Examiner's rebuttals to arguments have not been specifically contested
by Appellants in the sense that no Reply Brief has been filed.
2 Appellants do not present additional separate arguments against any of the
other claims rejected under § 102 or § 103 over the Aman or Dellacorna
references.
Appeal 2012-004476
Application 12/823,980

5
disclose an IR sensor which is configured to capture motions of QD markers
tuned to emit IR signals of the type recited in the independent claims (Br. 8-
9, 13, 173). In response to these arguments, the Examiner accurately points
out that Appellants fail to explain how this recitation of particular IR signals
structurally distinguishes the claimed IR sensor from the IR sensors of Aman
(Ans. 11), Dellacorna (id. at 12), and Kohler 470 (id. at 13). As indicated
previously, Appellants have not filed a Reply Brief and, therefore, have not
provided this record with any such explanation.

The decision of the Examiner is affirmed.

TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).

AFFIRMED

lp

3 We emphasize that Appellants contest the § 103 rejections based on Kohler
ʼ470 only by presenting the above argument concerning independent claim 2
(id. at 17-20).