Ex Parte Greyson et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Feb 29, 2016

13333275 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Feb. 29, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/333,275 12/21/2011
22879 7590 03/02/2016
HP Inc,
3390 E. Harmony Road
Mail Stop 35
FORT COLLINS, CO 80528-9544
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Adam Anthony Greyson
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
82833079 9676
EXAMINER
CHIU, WESLEY JASON
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2663
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/02/2016 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):
ipa.mail@hp.com
barbl@hp.com
yvonne.bailey@hp.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ADAM ANTHONY GREYSON and CURT N. VAN L YDEGRAF
Appeal2014-005518
Application 13/333,275
Technology Center 2600
Before TERRENCE W. McMILLIN, MELISSA A. RAAP ALA, and
KAMRAN JIVANI, Administrative Patent Judges.
JIV ANI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner's rejections of claims 1-20, which are the claims pending in the
present patent application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The present application relates to client devices cooperatively
generating images and videos that the individual client devices may be
incapable of generating independently. Spec. i-f 10.
1 Appellants identify Hewlett-Packard Company as the real party in interest.
App. Br. 3.
Appeal2014-005518
Application 13/333,275
Claim 1 is illustrative (disputed limitation emphasized):
1. A method, comprising:
establishing, by a client device, a
communication link with a photographic device;
transmitting, by the client device,
synchronization data to the photographic device via
the communication link, wherein the
synchronization data arranges capture of an image
via the photographic device, said synchronization
data including an alignment aid to aid in spatially
aligning said photographic device; and
obtaining, by the client device, a portion of
the image captured via the photographic device via
the communication link.
The Rejections
Claims 1, 4, 6, 7, 9-12, and 15-18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) over Gong '806 (US 2012/0249806 Al; Oct. 4, 2012), Gong '439
(US 2012/0075439 Al; Mar. 29, 2012), and McNamer (US 2011/0025829
Al; Feb. 3, 2011).
Claims 2, 14, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
Gong '806, Gong '439, McNamer, and Makii (US 2009/0244318 Al; Oct. 1,
2009).
Claims 3 and 5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Gong
'806, Gong '439, McNamer, and Liow (US 2007/0153090 Al; July 5,
2007).
Claims 8 and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Gong
'806, Gong '439, McNamer, and DeAngelis (US 2009/0141138 Al; June 4,
2009).
2
Appeal2014-005518
Application 13/333,275
Claim 20 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Gong '806,
Gong '439, McNamer, Makii, and DeAngelis.
ANALYSIS
We have considered the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants'
arguments in the Appeal Brief and Reply Brief, as well as the Examiner's
Answer thereto. We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments. Rather,
we agree with, and adopt as our own, the Examiner's findings and reasons.
We further emphasize the following.
Claims 1, 4-7, 9-12, and 15-18
The Examiner finds McN amer teaches or suggests the disputed
limitation of claim 1. Final Act. 4 (citing McNamer i-fi-f l 07, 110, 111, Figs.
11, 14b). Specifically, the Examiner finds:
[Gong '806] teaches using multiple photographic devices having
differing view-points to capture images and create a three-
dimensional image. [Gong '439] also teaches using multiple
photographic devices having differing view-points to capture
images and create a three-dimensional image. McNamer teaches
using guide lines to aid "users of image capture devices to select
appropriate image capture positions for capturing two-
dimensional images for use in generating three dimensional
image" (McNamer, Paragraph 0006). McNamer further teaches
it is possible to use multiple image capture devices to capture the
images (McNamer, Paragraphs 0024 and 0054). It would have
been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the
invention was made to modify the combination of Gong 1 and
Gong2 to send the spatial alignment aid data seen in McN amer
to the additional devices used in imaging to allow the users to
more easily photograph an image that is usable in generating the
enhanced image (McNamer, Paragraph 0006). To do this, the
client device would capture an image, generate the alignment aid
data and then transfer the alignment aid data along with the time
3
Appeal2014-005518
Application 13/333,275
synchronization data to the photographic devices to allow the
users to capture multiple images from appropriate image capture
positions at the same time instance and finally, use those images
to create a three-dimensional image.
Ans. 23-24.
Appellants contend the Examiner errs in this finding because:
1. "McNamer does not disclose synchronization data and, so, cannot
disclose 'said synchronization data including an alignment aid.'" App. Br.
11.
2. McNamer's alignment aid is not disclosed in the context of
multiple devices capturing concurrent images. App. Br. 9. More
particularly, Appellants contend McNamer discloses "two distinct methods
of forming a stereoscopic (3-D) image from two-dimensional (2-D) images,"
namely: (a) the method of Figure 2, which discloses an alignment aid for
aligning the same camera to take a subsequent image, and (b) the method of
Figures 3A and 3B, which "makes it possible to capture plural images at the
same time." App. Br. 9-10. Appellants argue that the Examiner
erroneously applies (a) as meeting the disputed limitation because it does not
explicitly disclose the concurrent use of multiple cameras and should have
cited (b) "which fits in better with [Gong '806] 's goal of synchronized
operation," but is nevertheless insufficient to meet the limitation because it
lacks explicit disclosure of alignment aids. App. Br. 10.
3. The Examiner fails to establish "a positive motivation or other
rationale for" the applied combination of art. Ans. 22.
We do not find Appellants' arguments persuasive for at least the
following reasons.
4
Appeal2014-005518
Application 13/333,275
First, Appellants' arguments are not responsive to the Examiner's
findings. The Examiner finds Gong '806 teaches or suggests transmitting,
by the client device, synchronization data to the photographic device via the
communication link, wherein the synchronization data arranges capture of
an image via the photographic device. Final Act. 3. The Examiner relies on
McNamer only as teaching or suggesting that the synchronization data-
transmitted as taught by Gong '806---would be modified by one of ordinary
skill in the art to include an alignment aid. Id.; Ans. 23-24. Where, as here,
a rejection is based on a combination of references, one cannot show non-
obviousness by attacking references individually. In re Keller, 642 F .2d
413, 426 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed.
Cir. 1986).
Second, we are similarly not persuaded by Appellants' arguments
regarding the teachings of McNamer Figures 2, 3A, and 3B because they too
are not responsive to the Examiner's findings. As a threshold matter, the
Examiner correctly cites the alignment aids of Figures 11 and 14B as well as
McNamer's corresponding disclosure teaching the use of these guides "[f]or
proper translation and vertical alignment." McNamer i-f 107. Thus, neither
the Examiner's specific findings in the Final Rejection nor the Answer are
limited to Figures 2, 3A, and 3B. Final Act. 3; Ans. 23-24 (citing,
McN amer i-f 6) ("McN amer teaches using guide lines to aid 'users of image
capture devices to select appropriate image capture positions for capturing
two-dimensional images for use in generating three dimensional image."')
Further, contrary to Appellants' argument, McNamer Figure 2's teaching of
an alignment aid is not limited to a single camera, as the Examiner correctly
finds. Ans. 21 (citing McNamer i-f 24) ("FIG. 2 is a flow chart of an
5
Appeal2014-005518
Application 13/333,275
exemplary method ... using the device shown in FIG. 1, alone or together
with any other suitable device described herein .... ")(emphasis added).
Nor does the Examiner find "that the steps of the method of Fig. 2 can be
arbitrarily mixed and matched with the steps and features of the method of
Figs. 3A and 3B .... " Reply Br. 7.
Third, Appellants' argument seeking a "positive motivation" for the
applied combination of art is unavailing. The Examiner has articulated
reasoning with rational underpinning for the applied combination of art.
In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (holding a prima facie case
of obviousness requires "some articulated reasoning with some rational
underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.").
Specifically, the Examiner recognizes that a skilled artisan would be able to
combine Gong '806 and Gong '439's teachings of transmitting
synchronization data to multiple devices with McNamer's alignment aid.
Ans. 24. Appellants' argument that "McNamer does not provide a teaching
or other motivation for including McNamer's guides in [Gong '806]'s
synchronization data" reduces to an assertion that McN amer lacks an
explicit teaching, suggestion, or motivation for the proposed combination.
App. Br. 10. Such argument seeks to apply an overly rigid and formalistic
test contrary to the law. KSR Int 'l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 404,
418 (2007). Therefore, we disagree with Appellants' arguments that one of
ordinary skill in the art would not arrive at the claim elements by combining
the applied references. Appellants' contentions do not identify in the record
before us persuasive evidence that such combination was "uniquely
challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art." Leapfrog
Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
6
Appeal2014-005518
Application 13/333,275
To the extent Appellants' argue that an artisan of ordinary skill would
understand McNamer as teaching only (i) using alignment aids before taking
a subsequent image, or (ii) using multiple cameras concurrently, but not both
(i) and (ii}--that is, using alignment aids before taking concurrent images
using multiple devices-we are not so persuaded. Appellants admit
McNamer teaches methods addressing both uses. Further, as discussed
above, McNamer teaches or suggests using alignment aids with multiple
devices. Finally, Appellants proffer no evidence that one of ordinary skill
would not read the allegedly alternative methods of McNamer as together
teaching (or, at minimum, suggesting) the limitation at issue. The skilled
artisan is "a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton." See KSR, 550
U.S. at 421. We agree, therefore, with the Examiner that a skilled artisan
would combine McNamer' alignment aid with the synchronization data
transmitted by the client device to the photographic device, as taught by
Gong '806.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent
claim 1. Appellants advance substantially similar arguments for
independent claims 9 and 15. App. Br. 12-14, 17. Accordingly, we sustain
the Examiner's rejection of independent claims 1 and 15 for the same
reasons discussed above. Appellants raise no further arguments regarding
dependent claims 4--7, 10-12, and 16-18. App. Br. 12-19. According, we
sustain the Examiner's rejections of dependent claims 4--7, 10-12, and 16-
18 for the same reasons discussed above regard to claims 1, 9, and 15.
Claims 2, 14, 19, and 20
Dependent claim 2 recites in relevant part, "transmitting, by the client
device, the combined image to the photographic device." The Examiner
7
Appeal2014-005518
Application 13/333,275
cites Makii as teaching or suggesting transmitting the combined image to an
external device. Final Act. 9 (citing Makii, i-fi-f 166----67, 178). The Examiner
cites Gong '806 as teaching or suggesting the external device is a
photographic device. Final Act. 9. Appellants contend teaching
transmission to an external device such as a computer or the Internet "is not
the same as" teaching transmission to a photographic device. App. Br. 15.
This argument fails because it is not responsive to the Examiner's findings.
The Examiner cites Gong '806---not Makii-as teaching or suggesting the
external device is a photographic device.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 2.
Appellants advance no further arguments regarding claims 14, 19, and 20.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejections of these claims for the
same reasons discussed above.
Claim 3
Dependent claim 3 recites in relevant part, "wherein obtaining the
portion of the image captured via the photographic device comprises
obtaining an image sequence from the photographic device, the image
sequence including the portion of the image captured via the photographic
device and a portion of the image captured by the client device." The
Examiner cites Liow as teaching or suggesting this limitation. Final Act. 10
(citing Liow i-fi-f 13-16). More specifically, the Examiner finds Li ow teaches
or suggests the limitation at issue through teaching "the image sequence
including the portion of the image captured via the photographic device and
a portion of the image captured by the client device since the invention of
Liow also teaches using multiple image capture devices to image the same
8
Appeal2014-005518
Application 13/333,275
scene from different viewpoints." Ans. 30. Appellants contend the
Examiner errs because "the fact that a first image and a second image
include representations of the same scene element (e.g., a tree) that this
implies that the first image somehow includes a portion of the second
image." Reply Br. 24. We are not persuaded by Appellants' argument.
Absent from Appellants' argument is sufficient evidence to establish
persuasively why Liow' s cited teaching-namely, two devices capturing
images of the same scene "at a predetermined synchronization" such that the
images are "captured at approximately the same time by each image-
capturing device" and are associated with each other (Liow i-fi-f 15-17}-
would not teach or suggest to the limitation at issue to one of ordinary skill
in the art.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 3.
Claims 8 and 13
Dependent claim 8 recites in relevant part, "generating, by the client
device, a video based on an image captured by" a first device and the
obtained portion of the image captured via a second device. The Examiner
cites DeAngelis as teaching or suggesting the recited generating. Final Act.
12 (citing DeAngelis i-fi-120-22). The Examiner further cites Gong '806 as
teaching or suggesting the generating is performed by the client device.
Final Act. 3, 12. Appellants contend the Examiner errs because DeAngelis
does not teach the generating performed by the client device. Ans. 17. This
argument fails because it is not responsive to the Examiner's findings. The
Examiner cites Gong '806---not DeAngelis-as teaching or suggesting the
generating is performed by the client device.
9
Appeal2014-005518
Application 13/333,275
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 8.
Appellants advance no further arguments regarding claim 13. Accordingly,
we sustain the Examiner's rejections of this claim for the same reasons
discussed above.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-20.
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).
AFFIRMED
10