Ex Parte Holtz et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 19, 2016

12736227 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 19, 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.
12/736,227 09/20/2010 Alex Holtz 033163-00329 6317
68543 7590
Arent Fox LLP
555 West Fifth Street
48th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90013
12/21/2016 EXAMINER
MURRAY, DANIEL C
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2443
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/21/2016 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):
patentdocket @ arentfox. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ALEX HOLTZ, SCOTT RAYMOND MATICS, and LIONEL
OISEL
Appeal 2016-003476
Application 12/736,227
Technology Center 2400
Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, JOHNNY A. KUMAR, and JON M.
JURGOVAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
JURGOVAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants1 seek review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final
Rejection of claims 1, 2, 4—17, and 19-22.2 We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.3
1 Appellants identify GVBB Holdings S.A.R.L. as the real party in interest.
(App. Br. 3.)
2 Claims 3 and 18 were canceled. (App. Br. 15, 18.)
3 Our Decision refers to the Specification filed Sept. 20, 2010 (“Spec.”), the
Final Office Action mailed Nov. 28, 2014 (“Final Act.”), the Appeal Brief
filed July 6, 2015 (“App. Br.”), the Examiner’s Answer mailed Dec. 4, 2015
(“Ans.”), and the Reply Brief filed Feb. 4, 2016 (“Reply Br.”).
Appeal 2016-003476
Application 12/736,227
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to tracking an object within the field of view
of a robotically controlled camera. (Spec. 2:27—28.) Claim 1, reproduced
below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method for determining when to track an object in field
of view of a robotically controlled camera, comprising:
receiving an operator defined region of interest inside of
the field of view of the camera, wherein no tracking will occur
outside of the region of interest;
when the object lies within the region of interest,
determining if the object matches a reference object; and
determining to automatically track the object to maintain
the object in a fixed relationship relative to a location in the
camera field of view when it is determined that the object lying
within the region of interest matches a reference object, and
when the object has moved more than a threshold distance from
the location.
REJECTIONS4
Claims 1, 2, and 4—17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) based
on Petersen et al. (US 2007/0291104 Al; publ. Dec. 20, 2007). (Ans. 2—18.)
Claims 19-22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on
Petersen and Mottur et al. (US 2002/0018124 Al; publ. Feb. 14, 2002).
(Ans. 19-24.)
4 We have considered Appellants’ arguments regarding their claim to the
April 14, 2008 priority date of Provisional Application No. 61/124,094.
(App. Br. 9; Reply Br. 2—3.) However, we need not reach this issue of
priority to decide the appeal before us, as Petersen’s effective filing date of
June 7, 2006, is before the Provisional priority date and, thus, renders the
issue moot.
2
Appeal 2016-003476
Application 12/736,227
ANALYSIS
Independent Claims 1, 7, and 8
The Examiner finds Petersen’s mask is “an operator defined region of
interest inside of the field of view of the camera” that is used to identify
regions occupied by previously detected objects so the camera can capture
images of other objects, and, thus, Petersen discloses tracking objects within
the masked region of interest while “no tracking will occur outside of the
region of interest.” (Ans. 2—3, 26—28 (citing Petersen || 63, 65—75).)
Appellants contend Petersen’s mask hides corresponding areas in the
captured image by blocking out information from the original image in the
region occupied by the mask, therefore the mask is opposite of the claimed
“region of interest” because no tracking occurs within the masked region.
(App. Br. 10-12; Reply Br. 4—6.)
We are persuaded by Appellants’ contention that Petersen’s tracking
method is opposite of the claimed “determining to automatically track the
object. . . within the region of interest,” while “no tracking will occur
outside the region of interest.” Petersen discloses blocking image
information within the mask (i.e., the “region of interest”) by “setting the
image intensity data in that region to zero,” meaning no object imaging or
tracking occurs within the masked region. (Petersen | 65.) Petersen
discloses the camera then identifies and captures objects outside of the
masked region, meaning object tracking does, in fact, occur outside the
masked “region of interest.” (Petersen | 63.) Accordingly, we do not
sustain the rejection of independent claims 1, 7, and 8 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e).
3
Appeal 2016-003476
Application 12/736,227
Remaining Claims
The remaining claims depend from claims 1,7, and 8, and thus
incorporate their limitations. For the reasons stated above, we do not sustain
the rejection of the remaining claims.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1,2, and 4—17 under
35U.S.C. § 102(e).
We reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 19—22 stand under
35U.S.C. § 103(a).
REVERSED
4