Ex Parte Huston et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 19, 2016

13774710 (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.
5624-00101 6402
EXAMINER
ROBINSON, TERRELL M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2618
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
13/774,710 02/22/2013 Charles D. Huston
36275 7590 12/19/2016
Egan, Peterman, Enders & Huston LLP.
1101 S. Capital of Texas Highway, Suite C200
Austin, TX 78746
12/19/2016 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte CHARLES D. HUSTON and CHRIS COLEMAN
Appeal 2016-002843
Application 13/774,710
Technology Center 2600
Before THU A. DANG, JOHN P. PINKERTON, and
JOHN D. HAMANN, Administrative Patent Judges.
DANG, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’
Final Rejection of claims 1—24. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We affirm.
Appeal 2016-002843
Application 13/774,710
A. INVENTION
According to Appellants, the invention relates to “creating indoor and
outdoor environments that include virtual models and images” wherein “the
environments are created in part using crowd sourced images and metadata
and the environments are applied to social media applications” (Spec. 12).
B. REPRESENTATIVE CLAIM
Claim 1 is exemplary:
1. A system for creating and sharing an environment comprising:
a network for receiving images and metadata from a
plurality of devices each having a camera employed near a
point of interest to capture random images and associated
metadata near said point of interest, wherein the metadata for
each image includes location of the device and the orientation
of the camera;
an image processing server connected to the network for
receiving said images and metadata, wherein the server
processes the images and metadata to build a 3D model of one
or more targets proximate the point of interest based at least in
part on said images;
an experience platform connected to the image
processing server for storing the 3D model of one or more
targets, whereby users can connect to the experience platform to
view the point of interest from a user selected location and
orientation and view the 3D model of one or more targets.
C. REJECTIONS
1. Claims 1—5, 7, 10, and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the teachings of Krupka et al. (US 2011/0211737 Al, pub.
Sept. 1, 2011), Wallace et al. (US 2011/0052073 Al, pub. Mar. 3, 2011),
and Vaittinen et al. (US 2011/0283223 Al, pub. Nov. 17, 2011).
2
Appeal 2016-002843
Application 13/774,710
2. Claim 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
the teachings of Krupka, Wallace, Vaittinen, and Wang et al. (US
2011/0072047 Al, pub. Mar. 24, 2011).
3. Claims 8, 9, 16, 17, and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the teachings of Krupka, Wallace, Vaittinen, and Bathiche
(US 2011/0319166 Al, pub. Dec. 29, 2011).
4. Claims 12, 14, 15, 18, and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over the teachings of Krupka, and Vaittinen.
5. Claim 13 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over the teachings of Krupka, Vaittinen, and Wang.
6. Claims 19-22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over the teachings of Krupka, Vaittinen, and Krill et al. (US 2009/0256904
Al, pub. Oct. 15, 2009).
7. Claim 24 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over the teachings of Krupka, Wallace, Vaittinen, and Tuite et al.
(“PhotoCity”).
II. ISSUES
The principal issues before us are whether the Examiner erred in
finding that the combination of Krupka, and Vaittinen (and Wallace) teaches
or would have suggested a “camera employed near a point of interest to
capture random images” and an “image processing server” that “processes
the images and metadata to build a 3D model of one or more targets
proximate the point of interest” whereby “users can connect to the
experience platform to view the point of interest from a user selected
3
Appeal 2016-002843
Application 13/774,710
location and orientation and view the 3D model of one or more targets”
(claim 1).
III. FINDINGS OF FACT
The following Findings of Fact (FF) are shown by a preponderance of
the evidence.
Krupka
1. Krupka discloses cameras that capture images for part of a user’s
image collection (| 42), wherein each image includes metadata such as
timestamp, location information, image size, title and various tags (157).
Vaittinen
2. Vaittinen relates to development of mapping and navigating graphics
and/or images (e.g., street-level views of various locations and points of
interest) augmented with location relevant content (| 1), which comprises
rendering of a user interface for a location-based service that simultaneously
includes both a main view portion and a preview portion, one of which
displays a perspective view of objects in a field of view (13).
3. A perspective view provides perspective to an object, which includes
3D modeling in virtual reality to show real or virtual depth to the object or
its surroundings (120). That is, the perspective view of the surrounding area
is shown in the preview portion of the user interface in order to give the user
an idea of the 3D panoramic view of the surrounding area, wherein the
perspective view is generated using the camera of the user device to capture
images of the surrounding area in real-time, by using pre-stored images, or a
combination of real-time images and pre-stored images. The field of vision
4
Appeal 2016-002843
Application 13/774,710
can be adjusted by adjusting the orientation of the user device to allow a user
to navigate to a POI or otherwise determine their location. (| 29).
4. The system utilizes the augmented reality or virtuality (e.g., using 3D
models and 3D mapping information) to insert rich content information
relevant to the POI (135). In particular, after the user selects a POI and
retrieves tags content information of the POI, the system saves the POI and
tagged content and presents updated content information to the user in the
live image view and/or prerecorded panoramic view, wherein the content
information includes live media, stored media, and metadata associated
therewith (136).
5. Content and mapping information is then presented to the user via a
user interface, wherein the user is presented with 3D or augmented reality
presentations of particular locations and related objects (e.g., buildings,
terrain features, POIs, etc. at the particular location) as part of a graphical
user interface (1 60). For example, the user can touch the preview portion to
switch the view shown or tilt the device a particular angle such that the angle
can automatically trigger a switching of the views (H 62—64).
IV. ANALYSIS
Appellants contend “Vaittenen does not relate to building a 3D model
from random images” (App. Br. 5). According to Appellants, “[tjhere is no
description of using randomly captured images and metadata to build a 3D
model” (id.).
Appellants further contend “there is nothing in Vaittinen that teaches
or suggests that a user can select a location and orientation for viewing a
target in a 3D model” (id.) because Vaittinen selects an image “based on the
best focus, best vantage point, and best image” (App. Br. 5—6). Although
5
Appeal 2016-002843
Application 13/774,710
Appellants concede Vaittinen suggests that “a user may specify the location
from which to retrieve content,” Appellants contend that the perspective
view “is selected from a ‘real time image’ from the smart phone camera or a
‘pre-stored’ image” (id. at 6).
We have considered all of Appellants’ arguments and evidence
presented. However, we disagree with Appellants’ contentions regarding the
Examiner’s rejections of the claims. We agree with the Examiner’s findings,
and find no error with the Examiner’s conclusion that the claims would have
been obvious over the combined teachings.
As a preliminary matter of claim construction, we give the claims
their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the Specification.
See In re Morris, 111 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997). While we interpret
claims broadly but reasonably in light of the Specification, we nonetheless
must not import limitations from the Specification into the claims. See
Phillips v. AWHCorp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc).
Although Appellants contend, in Vaittinen, “[tjhere is no description
of using randomly captured images and metadata to build a 3D model”
(App. Br. 5), we note claim 1 does not require “randomly” capturing images.
Rather, claim 1 recites capturing “random” images, but does not define as to
what is a “random” image. That is, nothing in the claims precludes the
“random” images from being captured images in an image collection, as
broadly but reasonable interpreted by the Examiner (Ans. 29). That is, we
are not persuaded of error in the Examiner’s broad but reasonable
interpretation that “the capture of images for user’s collections” that “does
not disclose any specific or necessary ordering of those images” can be
“random” (id.).
6
Appeal 2016-002843
Application 13/774,710
Nevertheless, the test for obviousness is what the combined teachings
of Krupka in view of Vaittinen would have suggested to one of ordinary skill
in the art. See In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir.
1986). Thus, although Appellants contend that, in Vaittinen, “[tjhere is no
description of using randomly captured images and metadata to build a 3D
model” (App. Br. 5), as the Examiner points out, the Examiner relies on
Krupka to address this feature (Ans. 29). As discussed above, based on the
broadest reasonable interpretation discussed above, we agree with the
Examiner’s reliance on Krupka for disclosing and suggesting “a network for
receiving images and metadata from a plurality of devices,” each having a
“camera employed near a point of interest to capture random images and
associated metadata near said point of interest” (Ans. 4, emphasis omitted;
FF 1), as recited in claim 1.
Furthermore, Vaittinen discloses rendering of a user interface which
displays a perspective view of objects in a field of view (FF 2). The
perspective view provides perspective to an object, which includes 3D
modeling in virtual reality to show real or virtual depth to the object or its
surroundings, wherein the perspective view is generated using real-time
captured images of the surrounding area, as well as pre-stored images, and
the field of vision can be adjusted by adjusting the orientation of the user
device to allow a user to navigate to a POI (FF 3). The system utilizes the
augmented reality or virtuality (e.g., using 3D models) to insert rich content
information relevant to the POI, wherein the content information includes
live media, stored media, and metadata associated therewith (FF 4).
We agree with the Examiner’s finding that Vaittinen discloses a
“perspective view concept where views can be real-time images for
7
Appeal 2016-002843
Application 13/774,710
performing 3D modeling in virtual reality with respect to the point of
interest” (Ans. 6), wherein “a virtual reality representation” is built “based
on 3D modeling which is constructed with the previously taken images”
(Ans. 29). Thus, we agree with the Examiner’s reliance on Vaittinen for
disclosing and suggesting “the server processes the images and metadata to
build a 3D model of one or more targets proximate the point of interest
based at least in part on said images” as recited in claim 1 (Ans. 6).
Accordingly, contrary to Appellants’ contention that “Vaittenen does
not relate to building a 3D model from random images” (App. Br. 5), we
find no error in the Examiner’s reliance on the combination of Krupka and
Vaittinen for teaching and suggesting the contested limitation.
Although Appellants contend that “there is nothing in Vaittinen that
teaches or suggests that a user can select a location and orientation for
viewing a target in a 3D model” (App. Br. 5), we find no error with the
Examiner’s finding that Vaittinen does teach “the user request or selection of
a specific location and orientation and the receiving of that content regarding
3D or augmented reality models of various objects such as a point of interest
or building” (Ans. 31—32, emphasis omitted). As Appellants concede,
Vaittinen suggests that “a user may specify the location from which to
retrieve content” (App. Br. 6). In particular, Vaittinen discloses presenting
content and mapping information to the user via a user interface, wherein the
user is presented with 3D or augmented reality presentations of particular
locations of interest and related objects, and the user can switch the view
shown or tilt the device a particular angle such that the angle can
automatically trigger a switching of the views/orientation (FF 5). That is
8
Appeal 2016-002843
Application 13/774,710
Vaittinen discloses and suggests a user can select the location of interest as
well as orientation for viewing (id.).
Although Appellants contend that Vaittinen selects an image “based
on the best focus, best vantage point, and best image” (App. Br. 6), nothing
in the claims precludes selecting also based on focus, vantage point or best
image. Similarly, nothing in the claims precludes the perspective view from
also being “selected from a ‘real time image’ from the smart phone camera
or a ‘pre-stored’ image” (App. Br. 6) as Appellants contend. Rather, claim 1
merely requires “users can connect to the experience platform to view the
point of interest from a user selected location and orientation and view the
3D model of one or more targets” (claim 1). We are unpersuaded that
Vaittinen does not disclose or suggest this contested limitation.
Based on this record, we find no error in the Examiner’s rejection of
independent claim 1 as obvious over the combination of Krupka, Wallace,
and Vaittinen.
As for claim 7, Appellants merely repeat that “Vaittinen is not
concerned with building 3D models” (App. Br. 6). As discussed above, we
find no error with the Examiner’s finding that Vaittinen discloses and
suggests this contested limitation. On this record, we also affirm the
rejection of claim 7 over Krupka, Wallace, and Vaittinen.
As for claims 8, 9, 16, and 17, Appellants contend Bathiche and
Vaittinen are not in the same field of endeavor (App. Br. 7). Further,
Appellants contend “nothing in Bathiche relates to building 3D models”
(id.). However, as discussed above, we find no error with the Examiner’s
reliance on Vaittinen for disclosing and suggesting the contested limitation.
Further, we are unpersuaded that the Examiner erred in finding Bathiche
9
Appeal 2016-002843
Application 13/774,710
provides “an enhanced viewing experience” which is from the same field of
endeavor analogous to the goal of “improving users interaction via a mobile
device experience” (Ans. 32—33). On this record, we also affirm the
rejection of claims 8, 9, 16, and 17 over Krupa, Wallace, and Vaittinen, in
further view of Bathiche.
Appellants provide similar arguments for claim 12 as set forth above
with respect to claim 1 (App. Br. 8—9). As set forth above and set forth in
the Answer, to which we agree, Vaittinen teaches and suggests the contested
limitations (Ans. 33—38). On this record, we are also unconvinced of error
in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 12, and claims 14, 15, 18, and 23
depending therefrom, over Krupka and Vaittinen.
As for claim 24, although Appellants contend “Tuite seeks to avoid
random images” (App. Br. 9-10), given the broadest, reasonable
interpretation of the claims, we are unconvinced that the Examiner erred in
finding that Tuite at least suggests the contested limitation (Ans. 38—39).
Appellants do not provided substantive arguments for the other
dependent claims (App. Br. 10), and thus, we adopt the Examiner’s findings,
which we incorporate herein by reference, and affirm the respective
rejections of the claims.
V. CONCLUSION AND DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1—24 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a).
10
Appeal 2016-002843
Application 13/774,710
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
11