Ex Parte Marty et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 23, 201512127744 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 23, 2015) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte ALAN W. MARTY, THOMAS A. EDWARDS, and JOHN CARTER ____________________ Appeal 2012-012457 Application 12/127,744 Technology Center 3700 ____________________ Before CHARLES N. GREENHUT, LYNNE H. BROWNE, and THOMAS F. SMEGAL, Administrative Patent Judges. GREENHUT, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 1, 3–12, 15–25, 27–36, 38–40, 43–79, 81–84 and 86–91. App. Br. 4. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm-in-part. The claims are directed to a stereoscopic image capture with performance outcome prediction in sporting environments. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A method for basketball comprising; Appeal 2012-012457 Application 12/127,744 2 capturing, in a sequence of video frames, images of a basketball shot towards a basketball hoop wherein the images are prior to the basketball making contact with a rim of the basketball hoop or a backboard coupled to the basketball hoop; determining by a processor a trajectory of the basketball from the sequence of video frames; and predicting by the processor an outcome of the trajectory including determining whether a simulated basketball passes through the basketball hoop or hits the rim and when the simulated basketball is determined to hit the rim, predicting whether the simulated basketball passes through the basketball hoop after hitting the rim. REJECTIONS Claims 1, 3–12, 15–19, 66–79 1 , 81–84, and 86–91 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite. Final Act. 2. Claims 1, 3–12, 15–25, 27–36, 38–40, 43–79, 81–84, and 86–91 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Marty (US 2003/0073518 A1, pub. Apr. 17, 2003) and Gobush (US 6,500,073 B1, iss. Dec. 31, 2002). Final Act. 4. OPINION Appellants do not seek review of the Examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph. Accordingly, this rejection is summarily 1 Claim 80 stands withdrawn. Ans. 2. 2 We interpret Appellants’ omission of claims 15–25 (App. Br. 11) as a typographical error for consistency with the Notice of Appeal (Apr. 23, 2012) and the claims indicated as appealed (App. Br. 2). Reply Br. 1. We interpret Appellants’ omission of claims 92-96 as a decision not to pursue these claims and consider them withdrawn. See App. Br., Claims App’x; Ex parte Ghuman, 88 USPQ2d 1478 (BPAI 2008). Appeal 2012-012457 Application 12/127,744 3 sustained. See Hyatt v. Dudas, 551 F. 3d 1307, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2008)(“[T]he applicant can waive appeal of a ground of rejection”); Ans. 2. We turn to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Like Appellants, Marty provides certain feedback information to the shooter of a basketball. Ans. 3 (citing Marty, paras. 31, 58, 60–61, 71, 76, and 135–136). This information can be provided before the basketball either enters or misses the hoop. Marty, para. 61. The feedback information in the main embodiment described in Marty deals with “the entry angle that the basketball enters the hoop” and “a speed that the basketball enters the basketball hoop.” Marty, para. 16. The provision of this information is what the Examiner interprets as the step of “determining [or predicting] whether a simulated basketball passes through a basketball hoop [or a simulated basketball hoop]” as required by each of the independent claims involved in this appeal, claims 1, 20, 39, 66 and 86. Although Marty initially characterizes the angle of entry and speed feedback information as pertaining to when “the basketball enters the hoop” (para. 16), Marty later describes what appears to be this same information simply as “entry angle” and “entry velocity.” Marty, Fig. 7, para. 67. From Figure 7 of Marty and the associated description, both of which describe or plot missed shots, it is evident that just because a simulated ball is assigned an entry angle or an entry velocity does not necessarily mean that ball actually passes through the hoop. Despite Marty’s inclusion of the phrase “enters the hoop” at two particular locations in Marty’s disclosure, the summary of Marty’s invention (para. 16]) and claim 28, based on the rest of Marty’s disclosure, particularly those portions upon which the Examiner relies, the angle and speed or velocity information is more accurately characterized as describing the angle and speed that a ball approaches a Appeal 2012-012457 Application 12/127,744 4 hoop. Thus, we cannot agree that based on Marty’s limited reference to a ball entering the hoop, the angle and speed or velocity information is reasonably interpreted as a prediction of whether a ball enters the hoop. Contra Ans. 3. The Examiner is correct in that Marty does deal with prediction of a trajectory. Ans. 3. In the embodiment relied upon by the Examiner the trajectory information is used to predict the entry angle and entry velocity near a termination point of the shot, including, possibly, a rebound flight path. Marty, paras. 58, 67. Although this information may be provided to the player before the ball reaches the basket (para. 71) we do not think it is reasonable to interpret the angle and velocity prediction as a prediction of whether or not the actual or simulated ball passes through a hoop. If one skilled in the art were to understand the prediction of the entry angle and entry velocity as constituting a prediction of whether a ball enters a hoop, it is unlikely that Marty would have additionally listed using the parameter of a made or missed shot as information that could additionally or alternatively be supplied to the user as feedback. See Marty, paras. 27, 98. The Examiner appears correct in that Marty’s system would appear to collect all the relevant trajectory information that would enable the determination of whether a shot is made or not. See, e.g., Marty, para. 103 (“When two objects collide before reaching the basket 103 and are deflected, the trajectory system may be capable of determining whether a shot would have been made based upon trajectory data measured before the objects collided.”); see also Ans. 5, quoting Marty para. 76. However, the Examiner’s rejection is based upon construing Marty’s determination or prediction of entry angle and velocity itself as a determination or prediction of whether a basketball passes through a hoop. Such a construction is overly Appeal 2012-012457 Application 12/127,744 5 broad and not consistent with the one that one skilled in the art would reach. Although the PTO must give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation, this interpretation must be consistent with the one that those skilled in the art would reach. In re Cortright, 165 F. 3d 1353, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Accordingly, we cannot sustain the rejection on the basis set forth by the Examiner. DECISION The Examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, is affirmed. The Examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is reversed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED-IN-PART mls Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation