Ex Parte MillsDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 20, 201310802451 (P.T.A.B. May. 20, 2013) Copy Citation 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. 10/802,451 03/17/2004 Lawrence R. Mills C4-1207 3999 10850 7590 05/21/2013 Gerald M. Bluhm Tyco Fire Protection 50 Technology Drive Westminster, MA 01441-0001 EXAMINER FINDLEY, CHRISTOPHER G ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2482 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/21/2013 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 LAWRENCE R. MILLS ____________________ Appeal 2012-010836 Application 10/802,451 Technology Center 2400 ____________________ Before THU A. DANG, JAMES R. HUGHES, and GREGORY J. GONSALVES, Administrative Patent Judges. DANG, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2012-010836 Application 10/802,451 2 I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of claims 1-5, 9, 11, 12, 14-21, and 23-26 (App. Br. 1). Claims 6-8, 10, 13 and 22 have been cancelled (id.). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. A. INVENTION Appellant’s invention is directed to a system having a video user interface display that includes transformed panoramic views of a monitored area derived from wide-angle lens image data and virtual views of portions of the monitored area based upon transformed wide-angle lens image data (Abstract). B. ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM Claim 1 is exemplary: 1. A system for creating signals indicative of a graphical user interface from wide-angle image data corresponding to a monitored area, said system comprising: a buffer configured to receive wide-angle image data corresponding to the monitored area; and a processor operably coupled to said buffer and configured to: generate, from the buffered wide angle image data, panoramic view data of a panoramic view of the monitored area; generate, from the buffered wide-angle image data virtual view data representing a virtual view of a portion of the panoramic view; and Appeal 2012-010836 Application 10/802,451 3 encode the panoramic view data and the virtual view data for display[.] C. REJECTIONS The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Kuban US 5,359,363 Oct. 25, 1994 Poelstra US 5,563,650 Oct. 08, 1996 Koyanagi US 2004/0257436 Al Dec. 23, 2004 (filed Jan. 27, 2004) Monroe US 2007/0182819 Al Aug. 09, 2007 (Continuation of US 09/593,361, filed Jun. 14, 2000) Claims 1-4, 11, 12, 14, 16-18, 20, 21, 23, and 26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Koyanagi in view of Kuban. Claims 9 and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Koyanagi in view of Kuban and Monroe. Claims 5, 15, 24, and 25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Koyanagi in view of Kuban and Poelstra. II. ISSUES The dispositive issues before us are whether the Examiner has erred in determining that the combination of Koyanagi and Kuban teaches or would have suggested: 1. “generat[ing], from the buffered wide angle image data, panoramic view data of a panoramic view of the monitored area” (claim 1, emphasis added); and Appeal 2012-010836 Application 10/802,451 4 2. “generat[ing], from the buffered wide-angle image data[,] virtual view data representing a virtual view of a portion of the panoramic view” (claim 1, emphasis added). III. FINDINGS OF FACT The following Findings of Fact (FF) are shown by a preponderance of the evidence. Koyanagi 1. Koyanagi discloses a photographing apparatus, having a pan tilter camera 3 which includes a telephotograph side and a wide-angle side setting (Abstract; Fig. 1; ¶ [0042]). 2. When a panorama generation button is pressed, computer 1 generates a panorama picture; wherein, the pictures taken by the pan tilter camera 3 are combined into one panorama picture by mapping them onto a virtual spherical surface (Figs. 1, 3, and 4A-F; ¶¶ [0051]-[0054]). The mapped pictures are combined in such a manner that an overlapped portion and an unnecessary portion are removed (¶ [0054]). Kuban 3. Kuban discloses an omnidirectional viewing system that produces the equivalent of pan, tilt, zoom, and rotation within a selected field-of-view with no moving parts; wherein, the system includes a means for digitizing an incoming or prerecorded video image signal, transforming a portion of the video image based upon operator or preselected commands and producing one or more output images that are in correct perspective for human viewing (col. 2, ll. 51-62). The system includes a camera with a fisheye lens having a wide angle field-of-view (col. 2, ll. 62-64). Appeal 2012-010836 Application 10/802,451 5 IV. ANALYSIS Claims 1-4, 11-12, 14, 16-18, 20, 21, 23, and 26 Appellant contends that the Examiner has “misinterpret[ed] Koyanagi’s generated panoramic picture by stating that Koyanagi’s panoramic picture discloses both [Appellant]’s claimed wide angle image data and [Appellant]’s claimed panoramic view data that is generated based on wide angle data” (App. Br. 6). Appellant argues that “Kuban fails to cure the deficiencies of Koyanagi” because “Kuban’s system does not generate both panoramic view data and virtual view data from buffered wide angle image data” (App. Br. 8). Appellant argues that “[m]odifying Koyanagi with Kuban would change the ‘principle of operation of the prior art being modified’ such that there is and can be [a] motivation to combine” because “Koyanagi’s panoramic picture generation explicitly relies on using a moving ‘pan tilter camera 3’ to photograph pictures” (App. Br. 4). However, the Examiner finds that “both references cited allow for alternate methods of creating panoramic pictures” (Ans. 13). In particular, the Examiner finds that Koyanagi teaches “a procedure … where the original component images are transformed into a seamless, undistorted panoramic image” (Ans. 15). Thus, “the original component images may be considered wide angle image data, as claimed, while the resultant panoramic image may be considered panoramic view data” (id.). Koyanagi discloses a photographing apparatus, having a pan tilter camera having a wide-angle side setting (FF 1). When the panorama generation button is pressed, the computer generates a panorama picture using pictures taken by the pan tilter camera; wherein, the images are Appeal 2012-010836 Application 10/802,451 6 combined into one panorama picture by mapping them onto a virtual spherical surface (FF 2). We find that the images taken using the pan tilter camera with the wide-angle side setting turned on comprise buffered wide angle image data. We find further that the data generated for a panoramic picture is generated using the images taken using the pan tilter camera having the wide-angle side setting turned on. That is, we find that Koyanagi’s method of generating a panorama picture comprises “generat[ing], from the buffered wide angle image data, panoramic view data of a panoramic view of the monitored area” (claim 1). In addition, Kuban discloses an omnidirectional viewing system having no moving parts that produces the equivalent of pan, tilt, zoom, and rotation (virtual image) within a selected field-of-view from a video image signal generated by a camera with a fisheye lens having a wide angle field- of-view (FF 3). We find that the video image signal represents buffered wide angle image data. We find further that the production of an image equivalent to a pan, tilt, zoom, or rotation of an image comprises the step of generating a virtual image from image data. That is, we find that Kuban’s method of generating a virtual pan, tilt, zoom, and rotational image comprises step of “generat[ing], from the buffered wide-angle image data[,] virtual view data representing a virtual view of a portion of the panoramic view” (claim 1). Accordingly, we find that the combination of Koyanagi and Kuban at least suggests all the claimed limitations of claim 1. Though Appellant also contends that “[m]odifying Koyanagi with Kuban would change the ‘principle of operation of the prior art being modified’ such that there is and can be no motivation to combine” (App. Br. Appeal 2012-010836 Application 10/802,451 7 4 (quoting MPEP § 2143.01)), Appellant has not provided persuasive support for this assertion. Since Koyanagi discloses a photographing apparatus, including a pan tilter camera having a wide-angle side setting, we conclude that the combination of one known element (Koyanagi’s photographing apparatus) with another (Kuban’s method of generating a virtual pan, tilt, zoom, and rotation image) would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. Thus, we find that generating panoramic view data from buffered wide angle image data as taught by Koyanagi in addition to Kuban’s generation of virtual view data from buffered wide angle image data is no more than a simple arrangement of old elements, with each performing the same function it had been known to perform, yielding no more than one would expect from such an arrangement. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007). The skilled artisan would “be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle” since the skilled artisan is “a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” Id. at 420-21. Appellant has presented no evidence that combining Koyanagi’s photographing apparatus and method with the virtual image generating method of Kuban’s omnidirectional viewing system was “uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art” or “represented an unobvious step over the prior art.” Leapfrog Enterprises, Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing KSR, 550 U.S. at 418-19). Accordingly, we find that Appellant has not shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Koyanagi in view of Kuban. Further, independent claims 16 and 21 having similar claim Appeal 2012-010836 Application 10/802,451 8 language and claims 2-4, 11, 12, 14, 17, 18, 20, 23, and 26 (depending from claims 1 and 16), which have not been argued separately, fall with claim 1. Claims 5, 9, 15, 19, 24, and 25 Appellant argues that claim 5, 9, 15, 19, 24, and 25 are patentable over the cited prior art for the same reasons asserted with respect to claim 1 (App. Br. 9 and 10). Appellant contends that “Monroe [and Poelstra] fails to teach or suggest the elements of [c]laims 1 and 16” (App. Br. 9 and 10). As noted supra, however, we find that the combination of Koyanagi and Kuban at least suggests all the features of claim 1. We, therefore, affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claim 9 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Koyanagi in view of Kuban and Monroe and of claims 5, 15, 24, and 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Koyanagi in view of Kuban and Poelstra for the same reasons expressed with respect to claim 1. V. CONCLUSION AND DECISION The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-5, 9, 11, 12, 14-21, and 23-26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is affirmed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED peb Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation