13946279 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 29, 2017)

Ex Parte Mills

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 29, 2017

13946279 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 29, 2017)

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. 13/946,279 07/19/2013 Lawrence R. MILLS 1281-87CON (C4-1207.1) 4840 10850 7590 10/03/2017 Alan M. Weisberg Christopher & Weisberg, P.A. 200 East Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 2040 Fort Lauderdale, EL 33301 EXAMINER FINDLEY, CHRISTOPHER G ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2482 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 10/03/2017 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): ptomail @ c wiplaw. com ipcorrespondence@tycofp.com jbluhmg@jci.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte LAWRENCE R. MILLS Appeal 2017-005263 Application 13/946,2791 Technology Center 2400 Before DAVID M. KOHUT, KAMRAN JIVANI, and SCOTT E. BAIN, Administrative Patent Judges. JIVANI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant seeks our review, under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), of the Examiner’s final decision rejecting claims 1, 2, 4—9, 11—18, and 20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Sensormatic Electronics, LLC. App. Br. 1. Appeal 2017-005263 Application 13/946,279 STATEMENT OF THE CASE The present patent application relates to generating a graphical user interface from image data, such as video images. Spec. 12. Claim 1 is illustrative of the claims on appeal and reproduced below. 1. A system providing a graphical user interface, the system comprising: a first camera configured to capture fisheye image data using a fisheye lens; a buffer configured to receive the fisheye image data corresponding to a monitored area; and a processor in communication with the buffer, the processor configured to: transform the fisheye image data into panoramic view data corresponding to an undistorted panoramic view of the monitored area using a panoramic transformation process; transform the fisheye image data into virtual view data corresponding to a partial view of the panoramic view using a virtual view transformation process different from the panoramic view transformation process; encode the panoramic view data and the virtual view data for display in the graphical user interface; determine reference data corresponding to an area in the panoramic view represented by a virtual view, the virtual view corresponding to the virtual view data; and overlay a reference window over the area in the panoramic view represented by the virtual view based on the reference data. 2 Appeal 2017-005263 Application 13/946,279 THE REJECTIONS The Examiner rejects claims 1, 2, 4—6, 8, 9, and 11—14, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), as obvious over Koyanagi (US 2004/0257436 Al; Dec. 23, 2004), Mojaver (US 6,833,843 B2; Dec. 21, 2004), and Poelstra (US 5,563,650; Oct. 8, 1996). Final Act. ^U8 (Jan. 20, 2016). The Examiner rejects claims 7 and 15, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), as obvious over Koyanagi, Mojaver, Poelstra, and Furlan (US 2002/0147991 Al; Oct. 10, 2002). Final Act. 8-10. The Examiner rejects claims 16—18, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), as obvious over Koyanagi and Mojaver. Final Act. 10-11. The Examiner rejects claim 20, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), as obvious over Koyanagi, Mojaver, and Furlan. Final Act. 12. ANALYSIS Independent claims 1 and 8 stand rejected as obvious over Koyanagi, Mojaver, and Poelstra. We select claim 1 as representative. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv)(2015). The Examiner finds Koyanagi teaches the majority of the elements of claim 1, relying on Mojaver as teaching the claimed fisheye image data captured using a fisheye lens and Poelstra as teaching the claimed transformation of the fisheye image data into panoramic view data corresponding to an undistorted panoramic view of the monitored area. Final Act. 5—6. More specifically, the Examiner cites Koyanagi’s panoramic view 6A (i.e., the claimed panoramic view) and overlaying virtual partial view 6C (i.e., the claimed overlay reference window of a virtual view in the panoramic view). Final Act. 5. According to the Examiner, Mojaver and 3 Appeal 2017-005263 Application 13/946,279 Poelstra suggest implementing within Koyanagi’s invention, fisheye imaging such that a fisheye image is transformed to the panoramic view 6A and virtual partial view 6C. Id. at 5—6. Thus, the Examiner proposes combining Mojaver’s perspective-corrected overlay 40 of a panoramic view with Koyanagi’s virtual partial view 6C and Poelstra’s panoramic view with Koyanagi’s panoramic view 6A. Id.', see also Ans. 10-11. Appellant contends, inter alia, that the Examiner’s proposed combination changes the principle operation of Koyanagi’s invention and implements non-analogous art therein by replacing Koyanagi’s pan-tilt imaging with Mojaver’s and Poelstra’s fisheye imaging. App. Br. 9— 14. More specifically, Appellant argues the Examiner’s proposed combination would omit panning/tilting and, therefore, omit the virtual partial view 6C that controls panning/tilting in Koyanagi’s invention. Id. at 13; see also Koyanagi 143 (virtual partial view 6C represents the camera’s position). In response, the Examiner finds that pan-tilt imaging and fisheye imaging are recognized in the art as alternatives for generating panoramic images. Ans. 12. The Examiner asserts, without citing any reference or evidence: “There are basically two ways to generate a panoramic image within the art: stitch multiple images together, or use optics that expand the field of view (of which a fisheye lens is an example).” Id. at 13. The Examiner continues that “Koyanagi describes that ‘a panoramic picture may be generated by another method’ whenever the panoramic generation button is pressed.” Id. (citing Koyanag, 1 52). We are persuaded by Appellant’s argument that the Examiner has erred. The Examiner summarily asserts only two alternatives exist in the art 4 Appeal 2017-005263 Application 13/946,279 for generating a panoramic image. Ans. 12—13. Such a conclusory assertion is of little evidentiary weight. Moreover, the sole sentence in Koyanagi upon which the Examiner subsequently relies does not support the Examiner’s finding. See id. The cited passage of Koyanagi states: “It should be noted that according to the present invention, a panorama picture may be generated by another method.” Koyanagi 1 52. As Appellant correctly argues, Koyanagi makes this statement in the context of describing one method of generating a panoramic image, and then continues by describing two additional methods. Reply Br. 7—8 (citing Koyanagi 52— 60). All three disclosed methods in Koyanagi employ stitching multiple images together and, therefore, do not support the Examiner’s assertion that substituting image stitching in Koyanagi for fisheye lenses would not render Koyanagi inoperable or unsuitable for its intended purpose. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejections of independent claims 1 and 8. The Examiner does not repair the deficiencies discussed above in the rejections of the dependent claims 2, 4—7, 9, 11—18, and 20. Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s rejections of claims 2, 4—7, 9, 11—18, and 20 for the same reasons discussed above. DECISION We reverse the Examiner’s decisions rejecting claims 1, 2, 4—9, 11— 18, and 20. REVERSED 5