Ex Parte Murthi et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 29, 2018

13164785 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 29, 2018)

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.
13/164,785 06/21/2011 Raghu Murthi 332699-US-NP 2484
69316 7590 01/31/2018
MICROSOFT CORPORATION
ONE MICROSOFT WAY
REDMOND, WA 98052
EXAMINER
POLO, GUSTAVO D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2695
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/31/2018 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):
u sdocket @ micro soft .com
chriochs @microsoft.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte RAGHU MURTHI, STEVEN BATHICHE, JOHN ALLEN
TARDIF, and NICHOLAS ROBERT BAKER
Appeal 2017-001222
Application 13/164,785
Technology Center 2600
Before JASON V. MORGAN, BRUCE R. WINSOR, and
PHILLIP A. BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.
WINSOR, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection
of claims 1-20, which constitute all the claims pending in this application.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). Appellants presented
arguments at an oral hearing on January 16, 2018. A transcript of that
hearing will be entered into the record in due time.
We reverse.
1 Microsoft Technology Licensing, LLC, is identified by Appellants as the
real party in interest. App. Br. 3.
Appeal 2017-001222
Application 13/164,785
RELATED PROCEEDINGS
Application 13/164,783 (Attorney Docket 332688.01), filed June 21,
2011 (the “’783 Appl”), is related to the present application (Attorney
Docket 332699.01). See Spec. If 1;’783 Appl. Spec. If 1. The’783
Application is the subject of Appeal 2017-001519, Notice of Appeal filed
Dec. 03, 2015 (the “’519 Appeal”). Although not identified as such by
Appellants (see App Br. 3), we conclude the ’519 Appeal is related to the
present appeal. The ’519 Appeal is decided concurrently with the present
appeal.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Modem multimedia environments generally employ a
variety of sensor or data inputs. For example, a gaming
environment may include a red-green-blue (RGB) camera to
capture an image of a player in a gaming scene and a depth
camera to detect the distance between the depth camera and
various points in the gaming scene, including points on the
player. In this manner, the multimedia environment can
determine and interpret characteristics in the captured scene.
Spec. ^ 2. Appellants’ disclosed invention relates to focusing sensor
resources on a region of interest and reducing the ambiguity of objects of
interest. Spec. ^ 4. Claim 1, which is illustrative, reads as follows:
1. A method comprising:
segmenting a region of interest within a field of view of a
target recognition, analysis and tracking system using passive
sensing of a first sensor, the region of interest being a subset of
the field of view of the target recognition, analysis and tracking
system; and
2
Appeal 2017-001222
Application 13/164,785
changing a first operation of data capture by a second
sensor within the segmented region of interest of the field of
view relative to a second operation of the data capture by the
second sensor concurrently collecting data from the field of
view outside the segmented region of interest.
App. Br. (Claims App’x) 17 (claim status omitted).
Claims 1-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)2 as anticipated
by Cilia et al. (US 2009/0046157 Al, published Feb. 19, 2009) (“Cilia”).
See Final Act. 2-7.
Rather than repeat the arguments here, we refer to the Briefs (“App.
Br.” filed Feb. 29, 2016; “Reply Br.” filed Oct. 26, 2016) for the positions of
Appellants; the Final Office Action (“Final Act.” mailed Oct. 22, 2015) and
Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.” mailed Aug. 26, 2016) for the reasoning,
findings, and conclusions of the Examiner; and the Specification (“Spec.”
June 21, 2011).
ISSUE
The dispositive issue3 presented by Appellants’ arguments is whether
the Examiner errs in finding Cilia discloses “changing a first operation of
data capture by a second sensor within the segmented region of interest of
the field of view relative to a second operation of the data capture by the
second sensor concurrently collecting data from the field of view outside the
segmented region of interest,” as recited in claim 1.
2 All rejections are under the provisions of 35 U.S.C. in effect prior to the
effective date of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act of 201 l(“pre-AIA”).
Final Act 2.
3 Appellants’ arguments present additional issues. Because the identified
issue is dispositive of the appeal, we do not reach the additional issues.
3
Appeal 2017-001222
Application 13/164,785
ANALYSIS
To show anticipation, it is necessary that a single reference disclose,
explicitly or inherently, all of the limitations of the claim, Verdegaal Bros.,
Inc. v. Union Oil Co. of Cal., 814 F.2d 628, 631 (Fed. Cir. 1987), arranged
as in the claim, In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 832 (Fed. Cir. 1990), in as
complete detail as in the claim, Richardson v. Suzuki Motor Co., 868 F.2d
1226, 1236 (Fed. Cir. 1989), abrogated on other grounds as recognized by
Robert Bosch LLC v. Pylon Mfg. Corp., 659 F.3d 1142, 1148 (Fed. Cir.
2011). “There must be no difference between the claimed invention and the
reference disclosure, as viewed by a person of ordinary skill in the field of
the invention.” Scripps Clinic & Research Found, v. Genentech, Inc., 927
F.2d 1565, 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
The Examiner maps the recited “second sensor” to Cilia’s zoom
camera 14. Final Act. 2 (citing Cilia]} 12); see also Cilia Fig. 1. The
Examiner explains as follows:
The zoom function [of Cilia’s zoom camera 14] takes into
account two areas, namely, the region of interest and the area
outside of it. Data must be collected concurrently between
these two areas when zooming occurs. . . . Where the zoom
camera zooms in on the region of interest (ROI), it necessarily
collects data from the ROI and outside in order to perform the
zooming function.
Ans. 7.
Appellants contend as follows:
[Cilia’s] zoom camera [14] (the purported “second sensor[]”)
does not perform a first operation of data capture that is
different than a second and concurrent operation of data
capture of the zoom camera. Although Cilia’s zoom camera
([14]) may, during zooming, capture a field of view including
4
Appeal 2017-001222
Application 13/164,785
“a region of interest” and an area “outside of the region of
interest,” the two regions appear to be captured with an
identical data capture operation. For example, the zoom camera
appears to collect data uniformly (e.g., uniform sensitivity,
uniform resolution), from both within the region of interest and
from a region external to the region of interest.
Further, Cilia’s zoom camera does not change an
operation of data capture “within the segmented region of
interest of the Field of view relative to a second operation of
data capture . . . currently collecting data . . . outside of the
region of interest,” as recited in claim 1. Although Cilia
discloses ‘zooming’ to change a field of view, the zooming
operation collects data both within and external to the
segmented region of interest according to identical parameters.
For example, data capture parameters such as sensitivity and
resolution are uniform across the field of view regardless of
where data is specifically collected from within the field of
view.
App. Br. 7-8 (ellipses in original).
We agree with Appellants for the reasons stated by Appellants.
Nothing in the cited passages of Cilia discloses that at any time before,
during, or after zooming zoom camera 14 concurrently performs a second
data capture operation in one region (i.e., “outside the segmented region of
interest”) while performing a different (i.e., “chang[ed] . . . relative to”) first
data capture operation in another region (i.e., “within the segmented field of
interest”).
Appellants have demonstrated error in the rejection of claim 1 for
anticipation by Cilia. Accordingly, constrained by this record, we do not
sustain the anticipation rejection of (1) claim 1; (2) independent claims 9 and
17, which include substantially the same limitation (