Ex Parte Muto et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 16, 2016

13370430 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 16, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/370,430 02/10/2012
27572 7590 02/18/2016
HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C.
P.O. BOX 828
BLOOMFIELD HILLS, MI 48303
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
KenjiMuto
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
40411-001065/US/DVA 9474
EXAMINER
TORRENTE, RICHARDT
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2485
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/18/2016 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):
troydocketing@hdp.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte KENJI MUTO, KAZUOKI MATSUGATANI, and JUN KOSAI
Appeal2014-003301
Application 13/370,430
Technology Center 2400
Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, JOHNNY A. KUMAR, and
JON M. JURGOV AN, Administrative Patent Judges.
JURGOV AN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 filed this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner's Final Rejection of claim 16, the only claim pending in the
Application. App. Br. 1. Claims 1-15 have been cancelled. Id. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse. 2
1 Appellants identify Denso Corp. as the real party in interest. App. Br. 1.
2 Our Decision refers to the Specification filed Feb. 10, 2012 ("Spec."); the
Appeal Brief filed Oct. 10, 2013 ("App. Br."); the Examiner's Answer
mailed Nov. 19, 2013 ("Ans."); and the Reply Brief filed Jan. 10, 2014
("Reply Br.").
Appeal2014-003301
Application 13/370,430
STATEivIENT OF THE CASE
The claim is directed to displaying images of a vehicle's
surroundings. Spec. 1, 11. 15-18. Claim 16 is reproduced below, with the
disputed limitation in italics:
16. An image display terminal comprising:
means for receiving picked images of surroundings and
image pickup information associated with each of the picked
images from an image server,
the image server acquiring each picked image of the
surroundings and each of the image pickup information from
each of a plurality of vehicles,
each picked image of the surroundings being picked up
with a camera mounted in each of the vehicles,
each vehicle including a speed sensor to provide running
speed information indicating a running speed of each vehicle
during running; and
means for controlling a display device to display the
received picked images, wherein:
the image pickup information includes (i) information
about an image pickup point at which the picked image was
picked up in each vehicle and (ii) running speed information of
each vehicle at the image pickup point, and
upon receiving an instruction to advance an image in a
certain direction, the controlling means searches for first picked
images picked up in a search region that is within a
predetermined direction range including the certain direction
and in which a distance from the image pickup point at which
the picked image presently displayed on the display device was
picked up is within a predetermined range, and selects a second
picked image to be displayed next on the display device from
among the first picked images picked up in the search region in
accordance with a predetermined selection rule, wherein:
the selection rule selects preferentially, as the second
picked image among the first picked images picked up in the
2
Appeal2014-003301
Application 13/370,430
search region, a picked image associated wan the running
speed information indicating the running speed that is slowest
in the search region.
REJECTION
Claim 16 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Shintani et al.
(US 2003/0212567 Al; Nov. 13, 2003) ("Shintani") and Nozaki et al. (US
2003/0193610 Al; Oct. 16, 2003) ("Nozaki"). Ans. 2--4.
ANALYSIS
Issue: Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Shintani
and Nozaki teaches selecting an image indicating the running speed of the
vehicle that is the slowest in the search region, as required by claim 16?
The Examiner finds Shintani teaches selecting an image, which is
acquired from a camera mounted on a vehicle and includes vehicle running
speed information, in accordance with a predetermined selection rule. Ans.
2-3. The Examiner further finds Nozaki teaches selecting an image based
on the smallest amount of blur, and thus selecting the image with the lowest
"speed" or movement of the camera. Ans. 3 and 6. The Examiner
concludes the combination of Shintani and N ozaki results in selecting an
image with the lowest movement (i.e., least blur) in all 3-dimensional
directions, which teaches picking an image associated with the slowest
running speed of the vehicle in the search region. Ans. 6-7.
Appellants contend the combination of Shintani and Nozaki does not
teach selecting an image associated with the slowest vehicle running speed
because vehicle speed would not be the only movement of the camera that
causes blur. App. Br. 9-10; Reply Br. 2-3. Appellants argue any
movement, such as vibration of the camera or angular speed of the object
3
Appeal2014-003301
Application 13/370,430
being photographed, will cause blurring, and therefore blur is not necessarily
related to vehicle speed. Id. Appellants contend the combination ofNozaki
with Shintani would only ensure the image with the least blurring would be
selected, and does not teach the preferential selection of the image taken
when the speed of the vehicle is the slowest. Id.
We agree with Appellants' contentions. The combination of Shintani
and Nozaki would merely result in a vehicle with a camera mounted on it
that corrects image blur in the horizontal and vertical directions. See Nozaki
i-fi-196-101 (discussion of blur detection). The Examiner has not identified,
nor do we find, any teaching in Shintani or Nozaki that an image is selected
based on the slowest running speed of a vehicle. Thus, because we are
persuaded by Appellants' arguments, we do not sustain the Examiner's
rejection.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection of claim 16 is reversed.
REVERSED
4