Ex Parte Myllyla

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 20, 2014

11954259 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 20, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
__________

Ex parte TOMI MYLLYLA1
__________

Appeal 2011-013193
Application 11/954,259
Technology Center 2100
__________

Before TONI R. SCHEINER, JEFFREY N. FREDMAN, and
ERICA A. FRANKLIN, Administrative Patent Judges.

SCHEINER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the final rejection of
claims 1-5, 7, 11-22, and 25-31, directed to a method, apparatus, and
computer program for introducing real world and virtual information into
media content based on location. The Examiner has rejected the claims on
the grounds of anticipation, lack of enablement, and indefiniteness. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).

1 Appellant identifies the Real Party-In-Interest as Nokia Corporation (App.
Br. 1).
Appeal 2011-013193
Application 11/954,259
2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
“Embodiments of the present invention relate generally to augmented
reality, and more particularly, relate to . . . displaying virtual media content
items in a visual [medium]” (Spec. ¶ 1).
Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on
appeal:
1. A method comprising:
receiving a first media content item that includes location information;
determining a capture zone for the first media content item based
upon the location information;
receiving a second media content item that includes location
information; and
determining to render at a user interface a presentation of the second
media content item within a presentation of the first media content item
when the location information of the second media content item indicates
that the second media content item is or was located within the capture zone.
Claims 1-5, 7, 11-22, and 25-31 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) as anticipated by Border et al. (US 7,683,962 B2, March 23, 2010)
(Ans. 5-8).
Claims 28, 29, and 31 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph, as lacking enablement (Ans. 4-5).
Claim 27 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as
indefinite (Ans. 5).
We reverse.
Appeal 2011-013193
Application 11/954,259

3
FINDINGS OF FACT
The following findings of fact are supported by a preponderance of
the evidence of record.
1. Figure 4e of the Specification illustrates an embodiment that
meets the limitations of claim 1. Figure 4e is reproduced below:

Figure 4e depicts photograph 430, an example of a first media content item.
The area displayed in photograph 430 is coextensive with the capture zone
for the first media content. Figure 4e also depicts avatar object 450, an
example of a second media content item. In this particular example, avatar
object 450 represents a person with a mobile device which includes location
capturing capabilities. When photograph 430 is displayed, and the person
and the mobile device are located within the capture zone of photograph
430, avatar object 450 will also be displayed within photograph 430 at a
location corresponding to the location where the mobile device is located
within the capture zone. Moreover, as the person and the mobile device
move, the display can change to represent the movement. (Spec. ¶¶ 60-63.)

Appeal 2011-013193
Application 11/954,259

4
2. Border discloses “an electronic camera for producing an output
image of a scene from a captured image signal” (Border, col. 7, ll. 39-41).
[The] embodiments described herein include an image
capture assembly, such as a digital camera - still or video - or a
digital scanner, having multiple image capture stages, each
composed of a lens and an image sensor, wherein the lenses of
the multiple image capture stages have different focal lengths to
provide an extended optical zoom range for the image capture
assembly. . . . [T]he multiple image capture stages . . . provide
an enhanced rangefinding capability. . . . [U]sing the image
capture stages for image capture and autofocus . . . improv[es]
the sharpness of the captured still and video images, as well as
increasing the speed of response of the autofocus system.
Besides their auto focus usage, these same images can also be
used to provide a range map according to the invention.
There are several embodiments by which one image
capture stage may be used to capture digital still images or
video images while another image capture stage is
simultaneously being used for another purpose, such as
enhanced auto focus, . . . and the like. In a first embodiment
described herein, when a user has set a zoom position to be
within a first optical zoom range, a first imaging stage
containing a first (e. g., zoom) lens is used to capture a still
image or a series of images as in a video sequence, while a
second imaging stage simultaneously provides images for the
purpose of auto focus of the first imaging stage. Since the
second imaging stage is not used to capture the images, the
focus conditions of the lens in the second imaging stage can be
adjusted over a wider range . . . to determine the new best focus
setting for the lens in the first imaging stage without
detrimentally affecting the focus quality of the images captured
by the first imaging stage. When the new best focus condition
has been determined using the second imaging stage, the focus
condition of the first imaging stage is changed from the
previous best focus condition to the new best focus condition.
When the user adjusts the zoom position on the image
capture assembly to a second optical zoom range, the camera
Appeal 2011-013193
Application 11/954,259

5
automatically switches to use the second imaging stage
(containing, e.g., a second zoom lens) to capture the images,
and begins using the first imaging stage for auto focus of the
second imaging stage.
(Border, col. 10, ll. 16-61.)
3. Border further discloses:
[A] process for selecting one of the imaging stages in a dual
lens camera system as the primary capture unit, while relegating
the other imaging stage to certain other functions, such as scene
analysis. More specifically, the power to the camera is turned
on and the initialization process begins (block 1100). After the
initialization process is completed, the first and second imaging
stages 1 and 2 are set to their default zoom positions (block
1102), which are predetermined initial zoom positions that
determine the images that are initially captured and displayed.
Thereupon, the first and second imaging stages capture and
display first and second preview images (block 1104) on the
image display 70. These images could be displayed in several
ways, for instance, side by side on the display as thumbnails or
the like, one within the other, sequentially, etc. Next, the
camera operator is asked to decide whether the first or second
preview image should be the primary image (block 1106),
where the primary image will be the one that is captured and
stored . . . [and] the other (non-selected) imaging stage is
designated as the scene analysis capture unit (block 1114).
(Border, col. 25, ll. 26-57.)
ANTICIPATION
The Examiner finds that Border anticipates the invention of claims
1-5, 7, 11-22, and 25-31.
As discussed in greater detail above, Border’s multi-lens digital
camera uses “two (or more) image capture stages, wherein an image capture
stage is composed of a sensor, a lens and a lens focus adjuster . . . in a
rangefinder configuration to separately capture images of portions of the
Appeal 2011-013193
Application 11/954,259

6
same scene” and “[t]he images captured by the two (or more) image capture
stages can be compared to each other to measure the distance to portions of
the scene for purposes of auto focus control and for the production of a
range map. In addition, the range map can be populated with GPS locations
for portions of the scene” (Border, col. 8, ll. 12-21 (emphasis added); FF 2).
Appellant contends that the Examiner incorrectly “interpreted the
images generated by Border et al.’s first and second imaging stages of a
digital camera as the first and second media content items recited in the
claims” (App. Br. 13). Appellant contends that the images generated by
Border’s two image capture stages are captured at essentially the same time
and are of “the same scene” (Reply Br. 2).
Appellant further contends that even when Border’s system captures
first and second preview images and displays them together for selection of
a primary image (App. Br. 15), “the location information of one preview
image will always indicate that it[] is or was located within the capture zone
of the other preview” (id. at 16). That is, Border’s system “knows for sure
the items [captured by the two image capture stages] share the same
location” (Reply Br, 2), and are “images of the same scene” (id. at 5). That
being the case, Appellant contends that the Examiner’s finding that Border
“‘determine[s] to render at a user interface a presentation of the second
media content item within a presentation of the first media content item
when the location information of the second media content item
indicates that the second media content item is or was located within the
capture zone’” is not supported by the evidence (App. Br. 16).
Appellant’s arguments are persuasive. We agree with Appellant that
one of ordinary skill in the art would not consider the images generated by
Appeal 2011-013193
Application 11/954,259

7
Border’s first and second imaging stages to be the first and second media
content items required by the claims. That is, when the claims are read in
light of the Specification, it is clear that the first and second media content
items represent different content, and are not simply two images of the same
item in the same scene captured at essentially the same time. Moreover, we
agree with Appellant that Border’s system does not render a presentation of
the second media item within a presentation of the first media content item
based on a determination that the second media content item is or was in the
capture zone of the first media content item.
ENABLEMENT
The Examiner finds that claims 28, 29, and 31 are not enabled by the
Specification.
We agree with Appellant that the Examiner’s initial burden of
establishing lack of enablement has not been met for the reasons set forth on
pages 8 and 9 of the Appeal Brief. Accordingly, the rejection is reversed.
INDEFINITENESS
The Examiner finds that claim 27 is indefinite.
We agree with Appellant that this rejection is without merit for the
reasons set forth on pages 10 and 11 of the Appeal Brief. The rejection is
reversed.
Appeal 2011-013193
Application 11/954,259

8
SUMMARY
The rejection of claims 1-5, 7, 11-22, and 25-31 as anticipated by
Border is reversed.
The rejection of claims 28, 29, and 31 as lacking enablement is
reversed.
The rejection of claim 27 as indefinite is reversed.

REVERSED

lp