Ex Parte Narayanaswami

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Feb 20, 2003

08745524 (B.P.A.I. Feb. 20, 2003)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not
written for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 20
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________
Ex parte CHANDRASEKHAR NARAYANASWAMI
_____________
Appeal No. 2001-0518
Application No. 08/745,524
______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before HAIRSTON, FLEMING, and DIXON, Administrative Patent Judges.
DIXON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1 through 21, which constitute all the pending claims in the
application.
The disclosed invention relates to a panoramic three-dimensional video
conferencing system (brief at pages 2 and 3). During conferencing the source video
system calculates a difference image representing difference between a source image
and a background image. The difference image is the difference between the actual
Appeal No. 2001-0518
Application No. 08/745,524
2
image and a representation of the background panoramic image based on the
environmental map (specification, page 11, lines 9-10). During conferencing the source
system communicates said difference image and said position and field of view of said
camera to said target system. Accordingly, the target system renders said background
environment map according to said position and field of view of said camera to thereby
generate a background image visible for said position and field of view of said camera.
The following claim further illustrates the invention.
1. A method for communicating image data from a source system to a
target system comprising the following steps performed at said source system:
generating a background environment map, said background environment
map comprising a mapping of a panoramic image onto pixels of a three
dimensional surface, wherein said background environment map is rendered
according to varying positions and fields of view of a camera to provide a view of
said panoramic image as seen from different orientations and fields of view;
communicating said background environment map to said target system;
capturing a source image from a position and field of view of said camera;
rendering said background environment map according to said position
and field of view of said camera to generate a background image visible for said
position and field of view of said camera;
generating a difference image representing difference between said
source image and said background image; and
communicating said difference image and said position and field of view
of said camera to said target system.
The examiner relies on the following references:
Ueno et al. (Ueno) 4,951,140 Aug. 21, 1990
Appeal No. 2001-0518
Application No. 08/745,524
3
Chen et al. (Chen) 5,396,583 Mar. 7, 1995
Claims 1 through 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Ueno in view of Chen.
Rather than repeat the arguments of appellant and the examiner, we make
reference to the brief (paper no. 18) and the examiner’s answer (paper no. 19) for the
respective details.
OPINION
We have considered the rejection advanced by the examiner and the supporting
arguments. We have, likewise, reviewed the appellant’s arguments set forth in the
brief.
We reverse.
REJECTION UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 103
As a general proposition, in an appeal involving a rejection under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103, an examiner is under a burden to make out a prima facie case of obviousness.
If that burden is met, the burden of going forward then shifts to the applicant to
overcome the prima facie case with argument and/or evidence. Obviousness, is then
determined on the basis of the evidence as a whole and the relative persuasiveness of
the arguments. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed.
Cir. 1992); In re Hedges, 783 F.2d 1038, 1039, 228 USPQ 685, 686 (Fed. Cir. 1986);
In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1472, 223 USPQ 785, 788 (Fed. Cir. 1984); and In re
Appeal No. 2001-0518
Application No. 08/745,524
4
Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 1052, 189 USPQ 143, 147 (CCPA 1976).
Following the above guidelines, the examiner rejects claims 1 through 21 at
pages 3 to 6 of the examiner’s answer in detail over Ueno and Chen. Appellant argues
(brief at page 5) that “the prior art references, individually or in combination, do not
teach or suggest the communication of camera position parameters, for example,
azimuth, elevation, or zoom.” Appellant further argues along the same lines (brief at
page 7) that “Ueno and/or Chen does not disclose or suggest such a method for
utilizing camera parameters communicated from a source system.” The examiner
responds with diligence to the various points raised by appellant in the brief at pages 6
through 13 of the examiner’s answer. The crux of the examiner’s argument seems to
us to be exemplified by the following quotation from the examiner’s answer where the
examiner states (answer at pages 6 and 7) that “there is nothing in Ueno et al[.] that
precludes the movement of the camera in the video phone or teleconference
environment so that, for instance, a plurality of people may each be viewed as desired
when talking (see column 1, lines 6-8 and column 3, lines 64-66). The camera within
Ueno et al[.] must obviously be adjusted to the desired position in order to view the
object (i.e., person) of interest.”
Appeal No. 2001-0518
Application No. 08/745,524
5
We are not convinced by the examiner’s position. Whereas we agree with the
examiner that the limitations from the specification are not to be imported into the
claims (answer at page 7), the claims are to be interpreted not in a vacuum but in the
light of the specification. The specification at pages 4, 11, 12 and 13 and Figure 6 of
the disclosure clearly indicates that the varying position parameters of the camera are
utilized by appellant in the invention. Therefore, the examiner’s assertion that Ueno
does not preclude the movement of the camera so that the lens of the camera can be
focused on a person among a plurality of persons during a conference does not amount
to the same recitation which appellant discloses and claims in terms of the physical
movement of the camera itself. We agree with appellant that there is nothing in Ueno
or Chen which transmits the physical position and field of view of the camera itself from
the source to the target or destination. Therefore, we cannot sustain the obviousness
rejection of claims 1 through 21 over the combined teachings of Ueno and Chen
because all the claims recite the same or similar limitation.
Appeal No. 2001-0518
Application No. 08/745,524
6
The decision of the examiner rejecting claims 1 through 21 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 (a) is reversed.
REVERSED
KENNETH W. HAIRSTON )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
MICHAEL R. FLEMING ) APPEALS AND
Administrative Patent Judge ) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
JOSEPH L. DIXON )
Administrative Patent Judge )
PSL/JLD:hh
Appeal No. 2001-0518
Application No. 08/745,524
7
JAY B. SBROLLINI
IBM CORPORATION
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW DEPT
P.O. BOX 218
YORKTOWN HEIGHTS, NY 10598