Ex Parte Nobori et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 24, 2016

11409474 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 24, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
111409,474 04/21/2006
52800 7590 06/28/2016
HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C. (Panasonic)
5445 CORPORA TE DRIVE
SUITE 200
TROY, MI 48098
Kunio Nobori
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.
5077-000034/US/DVB 3241
EXAMINER
HALLENBECK-HUBER, JEREMIAH CHARLES
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2489
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/28/2016 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):
stobbs@hdp.com
troymailroom@hdp.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte KUNIO NO BO RI, MASAMICHI NAKAGAWA,
HIROFUMI ISHII, and SHUSAKU OKAMOTO
Appeal2014-006277
Application 11/409,474
Technology Center 2400
Before KRISTEN L. DROESCH, MELISSA A. RAAP ALA, and
MONICA S. ULLAGADDI, Administrative Patent Judges.
ULLAGADDI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a final rejection of
claims 18-22, 24, and 25. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Claim 18, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
18. An image processor for receiving camera images taken with
a plurality of cameras capturing the surroundings of a vehicle and
generating a synthesized image from the camera images,
Appeal2014-006277
Application 11/409,474
wherein, in an overlap area in which coverages of a
plurality of cameras overlap on the synthesized image, one
camera image used exclusively for generation of the overlap area
in the synthesized image is selected among camera images from
the plurality of cameras according to an output of a vehicle status
detection section for detecting the status of the vehicle including
a position of an obstacle in the overlap area.
REFERENCES and REJECTIONS
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Burt
Okamoto 1
us 5,488,674
PCT /JP99/04061
Jan.30, 1996
July 29, 1999
Claims 18, 19, 21, 22, 24, and 25 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Okamoto.
Claim 20 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Okamoto and Burt.
ANALYSIS
Claims 18, 21, 24, and 25
Claim 18 recites, inter alia, "in an overlap area in which coverages of
a plurality of cameras overlap on the synthesized image, one camera image
used exclusively for generation of the overlap area in the synthesized image
is selected among camera images from the plurality of cameras." The
1 Okamoto was published in Japanese. The citations to Okamoto in our
Decision and in the record refer to US 7,307,655 Bl (iss. Dec. 11, 2007),
which is the patent granted on Application 09/744,787, the U.S. National
Stage Entry of PCT/JP99/0406 to Okamoto.
2
Appeal2014-006277
Application 11/409,474
Examiner cites Okamoto at column 32 as disclosing this claim limitation.
Ans. 10. Specifically, the Examiner interprets this claim limitation as
encompassing using a single camera image to obtain each pixel in the
overlap area and finds
the claims do not require using one camera image exclusively for
the entire overlap area, nor do the claims exclude plural overlap
areas, thus even supposing that different cameras are used for
different pixels in the overlap image, the claim limitations are
met so long as one camera is used exclusively to generate a pixel
within the overlap area.
Ans. 10 (emphasis added).
Appellants argue "Okamoto does not teach or suggest generating the
synthesized image, where one camera image is used exclusively by selecting
among camera images of plural cameras according to whether there is an
obstacle in the overlap area." App. Br. 15. Specifically, Appellants contend
"Okamoto does not include an obstacle sensor that selects among camera
images, so that one camera image is used exclusively for generation." Id.
Appellants contend that in Okamoto, "[b ]y performing the above-mentioned
processes 1 to 3 for all the cameras, the images from all of the independent
cameras can be mapped into the space model in the same three-dimensional
space." Id. at 16 (citing Okamoto, col. 32, 11. 42--46).
We agree with the Examiner's interpretation and findings regarding
Okamoto. Claim 18 does not require that the entire camera image is used to
generate the overlap area in the synthesized image. We further note that
claim 18 does not require that the "one camera image" be used to the
exclusion of camera images from other cameras. Rather, claim 18 recites,
inter alia, "one camera image used exclusively for generation of the overlap
area." We interpret claim 18 to require the "one camera image" be used
3
Appeal2014-006277
Application 11/409,474
only for generation of the overlap area, thus excluding all other purposes for
using the one camera image.
Okamoto at column 32 discloses converting pixels between coordinate
systems, and mapping the color of said pixel into the intersecting point Ps.
Okamoto further discloses determining the color of the point Ps, when the
color from the image of another camera has already been mapped in to the
point Ps, by the following method:
to mix, in the same ratio, the color already mapped and the
color to be mapped,
to use the color having the higher, the lower, or the middle lightness
between the color already mapped and the color to be mapped,
and
to use the color having the higher, the lower, or the middle saturation
between the color already mapped and the color to be mapped.
By performing the above-mentioned processes 1 to 3 for all the
cameras, the images from all of the independent cameras can be
mapped into the space model in the same three-dimensional space.
Okamoto col. 32, 11. 34--36. As discussed above, claim 18 merely requires
that the "one camera image" is used only for generating the overlap area in
the synthesized image, and is not used for any other purpose. Appellants do
not argue that Okamoto does not explicitly, implicitly, or inherently disclose
that a pixel to be mapped to the intersecting point Psis used exclusively for
generating intersecting point Ps, and is not used for any other purpose.
Arguments Appellants could have made but chose not to make in the Briefs
have not been considered and are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
For the foregoing reasons, Appellants' arguments do not persuade us
the Examiner erred in finding Okamoto discloses the disputed limitation of
claim 18. Therefore, we sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of claim 18
4
Appeal2014-006277
Application 11/409,474
and claims 21, 24, and 25, which were indicated to fall with claim 18 (see
App. Br. 17).
Claims 19, 20, and 22
Claim 19 recites, inter alia:
in an overlap area in which coverages of a plurality of cameras
overlap on the synthesized image, weights to camera images
from the plurality of cameras are set according to an output of a
vehicle status detection section for detecting the status of the
vehicle including a position of an obstacle in the overlap area.
Appellants argue "[u]sing Okamoto's disclosed technology, an object
within the overlap area and three feet away from the vehicle would be
treated the same as an object NOT within the overlap area and three feet
away from the vehicle" and thus, "measuring distance to an object has no
determinative bearing on whether that object is in the overlap area." App.
Br. 18.
The Examiner inte1vrets claim 19 as "requir[ing] only that the
camera ... be exclusively used is selected 'in accordance' with the position
of an obstacle within the overlap area not that the position of the obstacle is
the determinative factor in the camera selection." Ans. 11. The Examiner
finds that "the claims do not exclude determining the camera based on
obstacles outside of the overlap area." Ans. 12.
We concur with the Examiner. Claim 19 does not positively recite
that the vehicle status detection section actually detects an obstacle in the
overlap. Therefore, Appellants' argument does not persuade us claim 19
should be interpreted to exclude the cited teachings of Okamoto, which the
Examiner finds discloses the disputed limitation.
5
Appeal2014-006277
Application 11/409,474
For the foregoing reasons, Appellants' arguments do not persuade us
the Examiner erred in finding Okamoto discloses the disputed limitation of
claim 19. Therefore, we sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of claim 19
and claim 22, which was indicated to fall with claim 19 (see App. Br. 11 ).
Claim 20 depends from claim 19 and stands rejected over the combination of
Okamoto and Burt. As claim 20 was not separately argued, we sustain the
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claim 20.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejections of claims 18-22, 24, and 25 are affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
6