Ex Parte PanceDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 4, 201612238564 (P.T.A.B. May. 4, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 12/238,564 09/26/2008 65015 7590 05/06/2016 Treyz Law Group 870 Market Street, Suite 984 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Aleksandar Pance 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. P6457US1 1811 EXAMINER GARCES-RNERA, ANGELL ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2663 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/06/2016 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): docket@treyzlawgroup.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte ALEKSANDAR P ANCE Appeal2014-008484 Application 12/238,564 Technology Center 2600 Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, JOHN P. PINKERTON, and GARTH D. BAER, Administrative Patent Judges. MacDONALD, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal2014-008484 Application 12/238,564 STATEMENT OF CASE Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 1, 3--4, 6-11, 13-15, and 18-19. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. Exemplary Claim Exemplary claim 1 under appeal reads as follows (emphasis added): 1. An image projection system, comprising: at least one data capture device configured to transmit captured data to an image processing system configured to receive the captured data; a primary image output device configured to receive image data from the image processing system; a secondary image output device configured to receive image data from the image processing system; an enclosure surrounding at least the at least one data capture device, the primary image output device and the secondary image output device; at least two depth sensors configured to transmit measurements to the image processing system; wherein the image processing system is additionally configured to employ the captured data from the at least one data capture device and the measurements from the at least two depth sensors to correct for image distortion. Rejections on Appeal 1. The Examiner rejected claims 1, 3, 7-8, 10-11, and 13-14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Weiner et 2 Appeal2014-008484 Application 12/238,564 al. (US 6,930,669 B2; Aug. 16, 2005), and Sunakawa et al. (US 6,310,662 B 1; issued Oct. 30, 2001). 1 2. The Examiner rejected claims 4, 6, 9, 15, and 18-19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Weiner, Sunakawa, and Appellant's admitted prior art (hereinafter "AAPA"). Appellant's Contention 1. Appellant contends that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because: The Examiner admits that Sunakawa discusses its alleged distance sensors as part of a first embodiment and its alleged image capture device as part of a second embodiment (citation omitted). The Examiner also agrees that Sunakawa neither teaches nor suggests combining data from the two to "correct for image distortion," as required by independent claim 1 (citation omitted). Rather, the Examiner alleges that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine these two technologies in a single apparatus as "increasing the number of sensors in a system ... will increase the system accuracy (citation omitted)." The Assignee respectfully submits that the Examiner has impermissibly employed hindsight in arriving at his conclusion, his analysis of one of ordinary skill in the art, and his statement of the recognized problem or need in the art. [T]he Assignee respectfully submits that the Examiner's assertion that "increasing the number of sensors in a system ... will increase the system accuracy" (citation omitted) is incorrect. 1 Separate patentability is not argued for claims 3--4, 6-11, 13-15, and 18- 19. Except for our ultimate decision, these claims are not discussed further herein. 3 Appeal2014-008484 Application 12/238,564 Increasing the number of sensors in a system does not necessarily increase system accuracy. Unless such a system includes the ability to use one sensor to correct for the error of another, the accuracy of a system is still tied to the most error prone sensor. Combining sensors in some fashions may in fact multiply the errors of the individual sensors. Merely adding sensors without identifying how they should be combined serves no useful purpose. One of skill in the art would not randomly increase the number of sensors in a system hoping that the accuracy of the system would improve absent some indication of how to combine the multiple sensors in order to increase accuracy. Further, Sunakawa in no way indicates that either embodiment suffers from error. Absent some kind of indication that either embodiment suffers from error, one of skill in the art would have no reason to randomly combine the two systems in an attempt to reduce such error. Accordingly, the Assignee respectfully submits that the Examiner has used impermissible hindsight to fashion a motivation that did not exist and is not supported by any facts or references of record. \X/ithout some teaching, reference or suggestion that provides some indication of a benefit of using both the camera and the distance sensors to perform image correction on the same image, the evidence of record simply does not support the Examiner's contention that one of ordinary skill in the art would have any motivation to utilize both a camera and distance sensor to perform image correction on the same image. The Assignee respectfully submits that the only motivation in the record is found in the present application. If anything, the Sunakawa reference teaches away from such a combination by treating the camera and distance sensor separately. Appeal Br. 7-8, emphasis added. 2. In the Reply Brief, further as to above contention 1, Appellant also contends that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because: 4 Appeal2014-008484 Application 12/238,564 [l]ncreasing the number of sensors in a system does not necessarily increase accuracy. There is no indication in Sunakawa that either embodiment alone has any inaccuracies that need to be ameliorated by the addition of another sensor or that combining the sensors of the two separate embodiments would ameliorate such an inaccuracy. Sunakawa in no way contemplates combining the two embodiments and one of skill in the art would not be motivated to combine the two embodiments in order to ameliorate an inaccuracy not suspected to exist without any indication that combining the two separate embodiments would ameliorate such an unsuspected inaccuracy. If the Examiner were correct that the distance sensor and the CCD camera embodiments of Sunakawa perform the same function and that the CCD camera embodiment is more accurate because it uses the actual image, one of skill in the art would be motivated to use the more accurate CCD camera embodiment rather than combining the more accurate CCD camera embodiment with a less accurate distance sensor embodiment. Further, the Examiner argues that there is nothing in the claim or the specification that suggests combining the results in any way (citation omitted). However, the claim and specification (see at least paragraphs 0039-0043 of the published application) both describe employing both "the captured data from the at least one data capture device and the measurements from the at least two depth sensors to correct for image distortion. "As such, the results are combined in that they are both used to correct for image distortion. Reply Br. 2-3, emphasis added. 5 Appeal2014-008484 Application 12/238,564 Issue on Appeal 1. Did the Examiner err in rejecting claim 1 as being unpatentable? PRINCIPLES OF LAW The Supreme Court has rejected the rigid requirement of demonstrating a teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine references in order to show obviousness. See KSR Int'l Co., v. Teleflex Co., 550 U.S. 398, 419 (2007). Instead, a rejection based on obviousness only needs to be supported by "some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning" to combine known elements in the manner required by the claim. Id. at 418. Further, "[t]he combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results." Id. at 416. A • l-.. . . l-.. l-. 1 • Fl.. suggestion, teac_L_L1ng, or mot1vat1on to comu1ne t_L_Le re_Levant prior art teachings does not have to be found explicitly in the prior art, as "the teaching, motivation, or suggestion may be implicit from the prior art as a whole, rather than expressly stated in the references .... The test for an implicit showing is what the combined teachings, knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art, and the nature of the problem to be solved as a whole would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art." Alza Corp. v. Mylan Labs., Inc., 464 F.3d 1286, 1290-91 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (citing In re Kahn, 441F.3d977, 987-88, (Fed. Cir. 2006)). "Combining two embodiments disclosed adjacent to each other in a prior art patent does not require a leap of inventiveness." Boston Scientific Scimed, Inc. v. Cordis Corp., 554 F.3d 982, 991 (Fed. Cir. 2009). 6 Appeal2014-008484 Application 12/238,564 ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellant's arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellant's conclusions. Except as noted herein, we adopt as our own: (1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which the appeal is taken (Final Act. 2-10); and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner's Answer (Ans. 2-20) in response to the Appellant's Appeal Brief. We concur with the conclusions reached by the Examiner. We highlight the following. As to Appellant's above contentions 1 and 2, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred. Appellant does not challenge the Examiner's findings that Sunakawa's first embodiment discloses image correction using measurements of distance sensors, and Sunakawa's second embodiment discloses image correction using image data captured from a charge-coupled device ("CCD") camera. See Final Act. 4. Instead, Appellant argues that there is no teaching, motivation or suggestion to combine the two separate embodiments of Sunakawa because Sunakawa fails to provide any indication of a benefit of using both the distance sensors and the CCD camera to perform image correction on the same image. Appeal Br. 8; Reply Br. 2. This argument is not persuasive. We agree with the Examiner that the combination is simply a combination of known elements according to known methods (i.e., using measurements from the distances sensors and image data from the CCD camera to generate correction values) that yield no more than predictable results (i.e., image correction). Ans. 4--5. Thus, the 7 Appeal2014-008484 Application 12/238,564 Examiner was not required to find that Sunakawa explicitly discloses a motivation to combine the two embodiments of Sunakawa. Further, Sunakawa implicitly discloses a motivation to combine the two embodiments because Sunakawa discloses an objective to increase an accuracy of image correction for an apparatus, even in a scenario where a distance to a projection plane and an inclination have changed. See Sunakawa col. 12, 11. 18-24, 36-40. We agree with the Examiner that, by combining the two embodiments of Sunakawa, an accuracy of image correction for an apparatus can be increased, as the apparatus can use the data from both the distance sensors and the CCD camera to more accurately measure the distance to, and an inclination of, a projection plane, which, in tum, increases an accuracy of generated correction values. See Final Act. 4; Ans. 5-7, 9-10. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 1. CONCLUSIONS (1) The Examiner has not erred in rejecting claims 1, 3--4, 6-11, 13- 15, and 18-19 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). (2) Claims 1, 3--4, 6-11, 13-15, and 18-19 are not patentable. DECISION We affirm the Examiner's rejections of claims 1, 3--4, 6-11, 13-15, and 18-19 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv). 8 Appeal2014-008484 Application 12/238,564 AFFIRMED 9 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation