Ex parte RAO

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Aug 24, 1999

08104462 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 24, 1999)

Application for patent filed August 9, 1993.1
1
THIS OPINION WAS NOT WRITTEN FOR PUBLICATION
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today
(1) was not written for publication in a law journal and
(2) is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 12
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________
Ex parte KASHIPATI G. RAO
_____________
Appeal No. 1996-4030
Application 08/104,4621
______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before JERRY SMITH, FLEMING and HECKER, Administrative Patent
Judges.
FLEMING, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal No. 1996-4030
Application 08/104,462
2
This is a decision on appeal from the final
rejection of claims 1 through 4, and 10 through 14. Claims 5
through 9 are objected to. On page 2 of the answer, the
Examiner withdraws the
35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 10 through 12 and 14,
thereby claims 1 through 4 and 13 have been finally rejected
and claims 5 through 12 and 14 are objected to.
Appellant's invention relates to digital image
processing. In particular, Appellant's invention relates to a
system for recognition of three-dimensional objects in a two-
dimensional image. Independent claim 1 is reproduced as
follows:
1. A method of model-based image recognition,
comprising the steps of:
(a) extracting image points from an input two-
dimensional image;
(b) selecting a set of n of said image points
extracted in step (a) and a set of n model points of a three-
dimensional model in a class of K models, where n is a
positive integer greater than or equal to 4 and K is a
positive integer;
(c) computing a transformation of three dimensions
to two dimensions based on said set of n model points and said
Appeal No. 1996-4030
Application 08/104,462
3
set of n image points, said transformation consisting of
rotation, translation, and scaling;
(d) repeating steps (b)-(c) for all sets of n of
said image points and all sets of n model points of a model of
said class of models;
(e) selecting a hypothesized transformation from
said transformations created by steps (b)-(d) wherein said
hypothesized transformation is characterized by an error of
transforming its n model points to its n image points of less
than a predetermined threshold, but when none of said
transformations has an error less than said predetermined
threshold, selecting no transformation; and
(f) indicating recognition of an object in said
image and corresponding to the model including the n model
points of said hypothesized transformation when a hypothesized
transformation is selected in step (e), else indicating no
model objects recognized in said image when no transformation
is selected in step (e).
The references relied on by the Examiner are as
follows:
Huttenlocher et al. (Huttenlocher), "Recognizing Solid Objects
by Alignment with an Image," International Journal of Computer
Vision, 5:2, 195-212 (1990)
Horaud et al. (Horaud), "An Analytic Solution for the
Perspective 4-Point Problem," Computer Vision and Pattern
Recognition, 500-507 (1989).
Appeal No. 1996-4030
Application 08/104,462
4
Claims 1 through 4 and 13 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Huttenlocher and
Horaud. Rather than repeat the arguments of Appellant or
the Examiner, we make reference to the brief and the answer
for details thereof.
OPINION
After a careful review of the evidence before us, we
agree with the Examiner that claims 1 through 4 are properly
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103. However, we do not agree with
the Examiner that claim 13 is properly rejected under 35
U.S.C.
§ 103. Thus, we will sustain the rejection of claims 1
through 4 but we will reverse the rejection of claim 13 on
appeal for the reasons set forth infra.
At the outset, we note that Appellant states on page
4 of the brief that claims 1, 3 and 4 stand or fall together
as a group and claims 2 and 13 stand separately. We note that
Appellant argues all of the claims consistent with the above
Appeal No. 1996-4030
Application 08/104,462
5
groupings in the briefs. 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7) (July 1, 1995)
as amended at 60 Fed. Reg. 14518 (March 17, 1995), which was
controlling at the time of Appellant's filing the brief,
states:
For each ground of rejection which
appellant contests and which applies to a
group of two or more claims, the Board
shall select a single claim from the group
and shall decide the appeal as to the
ground of rejection on the basis of that
claim alone unless a statement is included
that the claims of the group do not stand
or fall together and, in the argument under
paragraph (c)(8) of this section, appellant
explains why the claims of the group are
believed to be separately patentable.
Merely pointing out differences in what the
claims cover is not an argument as to why
the claims are separately patentable.
Appellant has provided a statement that claims 1, 3 and 4 may
be considered together as a group. We will, thereby, consider
Appellant's claims 1, 3 and 4 as standing or falling together
and we will treat claim 1 as a representative claim of the
group.
Appeal No. 1996-4030
Application 08/104,462
6
It is the burden of the Examiner to establish why
one having ordinary skill in the art would have been led to
the claimed invention by the express teachings or suggestions
found in the prior art, or by implications contained in such
teachings or suggestions. In re Sernaker, 702 F.2d 989, 995,
217 USPQ 1, 6 (Fed. Cir. 1983). In regard to claims 1 through
4, we find that the Examiner has set forth a prima facie case
and thereby met this burden, but has failed to meet this
burden for claim 13.
On pages 3 and 4 of the brief, Appellant argues that
the exact transformation approach of Huttenlocher and Horaud
do not teach or suggest the step of generating approximation
transformations which need not map the model (object) points
onto the image points, that is, the model and image points
need not match. Appellant further argues that Huttenlocher's
three point alignment transformation does not generate a four
point trans-formation simply because a four point alignment
transformation usually does not exist. Appellant argues that
given a random set of four points in three space and a random
set of four points in an image plane, the probability of an
Appeal No. 1996-4030
Application 08/104,462
7
alignment transformation existing which maps the four points
of three space to the four
points of the image plane has a mathematical probability of
zero. Appellant further argues that Horaud expressly states
that their problem presumes a given set of object points and
their corresponding image points and intrinsic camera
parameters, and seeks to find transformations between camera
and object frames. Appellant points out that Horaud takes as
a given the existence of a transformation matching the object
points and the image points. Appellant argues that there
would be no suggestion to extend Huttenlocher to a set of four
model points and four image points that do not match for which
no transformation need exist.
Turning to claim 1, we note on page 3 of the
Examiner's answer that the Examiner shows a one-to-one
correspondence of how Huttenlocher teaches the method as
recited in claim 1 for each of the method steps. We further
note that the Appellant does not contradict the Examiner's
findings that Huttenlocher teaches these method steps. The
Appeal No. 1996-4030
Application 08/104,462
8
Examiner further points out that Huttenlocher does not teach
that n is equal to 4 as claimed in Appellant's claim 1.
However, the Examiner points out that Huttenlocher did suggest
on page 209 that n could be equal to 4 and, in addition,
points to Horaud which teaches a 4 or greater point
embodiment.
We appreciate Appellant's argument that Horaud and
Huttenlocher are an exact transformation approach. However,
we fail to find that Appellant's claim 1 distinguishes over
the exact transformation approach of Huttenlocher and Horaud.
In particular, we fail to find that the claim sets forth that
the four points in the three space and the four points in the
image plane must be a random set.
Appellant further argues on page 3 of the brief that
one of ordinary skill in the art would not try Huttenlocher's
approach for four points. Appellant argues that the alignment
transformation would usually not exist and there would not be
Appeal No. 1996-4030
Application 08/104,462
9
an analogous calculation which would lead to the alignment
transformation.
On page 4 of the answer, the Examiner argues that it
would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to
set the variable n in Huttenlocher's method to 4. The
Examiner points out that on page 209, Huttenlocher does
suggest the use of the four image points. Furthermore, the
Examiner points out that Horaud teaches a method of using four
or more points.
The Federal Circuit reasons in Para-Ordnance Mfg.
Inc. v. SGS Importers Int'l Inc., 73 F.3d 1085, 1088-89, 37
USPQ2d
1237, 1239-40 (Fed. Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 117 S.Ct. 80
(1996), that for the determination of obviousness, the court
must answer whether one of ordinary skill in the art who sets
out to solve the problem and who had before him in his
workshop the prior art, would have been reasonably expected to
use the solution that is claimed by the Appellants.
Appeal No. 1996-4030
Application 08/104,462
10
Turning to Huttenlocher, we find on page 209 that
Huttenlocher does suggest that there are possible
transformations that were computed by matching each group of
four connected image vertexes to each group of four connected
model vertexes. Turning to Horaud, we find that Horaud
teaches on page 501, first column, that they have derived an
analytic solution or a case of four non-coplanar points,
namely, a biquadratic polynomial in one unknown. Horaud
further teaches that it is important to find a closed form
solution for four non-coplanar points for several reasons.
First, they provide fewer solutions than three points.
Second, the solutions are more stable when the points are not
coplanar, because they do not depend on relative orientation
of the image plane with respect to the scene plane containing
the points. Third, the computation of such solutions is fast
and, therefore, it can be included in a runtime visual
process.
Appeal No. 1996-4030
Application 08/104,462
11
Thus, Horaud gives reasons of why one of ordinary skill in the
art would use the Horaud 4-point solution in Huttenlocher's
method. Therefore, we find that one of ordinary skill in the
art who sets out to solve the problem and has before him in
his workshop Huttenlocher's three point solution and Horaud's
4-point solution would have been reasonably expected to use
Horaud's 4-point solution in Horaud's method as claimed by
Appellant. On page 4 of the brief, Appellant argues
that claim 2 requires n to be a number in the range of 5 to 7.
Appellant argues that the exact transformation approach of
Huttenlocher and Horaud is nonexistent for five points. We
agree that this may be true for a random set of five points.
However, Horaud teaches that for five points in general
position, the strategy of the
4-point solution can as well be equally applied. Therefore,
we will sustain the decision of the Examiner rejecting claims
1 through 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
We have addressed all of Appellant's arguments. We
are not required to raise and/or consider any further issue
not argued by Appellant. As stated by our reviewing court in
Appeal No. 1996-4030
Application 08/104,462
12
In re Baxter Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d 388, 391, 21 USPQ2d
1281, 1285 (Fed. Cir. 1991), "[i]t is not the function of this
court to examine the claims in greater detail than argued by
an appellant,
looking for nonobvious distinctions over the prior art." 37
CFR § 1.192(a)(July 1, 1995) as amended at 60 Fed. Reg. 14518
(March 17, 1995), which was controlling at the time of
Appellant filing the brief, states as follows:
The brief . . . must set forth the
authorities and arguments on which
appellant will rely to maintain the appeal.
Any arguments or authorities not included
in the brief will be refused
consideration by the Board of Patent
Appeals and Interferences, unless good
cause is shown.
Also, 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(8)(iv) states:
For each rejection under 37 U.S.C. 103, the
argument shall specify the errors in the
rejection and, if appropriate, the specific
limitations in the rejected claims which
are not described in the prior art relied
on in the rejection, and shall explain how
such limitations render the claimed
subject matter unobvious over the prior
art. If the rejection is based upon a
combination of references, the argument
Appeal No. 1996-4030
Application 08/104,462
13
shall explain why the references, taken as
a whole, do not suggest the claimed subject
matter, and shall include, as may be
appropriate, an explanation of why features
disclosed in one reference may not properly
be combined with features disclosed in
another reference. A general argument that
all the limitations are not described in a
single reference does not satisfy the
requirements of this paragraph.
Thus, 37 CFR § 1.192 provides that this board is not under any
greater burden than the court which is not under any burden to
raise and/or consider issues not argued by Appellant.
Appellant argues on page 4 of the brief that neither
Huttenlocher nor Horaud teaches a pseudo-inverse approach in
finding the hypothesized transformations as required by
Appellant's claim 13. The Examiner responds to this argument
on page 6 of the answer that it is well known in the art that
various matrix inversion techniques are utilized to solve
matrix equations for specific variables. We note that the
Examiner does not provide any evidence for the Examiner's
finding.
We are not inclined to dispense with proof by
evidence when the proposition at issue is not supported by a
teaching in a prior art reference, common knowledge or
Appeal No. 1996-4030
Application 08/104,462
14
unquestionable demonstration. Our reviewing court requires
this evidence in order to establish a prima facie case. In re
Knapp-Monarch Co., 296 F.2d 230, 232, 132 USPQ 6, 8 (CCPA
1961); In re Cofer,
354 F.2d 664, 668, 148 USPQ 268, 271-72 (CCPA 1966).
In view of the foregoing, the decision of the
Examiner rejecting claims 1 through 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is
affirmed; however, the decision of the Examiner rejecting
claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in
con- nection with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR §
1.136(a).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Appeal No. 1996-4030
Application 08/104,462
15
JERRY SMITH )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF
PATENT
MICHAEL R. FLEMING ) APPEALS
AND
Administrative Patent Judge )
INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
STUART N. HECKER )
Administrative Patent Judge )
MRF:psb
Appeal No. 1996-4030
Application 08/104,462
16
Texas Instruments Incorporated
Carlton H. Hoel
P.O. Box 655474, M/S 219
Dallas, TX 75265