Ex Parte Reponen

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 5, 2016

11837227 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 5, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
111837,227 08/10/2007 Erika Reponen
100809 7590 02/09/2016
Core Wireless Licensing Ltd
5601 Granite Parkway
Suite 1300
Plano, TX 75024
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.
CW.2628.USUl 4592
EXAMINER
NGUYEN, DINH
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2645
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/09/2016 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):
ipadmin-core@core-wireless.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ERIKA REPONEN
Appeal2014-003901
Application 11/837 ,227
Technology Center 2600
Before BRUCE R. WINSOR, LINZY T. McCARTNEY, and
NATHAN A. ENGELS, Administrative Patent Judges.
ENGELS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant 1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection
of claims 1-15, 24, and 25. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
Claims 16-23 are withdrawn. App. Br. 4.
We affirm.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Claims
Claim 1 of Appellant's invention is independent and illustrative of the
subject matter on appeal:
1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Core Wireless
Licensing S.a.r.l. App. Br. 2.
Appeal2014-003901
Application 11/837,227
1. A mobile communication terminal comprising:
a user interface configured for displaying at least one user
interface element available for selection;
an image acquirer configured to continuously acquire
current, real time, image data;
a processor configured to identify colour data and texture
content regions comprising textures within the continuously
acquired, current, real time, image data, and to provide identified
textures for selection; and
a light source configured to continuously map and render
the colour data and one or more selected textures onto the at least
one user interface element as the colour data and texture content
is continuously acquired from the image acquirer.
App. Br. 9.
The Examiner s Re} ection
Claims 1-15, 24, and 25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Barfoed et al. (US 2006/0046781 Al; published Mar. 2,
2006) ("Barfoed") and Valkenburg et al. (US 2009/0323121 Al; published
Dec. 31, 2009) ("Valkenburg"). See Final Act. 2-9.
ANALYSIS
The Examiner concludes that claim 1 would have been obvious in
view of Barfoed's teachings of a mobile device with a camera and user
interface and additionally cites Valkenburg as evidence of known camera-
based texture sensors. Final Act. 2--4; Ans. 2--4. Appellants contend the
combination of Barfoed and Valkenburg fails to teach or suggest the "user
interface" and "light source" limitations as recited in claim 1. Specifically,
Appellants argue "Barfoed only uses static images," not a light source
configured to continuously map and render color and texture data (App. Br.
2
Appeal2014-003901
Application 11/837,227
5---6), and neither reference teaches or suggests the texture-related limitations
(App. Br. 6-7).
We find Appellants' arguments unpersuasive and agree with the
Examiner. As cited by the Examiner (Ans. 3 (citing Barfoed i-f 39)), Barfoed
teaches that a "user of the mobile communication terminal 100 may use the
camera 106 for panning over an area thereby generating a video sequence on
the display 102" and "colour controlling device 108 receives colour data
116, for example a photograph or video stream received from the camera
106." Barfoed i-f 39. 2 As Barfoed teaches a camera panning over an area to
generate a video stream from which the color controlling device receives
color data, we are unpersuaded that Barfoed is limited to "static" images or
otherwise fails to teach the a light source configured to continuously map
and render the color data. See App. Br. 5 ("Barfoed only uses static images,
and therefore fails to disclose or suggest [the 'light source' limitation]"); cf
(App. Br. 9 (Claims Appendix, dependent claim 2 reciting "wherein said
continuously acquired current, real time image data comprises a colour
pattern or a photograph")( emphasis added)).
We are similarly unpersuaded that each of Barfoed and Valkenburg
fails to teach or suggest the texture-related limitations. See App. Br. 6-7;
Reply Br. 2-3. As an initial matter, "[o]ne cannot show non-obviousness by
2Notably, Figures 1-3 of Appellants' Specification are substantially identical
to Figures 1-3 of Barfoed, and Appellants' Specification describes the "user
interface," "colour controlling device 108," "processor 118," and "light
source 124" with descriptions essentially identical to those in Barfoed,
although the Specification states "real time acquired colour data" in place of
Barfoed's use of "colour data." Compare Barfoed i-fi-135-50, with Spec. i-fi-1
39-54 (containing nearly identical disclosures except replacing Barfoed's
use of "colour data" with "real time acquired colour data").
3
Appeal2014-003901
Application 11/837,227
attacking references individually where ... the rejections are based on
combinations of references." In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981)
(emphasis added); contra App. Br. 5, 6; Reply Br. 2-3, 4. Rather, "the test
[for obviousness] is what the combined teachings of the references would
have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art." Id. at 425 (emphasis
added). Further, we agree with the Examiner's findings regarding the
texture-related limitations. See Ans. 2--4. Among other things, Appellants'
Specification includes a broad definition of "texture," stating that "[t]he
wording texture is in this context to be construed to comprise any
visualization that can be mapped to the surface of an object" (Spec. i-f 27)
and identifies dots and curved lines as examples of "texture content" (Spec.
i-f 55 (describing Fig. 4, stating "texture content are illustrated with a curved
line 405 and dots 406")). In view of Appellants' Specification, we agree
with the Examiner (Ans. 2-3 (citing Barfoed i-fi-128, 46)) that a broad but
reasonable interpretation of the texture-related limitations includes Barfoed's
disclosure of user-selectable patterns, schemes, and "a wide variety of
design criterions, such as psyschedelic, metallic or soft tone." Barfoed i-f 46;
accord Spec. i-f 50 (disclosing the same indexing and grouping of "real time
acquired colour data"). We also agree with the Examiner's conclusion that
combining a known camera-based texture sensor as evidenced by
Valkenburg (see Ans. 4 (citing Valkenburg i-f 87)) with the mobile unit of
Barfoed would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art as a
"predictable use of prior art elements according to their established
functions" (see KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007)).
Similarly, we find Appellant's argument that Valkenburg does not
teach or suggest "to provide identified textures for selection" unpersuasive
4
Appeal2014-003901
Application 11/837,227
because it does not address or rebut the Examiner's findings regarding what
the combined teachings of Barfoed and Valkenburg would have suggested.
See id. More specifically, Appellant does not address or rebut (see App. Br.
5-7; Reply Br. 2--4) the Examiner's combination of Barfoed's provision of
user interface elements, such as design criteria, for selection, with
Valkenburg's textures. See Ans. 3--4; Barfoed i-fi-136, 37; Valkenburg i187;
see also Valkenburg i-fi-143, 101 (teaching that users can manually select
zones, boundaries, or regions of a scene to scan for textures).
Having considered the Examiner's rejection in view of Appellant's
arguments and the evidence of record, we find no error in the Examiner's
findings and conclusion that the combination of Barfoed and V alkenburg
renders obvious claim 1. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection
of claim 1, as well as dependent claims 2-15, 24, and 25, which were not
argued separately with particularity beyond the arguments advanced for
claim 1. See App. Br. 5-7; Reply Br. 2--4.
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-15, 24, and 25 is
affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 3 7 C.F.R. § 1.13 6( a )(1 ).
See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
5