Ex Parte Sharma

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 28, 2017

13965808 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 28, 2017)

United States Patent and Trademark Office
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
13/965,808 08/13/2013 Vinay Sharma TI-74144 7705
23494 7590 03/30/2017
TEXAS INSTRUMENTS INCORPORATED
P O BOX 655474, M/S 3999
DALLAS, TX 75265
EXAMINER
BADER, ROBERT N.
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2614
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/30/2017 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):
uspto@ti.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte VINAY SHARMA1
Appeal 2017-000485
Application 13/965,808
Technology Center 2600
Before JEFFREY S. SMITH, JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, and
DAVID J. CUTITTAII, Administrative Patent Judges.
CUTITTA, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s Final
Rejection of claims 3—8 and 11—20.2 This appeal is related to currently
pending but undecided appeals for co-pending application 13/965,776 and
co-pending application 13/965,843. Supp. Appeal Br. 2. We have
jurisdiction over this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Texas Instruments
Incorporated. See Appeal Br. 2.
2 Claims 1, 2, 9, and 10 are cancelled. See Appeal Br. 15—16.
Appeal 2017-000485
Application 13/965,808
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
According to Appellant, the claimed invention relates to projecting
content to have a fixed pose in relation to a fixed world x-y-z coordinate
frame. See Spec. 4—5.3 Claims 3, 11, and 17 are independent. Claim 3 is
representative and is reproduced below with disputed limitations in italics:
3. A method of projecting content to have a fixed pose,
the method comprising:
capturing images of views with a camera that points in a
first direction;
with a combination of electronic circuitry components:
detecting and tracking visual features in the images; and
estimating a pose of the camera in response to the tracked visual
features; and
with a projector that points in a second direction,
projecting the content to have the fixed pose in response to the
estimated pose of the camera;
wherein the views are of a first surface having the visual
features, wherein projecting the content includes projecting the
content onto a second surface to have the fixed pose, and wherein
the second surface is non-overlapping with the first surface.
Appeal Br. 15 (Claims App’x).
3 Throughout this Opinion, we refer to the following documents: (1)
Appellant’s Specification, filed August 13, 2013 (“Spec.”); (2) the Final
Office Action (“Final Act.”), mailed November 30, 2015; (3) the Appeal
Brief (“Appeal Br.”), filed May 31, 2016, and supplemental Appeal Brief,
filed October 4, 2016 (“Suppl. App. Br.”); (4) the Examiner’s Answer
(“Ans.”), mailed August 4, 2016; and (5) the Reply Brief (“Reply Br.”), filed
October 4, 2016.
2
Appeal 2017-000485
Application 13/965,808
REFERENCES
The Examiner relies upon the following prior art in rejecting the
claims on appeal:
Oskiper, Fields et al. US 2007/0115352 A1 May 24, 2007
(“Fields”)
Diaz et al. (“Diaz”) US 2012/0120186 Al May 17, 2012
Enrico Rukzio et al., Projector Phone Interactions: Design Space and
Survey (Computing Depart., Lancaster Univ., UK and DOCOMO Euro-
Labs, Germany) (“Rukzio”).
Akash Kushal et al., A Handheld Projector Supported by Computer Vision
(2006) (Dept, of Comp. Sci., Univ. of Illinois, Mitsubishi Elec. Research
Labs., USA) (“Kushal”).
Georg Klein & David Murray, Parallel Tracking and Mapping for Small AR
Workspaces, IEEE (2007) (“Klein”).
Taragay Oskiper et al., Visual Odometry System Using Multiple Stereo
Cameras and Inertial Measurement Unit, IEEE (2007) (“Oskiper”).
REJECTIONS
Claims 3—6, 8, 11—14, 16—18, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Kushal, Oskiper, Diaz, and
Rukzio. Final Act. 3—14.
Claims 7, 15, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Kushal, Oskiper, Diaz, Rukzio, and
Fields. Final Act. 14—17.
Our review in this appeal is limited only to the above rejections and
issues raised by Appellant. We have not considered other possible issues
that have not been raised by Appellant and which are, therefore, not before
us. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2014).
3
Appeal 2017-000485
Application 13/965,808
ISSUES
1. Does the Examiner err in finding the combination of Kushal,
Oskiper, Diaz, and Rukzio teaches or suggests “wherein the second surface
is non-overlapping with the first surface,” as recited in claim 3?
2. Does the Examiner err in finding the combination of Kushal,
Oskiper, Diaz, and Rukzio is proper because Oskiper is analogous art?
ANALYSIS
We disagree with Appellant’s contentions and we adopt as our own:
(1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Final Office
Action from which this appeal is taken (Final Act. 3—17) and (2) the reasons
set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer in response to
Appellant’s Appeal Brief (Ans. 2-4). We concur with the findings and
conclusions reached by the Examiner, and we highlight the following for
emphasis.
Issue 1
The Examiner finds “[t]he limitation ‘wherein the second surface is
non-overlapping with the first surface’ is not taught by Kushal (Kushal
directs the camera towards the projection area for tracking features to
estimate a current pose.) However, this limitation is taught by Oskiper.”
Final Act. 6—7 (citing Oskiper Abstract, § 3 Tflf 1—2).
Appellant argues the Examiner errs in finding the cited combination
of references teaches or suggests the disputed limitation because “Kushal
relies upon directing the camera towards the projection area, which directly
refutes the Office Action’s proposed theoretical combination with Oskiper.
4
Appeal 2017-000485
Application 13/965,808
Thus, ... the proposed combination of Kushal and Oskiper is improper.”
Appeal Br. 7. In the Reply Brief, Appellant argues Oskiper’s use of cameras
pointing in opposite directions is irrelevant to KushaTs teachings. Reply
Br. 3.
We agree with the Examiner’s finding that the cited combination
“augments Kushal’s stabilized projector using a forward facing camera . . .
with Oskiper’s backward’s facing cameras.” Ans. 3. We conclude that
Appellant’s argument does not address the combination made in the
Examiner’s rejections. Instead, Appellant attacks the references singly for
lacking teachings that the Examiner relied on a combination of references to
show. For example, Appellant fails to specifically address all the
Examiner’s findings with respect to Oskiper. See Appeal Br. 7; Reply Br. 3.
It is well established that one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking
references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of
references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck &
Co., 800 F.2d 1091 (Fed. Cir. 1986). This form of argument is inherently
unpersuasive to show Examiner error. Our reviewing court requires that
references must be read, not in isolation, but for what they fairly teach in
combination with the prior art as a whole. Merck, 800 F.2d at 1097 (Fed.
Cir. 1986). Accordingly, we find Appellant’s argument unpersuasive.
Issue 2
Appellant argues the Examiner errs in rejecting claim 3 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on the combination of Kushal, Oskiper, Diaz, and
Rukzio because Oskiper is non-analogous art. Appeal Br. 7. Appellant
argues “[t]he invention of claim 3 is directed to the problem of projecting
5
Appeal 2017-000485
Application 13/965,808
content to have a fixed pose.” Appeal Br. 7. Appellant further argues
Oskiper is not reasonably pertinent to the problem with which Appellant was
involved because Oskiper “describes a visual odometry system to address
the problem of localization in GPS denied environments” and so “fails to
project any content.” Appeal Br. 7; Reply Br. 3.
To quality as prior art a reference must “qualify as ‘analogous art’ by
satisfying one of the following conditions: (1) the reference must be from
the same field of endeavor; or (2) the reference must be reasonably pertinent
to the particular problem with which the inventor is involved.” K—TEC, Inc.
v. Vita-Mix Corp., 696 F.3d 1364, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2012). “A reference is
reasonably pertinent if, even though it may be in a different field from that
of the inventor’s endeavor, it is one which, because of the matter with which
it deals, logically would have commended itself to an inventor’s attention in
considering his problem.” In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656, 659 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
The Examiner finds Oskiper’s “pose estimation of a moving camera
based on detected camera features is highly relevant to the problem that. . .
Appellant [is] attempting to solve.” Ans. 4—5 (emphasis omitted). We find
this is namely the problem of projecting content to have a fixed pose by
detecting and tracking visual features in an image. See, e.g., Spec. 1 5.
Based on these findings as to the purposes of the claimed invention
and Oskiper, we agree with the Examiner that Oskiper teaches “pose
estimation of a moving camera based on detected camera features” (Ans. 4—
5), and that this logically would have commended itself to an inventor’s
attention in considering the problem facing Appellant, viz, projecting content
to have a fixed pose by detecting and tracking visual features using a
camera.
6
Appeal 2017-000485
Application 13/965,808
Appellant’s argument is not persuasive because Appellant defines the
problem facing the inventor too narrowly as “projecting content onto a
surface to have a fixed pose.” Reply Br. 3. This definition of the problem
confines the relevant art to only the Appellant’s field of endeavor, and thus,
conflates the first test for analogous art with the second. As such, Appellant
has failed to persuasively demonstrate that Oskiper is not analogous art to
the claimed invention.
Accordingly, because we agree with the Examiner that Oskiper
satisfies at least the second analogous art condition, we are not persuaded
Oskiper is non-analogous art or that the Examiner improperly combined
Kushal, Oskiper, Diaz, and Rukzio.
We sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claim 3.
We also sustain the Examiner’s § 103(a) rejection of independent claims 11
and 17, which are argued for similar reasons as independent claim 3. Appeal
Br. 7—14. Dependent claims 4—8, 12—16, and 18—20, are not argued
separately and so the rejection of these claims are sustained for the reasons
given for their respective independent claims. Appeal Br. 7—14.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 3—8 and 11—20
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).
AFFIRMED
7