Ex Parte SkybergDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardNov 28, 201714520404 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 28, 2017) Copy Citation 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. 14/520,404 10/22/2014 Rolf Skyberg 2043.931US2 8700 49845 7590 11/30/2017 SCHWEGMAN LUNDBERG & WOESSNER/EBAY P.O. BOX 2938 MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402 EXAMINER YANG, NIEN ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2484 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 11/30/2017 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@SLWIP.COM SLW @blackhillsip.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte ROLF SKYBERG1 Appeal 2017-007037 Application 14/520,404 Technology Center 2400 Before BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, IRVIN E. BRANCH, and SHARON FENICK, Administrative Patent Judges. BRANCH, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 2— 21. Claim 1 has been canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. 1 The Appellant identifies eBay Inc. as the real part in interest. App. Br. 2. Appeal 2017-007037 Application 14/520,404 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to capturing and displaying multiple-angle imagery of physical objects. See Spec., Abstract. Claim 2, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 2. A method comprising: accessing, at a mobile device, a visual presentation of a physical object, the visual presentation comprising a plurality of images of the physical object from [] varying angles relative to the physical object; receiving input from a user of the mobile device by way of detecting movement imparted on the mobile device by the user; and presenting the visual presentation to the user of the mobile device according to the input provided by the user of the mobile device, the input determining a presentation order of the plurality of images to be presented to the user, and a presentation speed at which the plurality of images are to be presented to the user. REFERENCES AND REJECTIONS Claims 2, 3, 8, 16, and 17 stand rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as unpatentable over claims 18, 19, 20, 24, and 25 of Skyberg (US 8,872,898 B2, issued Oct. 29, 2014). Ans. 4—8.2 Claims 2—4, 8—11, and 16—19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Ketelaars (US 2007/0085913 Al, published Apr. 19, 2007) and Ortiz (US 2009/0009605 Al, published Jan 9, 2009), and Tsai (US 2010/0174421 Al, published July 8, 2010). Ans. 8-14. 2 Because Appellant does not present arguments with respect to the nonstatutory double patenting rejection of claims 2, 3, 8, 16, and 17, we summarily affirm the rejection. See generally App. Br., Reply Br. 2 Appeal 2017-007037 Application 14/520,404 Claims 5—7, 12—15, 20, and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Ketelaars, Ortiz, Tsai, and Sachs (US 2011/0316888 Al, published Dec. 29, 2011). App. Br. 14-19. CONTENTIONS AND ANALYSIS3 Appellant argues the Examiner errs in rejecting claim 2 on the basis that the cited references do not disclose a “visual presentation comprising a plurality of images of [a] physical object from [] varying angles relative to the physical object.” App. Br. 8—10, Reply Br. 2-4. Appellant contends that “such a plurality of images may be captured by[, for example,] rotating a camera around a stationary object or by rotating the object (e.g. using a rotating pedestal) using a stationary camera.” App. Br. 8. Appellant argues that Ortiz and Ketelaars both “teach away” from the claimed invention and that “no combination of the cited art renders obvious the recitations of claim 2.” App. Br. 9—10, Reply Br. 3. Appellant’s arguments overlook Ketelaars’ disclosure that “the user sweeps camera 100 along a path from left to right that in order to capture, e.g., a large articulated steam locomotive on display at a museum, or from bottom to top to capture, e.g., a redwood tree.” Ketelaars 116, Ans. 20. Accordingly, because the argued limitation—“a plurality of images of [a] physical object from [] varying angles relative to the physical object”—reads on this disclosure, Appellant’s arguments do not persuade us of error. 3 Appellant argues the rejections of all claims based on arguments presented with respect to claim 2. See App. Br. 8—11, Reply Br. 2-4. Accordingly, because our decision turns on claim 2, we do not address claims 3—21 except for our ultimate decision. 3 Appeal 2017-007037 Application 14/520,404 Appellant additionally argues that “[mjultiple images of the same object in Ketelaars would be rejected as having unacceptable overlap, and would not be transferred to memory” (Reply Br. 3 (referring to Ketelaars Fig. 2)), but we find the argument unfounded. We do not understand Ketelaars to disclose rejecting all but one image of the same object (i.e., “[mjultiple images of the same object in Ketelaars would be rejected as having unacceptable overlap”), but instead find that images with “unacceptable overlap” would be rejected. See generally Ketelaars. This does not negate Ketelaars’ disclosure of sweeping the camera to capture multiple images of an object from different angles. Id. 116. We also do not find sufficient persuasive argument or evidence that Ortiz and/or Ketelaars “teach away.” App. Br. 9—10, Reply Br. 3. Nor do we find a persuasive rebuttal of the Examiner’s proposed motivation to combine Ketelaars, Ortiz, and Tsai, namely to “ensure the system to have the ability to ensure the visual presentation is presented to the user based on the user input thus enhancing the presentation and providing more realistic views of the object.” Ans. 10. In view of the foregoing, we are unpersuaded of error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 2. DECISION We affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 2—21. 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 4 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation