Ex Parte Solem et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 19, 2018

13468391 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 19, 2018)

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.
13/468,391 05/10/2012 Jan Erik Solem P13128US1
(119-0277US1)
1012
61947 7590 01/23/2018
Ar>r>le - Rlank Rome.
EXAMINER
c/o Blank Rome LLP
717 Texas Avenue, Suite 1400
HAQUE, MD NAZMUL
HOUSTON, TX 77002 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2487
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/23/2018 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):
mbrininger @ blankrome. com
hou stonpatents @ blankrome .com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JAN ERIK SOLEM and JERREMY HOLLAND
Appeal 2017-000007
Application 13/468,391
Technology Center 2400
Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, STEPHEN C. SIU, and JOYCE CRAIG,
Administrative Patent Judges.
DIXON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2017-000007
Application 13/468,391
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of
claims 1—8, 11—16, 20—24, and 27—31. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b). Claims 9, 10, 17—19, 25, and 26 stand objected to as being dependent
upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in
independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any
intervening claims.
We reverse.
The claims are directed to an automatic detection of noteworthy
locations. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A method to determine location information from an
image, comprising:
obtaining a first image;
acquiring object recognition information for the first image;
comparing the object recognition information to a database
comprising a plurality of three-dimensional models of a plurality
of noteworthy locations;
determining the first image includes a representation of at
least a portion of one or more noteworthy locations based, at least
in part, on the comparing;
identifying a three-dimensional location from which the first
image was captured based, at least in part, on the determining
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Apple Inc. (App. Br.
3.)
2
Appeal 2017-000007
Application 13/468,391
and location data corresponding approximately to a location from
which the first image was captured; and
associating the three-dimensional location with the first
image.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Costello et al. US 2006/0149458 Al July 6, 2006
Nonaka et al. US 2009/0153678 Al June 18, 2009
Blose et al. US 2011/0044563 Al Feb. 24, 2011
Murakami et al. US 2011/0167389 Al July 7, 2011
Fairfield et al. US 2011/0182475 Al July 28, 2011
REJECTIONS2
The Examiner made the following rejections:
2 We note that the Examiner has not made a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101
evaluating the independent claims under the Supreme Court’s two-step
framework for analyzing patent eligibility. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS
Banklnt’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2355 (2014). If a claim falls within one of the
statutory categories of patent eligibility (i.e., a process, machine,
manufacture or composition of matter) then the first inquiry is whether the
claim is directed to one of the judicially recognized exceptions (i.e., a law of
nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea). Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355.
If so, the second step is to determine whether any element, or combination of
elements, amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception. Alice,
134 S. Ct. at 2355. We leave it to the Examiner to consider this in any
further prosecution on the merits.
3
Appeal 2017-000007
Application 13/468,391
Claims 1—6, 13, 14, 15, 20—22, and 27—30 stand rejected under pre-
AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Fairfield et al. in view of
Costello.
Claims 7, 8, 16, 23, and 31 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Fairfield in view of Costello as applied
to claims 1,13, and 20 above and further in view of Nonaka.
Claims 11 and 12 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Fairfield and in view of Costello as applied to claim
1 above and further in view of Blose.
Claim 24 stands rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Fairfield in view of Costello and Nonaka as applied to
claims 23 above and further in view of Murakami.
ANALYSIS
With respect to independent claims 1, 13, 20, and 27, Appellants set
forth arguments for the claims as a group. (App. Br. 8). We address
independent claim 1 as the illustrative claim and note that independent
claims 13, 20, and 27 contain similar claim limitations.
With respect to illustrative claim 1, Appellants contend that the
Fairfield and Costello references do not teach or suggest the claimed
“plurality of three-dimensional models of a plurality of noteworthy
locations.” (App Br. 8). Appellants further contend that the Costello
reference does not indicate that the database includes any three-dimensional
models. Appellants argue that Costello merely discloses a database
including “three-dimensional locations.” (App. Br. 8).
4
Appeal 2017-000007
Application 13/468,391
The Examiner provides limited responses to Appellants’ arguments,
and the Examiner finds:
Costello teaches “comparing the object recognition information
to a database comprising a plurality [o]f three-dimensional
models of a plurality of noteworthy locations”. Para. [0009] of
Costello it is clearly disclose[s] that using two-dimensional
image data from an airborne sensor, comparing the two-
dimensional image data to the database, and determining a three-
dimensional location corresponding to the two-dimensional
image data. Also in para [0032[]] and Fig. 21 in Fig. 2 elements
220 and 226 disclose the viewpoint from which the image was
taken can be estimated using the ordinary trigonometric
calculations of projective geometry (e.g., utilizing scale and
orientation of the landmark features), this image will be
compared in database and plurality of locations will be
determined[.] Therefore, the Examiner maintains that the
combination of Fairfield and Costello teaches the claimed step of
“comparing the object recognition information to a database
comprising a plurality [o]f three-dimensional models of a
plurality of noteworthy locations.”
(Ans. 3—4) (underlining and emphasis omitted).
Appellants further contend that the Costello reference does not teach
“identifying a three-dimensional location from which the first image is
captured.” (App. Br. 9) (emphasis omitted).
The Examiner maintains that the Appellants’ interpretation of the
combination of the Fairfield and Costello references fails to account for the
combination of the two references as a whole. (Ans. 5). The Examiner
generally finds the Fairfield reference teaches the step of “identifying a
three-dimensional location from which first image is captured.” The
Examiner relies upon the abstract of Fairfield to disclose identifying the 3D
location of a traffic light using two or more images where one of the images
5
Appeal 2017-000007
Application 13/468,391
can be considered as the first image as Appellants argue. (Ans. 5). The
Examiner also relies upon paragraph 8 of Fairfield to teach determining
three-dimensional location of traffic signals using plurality of images where
each image of the plurality of images is associated with a geographic
location. (Ans. 5). While determining 3D location using plurality of images
of a geographic location, the Examiner considers the images to be the first
image which was captured to determine 3D location of traffic signals. (Ans.
5). Consequently, the Examiner concludes that the combination of Fairfield
and Costello teaches the claimed step of “identifying a three-dimensional
location from which the first image is captured.” (Ans. 5).
Appellants renew their argument that the Examiner’s combination of
the Fairfield and Costello references does not teach or suggest the step of
“comparing the object recognition information to a database comprising a
plurality of three-dimensional models of a plurality of noteworthy
locations.” (Reply Br. 4). Appellants further contend the Examiner “doesn't
provide a reference or a rationale stating how the three-dimensional
locations of Costello read on the claimed ‘plurality of three-dimensional
models.’” (Reply Br. 5) (emphasis omitted).
We agree with Appellants that the Examiner has not provided a
teaching or suggestion of the use of a plurality of three-dimensional models.
Consequently, the Examiner has not established that the prior art
combination teaches or suggests all of the claimed limitations of
independent 1. As a result, we cannot sustain the rejection of independent
claim 1 and its respective dependent claims. Independent claims 13, 20, and
27 contain similar limitations directed to three-dimensional representations
of a plurality of predefmed/noteworthy locations.
6
Appeal 2017-000007
Application 13/468,391
CONCLUSION
The Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1—8, 11—16, 20—24, and 27—31
based upon obviousness.
DECISION
For the above reasons, we reverse the Examiner’s obviousness
rejections of claims 1—8, 11—16, 20—24, and 27—31.
REVERSED
7