Ex Parte Voss et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 5, 2016

12892107 (P.T.A.B. May. 5, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/892,107 09/28/2010
22879 7590 05/09/2016
HP Inc.
3390 E. Harmony Road
Mail Stop 35
FORT COLLINS, CO 80528-9544
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Shane D. Voss
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.
82263902 1657
EXAMINER
KHAN, USMAN A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2662
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/09/2016 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):
ipa.mail@hp.com
barbl@hp.com
yvonne.bailey@hp.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SHANE D. VOSS, ROBERT P. CAZIER, and JASON YOST
Appeal2014-008487
Application 12/892, 107
Technology Center 2600
Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, JOHN P. PINKERTON, and
GARTH D. BAER, Administrative Patent Judges.
MacDONALD, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal2014-008487
Application 12/892, 107
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1and3-15. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
Exemplary Claim
Exemplary claim 1 under appeal reads as follows (emphasis added):
1. A method, comprising:
receiving from an image capture device a source
image and reference information associated with
capturing the source image, the reference information
including external sensory information including a
horizontal position of the image capture device, a vertical
position of the image capture device, and a magnetic
direction of the image capture device;
creating, by a processor, a query including the
reference information, the query requesting a target
image matching the reference information;
transmitting the query to a remote network
database via a network inter/ ace;
receiving the target image matching the reference
information; and
blending, by the processor, the target image with
the source image to generate a blended image.
Rejections on Appeal
1. The Examiner rejected claims 1, 4--11, and 14--15 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Sandage
2
Appeal2014-008487
Application 12/892, 107
(US 2009/0324058 Al; Dec. 31, 2009), Xiong (US 2010/0111441 Al;
May 6, 2010), and Roskowski (US 2009/0219392 Al; Sept. 3, 2009). 1
2. The Examiner rejected claims 3 and 12-13 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Sandage,
Xiong, Roskowski, and Katayama (US 7,098,914 Bl; Aug. 29, 2006).2
Appellants' Contentions3
1. Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because:
Appellants respectfully submit that Xiong fails to teach or
suggest that which the Examiner contends. More specifically,
Xiong fails to teach or suggest a "query requesting a target
image matching the reference information. " As further
discussed below, Xiong fails to teach or suggest any query, and
fails to teach or suggest a query requesting a target image, and
fails to teach or suggest requesting a target image matching
reference information . ...
Xiong describes a system that aids a user in correcting
artifacts in an image and producing a panoramic image by
aligning and combining component images properly. Xiong,
Abstract and paragraph [0054]. Xiong, Figure 5, depicts a state
table in which image acquisition state 502 is entered to acquire a
new image. See Xiong, paragraph [0085]. In regard to state 502,
Xiong, paragraph [0085], further states, "[f]rom image
1 Separate patentability is not argued for claims 4--11 and 14--15. See
Appeal Br. 12-13. Except for our ultimate decision, these claims are not
discussed further herein.
2 The rejection of claims 3 and 12-13 turns on our decision as to the
underlying § 103 rejection of claim 1. Except for our ultimate decision,
these claims are not discussed further herein.
3 These contentions are determinative as to the rejections on appeal.
Therefore, Appellants' other contentions are not discussed herein.
3
Appeal2014-008487
Application 12/892, 107
acquisition state 502 an immediate transition occurs to a stitching
state 503, in which the newly acquired image is stitched to the
panoramic image that is currently displayed." An acquisition
state and a stitching state do not disclose "a query requesting a
target image matching the reference information". In Xiong, no
query is generated. No request is generated for an image
matching reference information. Instead, Xiong always works
on the currently displayed image for stitching to the newly
acquired image, so there is no need to send a query to identify
the newly acquired image or the currently displayed image
from a database, and more specifically, there is no "query
requesting a target image matching the reference information"
as recited in claim 1.
Appeal Br. 9-10, emphasis added.
2. In the Reply Brief, further as to above contention 1, Appellants also
contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because:
[T]he cited portions of Xiong, merely describes a loop that
consists of checking for more available image data until the user
stops making further exposures for the panoramic image, and
utilizing a stitching algorithm to add together the image data for
all component images. (See Xiong, paragraph [0081 ]). The
"multiple questions," cited by the Examiner are simply part of an
interaction between the system and the user to correct an artifact
detected in the panoramic image. See, Xiong, paragraph [0083],
which states, "[ s ]tep 408 illustrates displaying a representation
of the found artifacts to the user, preferably together with some
prompt(s) or action altemative(s) for the user to give commands
about what corrective measures should be taken."
As such, Xiong simply describes a panoramic generating
method that includes an acquisition state that retrieves
sequential images from a user and a stitching state that allows
a user to take corrective action regarding any detected artifacts.
4
Appeal2014-008487
Application 12/892, 107
Xiong fails to teach or suggest a "query requesting a target
image matching the reference information."
Reply Br. 13, emphasis added.
Issue on Appeal
Did the Examiner err in rejecting claim 1 as being unpatentable?
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants'
arguments (Appeal Brief and Reply Brief) that the Examiner has erred.
As to Appellants' above contentions 1 and 2, we are persuaded that
the Examiner erred. We agree with Appellants that Xiong merely describes
receiving a newly acquired image and stitching the acquired image into a
currently displayed image, and fails to teach or suggest generating "a query
requesting a target image matching the reference information," as recited in
claim 1. See Appeal Br. 9-10. Further, the Examiner has not established
that any of the other cited references (i.e., Sandage, Roskowski, or
Katayama) cure Xiong's deficiencies. Therefore, we do not sustain the
rejection of claim 1.
CONCLUSIONS
(1) Appellants have established that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claims 1and3-15 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
(2) On this record, claims 1 and 3-15 have not been shown to be
unpatentable.
5
Appeal2014-008487
Application 12/892, 107
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's rejections of claims 1 and 3-15.
REVERSED
6