Ex Parte Voss et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 5, 201612892107 (P.T.A.B. May. 5, 2016) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation