Ex Parte Wagner et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 29, 201613112876 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 29, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/112,876 05/20/2011 23696 7590 10/03/2016 QUALCOMM INCORPORATED 5775 MOREHOUSE DR. SAN DIEGO, CA 92121 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Daniel Wagner 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. 102055 8373 EXAMINER OWENS, TSION B ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2487 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 10/03/2016 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): us-docketing@qualcomm.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte DANIEL WAGNER, ALESSANDRO MULLONI, DIETER SCHMALSTIEG, and TOBIAS MARTIN LANGLOTZ Appeal2015-004324 Application 13/112,876 Technology Center 2400 Before MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, MICHAEL M. BARRY, and MICHAEL J. ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judges. STRAUSS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal2015-004324 Application 13/112,876 STATE~vfENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of claims 1-35. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. THE INVENTION The claims are directed to visual tracking using panoramas on mobile devices. Spec., Title. Claim 1, reproduced below with a dispositive disputed limitation emphasized in italics, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A method comprising: capturing a plurality of camera images from a camera as the camera rotates; projecting the plurality of camera images consecutively to a panoramic cylindrical map, wherein the panoramic cylindrical map is extended by projecting areas of any camera image that correspond to unmapped portions of the panoramic cylindrical map; extracting keypoints from mapped portions of the panoramic cylindrical map; using the keypoints to determine an orientation of the camera while capturing the plurality of camera images; and using the orientation of the camera to assist in the projecting the plurality of camera images consecutively to the panoramic cylindrical map. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Chen Katayama Teo US 2001/0010546 Al US 2003/0035047 Al US 2007/0109398 Al 2 Aug. 2, 2001 Feb.20,2003 May 17, 2007 Appeal2015-004324 Application 13/112,876 Arp a Kweon US 7,522,186 B2 US 2010/0208032 Al REJECTIONS The Examiner made the following rejections: Apr. 21, 2009 Aug. 19, 2010 Claims 1, 4, 5, 7-10, 13, 14, 16-19, 21, 22, 24--29, and 32 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Katayama and Chen. Final Rej. 5-9. Claims 2, 6, 11, 15, 23, 30, and 31 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Katayama, Chen, and Arpa. Final Rej. 9-11. Claims 3, 12, 20, 33, and 35 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Katayama, Chen, Arpa, and K weon. Final Rej. 11-13. Claim 34 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Katayama, Chen, and Arpa, Kweon, and Teo. Final Rej. 13-14. APPELLANTS' CONTENTION Appellants contend Chen teaches use of an orientation/position (O/P) sensor 21 to determine the orientation of the camera, not keypoints from mapped portions of the panoramic cylindrical map as required by the disputed limitation. App. Br. 14--16. ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants' arguments the Examiner has erred in rejecting independent claims 1, 10, 19, 3 Appeal2015-004324 Application 13/112,876 and 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Katayama and Chen. We agree with Appellants' conclusions regarding using keypoints to determine an orientation of a camera. Appellants argue Chen uses hardware sensors to detect camera orientation, not keypoints extracted from mapped portions of the panoramic cylindrical map as required by claim 1. App. Br. 14--16. The Examiner responds by finding: The first floor of a multiple-story building could be captured in one sequence of video frames the second floor in a second sequence of video frames, and so forth. If the VR camera is maintained at an approximately fixed distance from the object 61, the orientation of the VR camera alone may be recorded to establish the spatial relationship between the discrete images. Chen discloses the VR camera combines the images of the scene into a panoramic image based on the respective camera orientations at which the images were captured. A display in the VR camera is used to view the panoramic image. The orientation of the VR camera is used to select which portion of the panoramic image is displayed so that a user can effectively pan about the panoramic image by changing the orientation. Ans. 12. In reply, Appellants again argue Chen discloses only the use of a physical orientation/position sensor, not extracted points. Reply Br. 9. According to Appellants: [E]ven if "the VR camera is maintained at an approximately fixed distance from the object 61, [and only] the orientation of the VR camera alone" is recorded, as suggested by the Examiner, the orientation of the camera will still be determined using the hardware "orientation/position (O/P) sensor 21." Maintaining the VR camera at an approximately fixed distance from the object, as suggested by the Examiner[,] is neither a disclosure nor a suggestion to use "the keypoints [from mapped portions of the panoramic cylindrical map]" to determine an orientation of the camera as required by the claims. 4 Appeal2015-004324 Application 13/112,876 Reply Br. 9. We agree with Appellants. In particular, the Examiner has not provided a claim construction or mapping explaining why maintaining Chen's VR camera at a fixed distance from an object results in use of keypoints extracted from mapped portions of the panoramic cylindrical image to determine camera orientation. In contrast, Appellants have provided persuasive argument that Chen only uses hardware sensors to determine camera orientation. App. Br. 14--16; Reply Br. 8-9. Therefore, based on a preponderance of the evidence, we agree the Examiner erred in finding Chen teaches or suggests the disputed limitation of claim 1. Because we agree with at least one of the arguments advanced by Appellants, we need not reach the merits of Appellants' other arguments. Therefore, for the reasons supra, we do not sustain the rejection of independent claim 1under35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Katayama and Chen and, for the same reason, we do not sustain the rejection of independent claims 10, 19, and 27, which include substantially the same limitation, and the rejection of dependent claims 4, 5, 7-9, 13, 14, 16-18, 21, 22, 24--26, 29, and 32. Furthermore, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 2, 3, 6, 11, 12, 15, 23, 30, 31, and 33-35 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as the Examiner's applications of the Arpa, K weon, and Teo references fail to cure the deficiency in the base rejection addressed supra. DECISION We reverse the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-35. REVERSED 5 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation