Ex Parte Wu et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Apr 22, 2019

14303809 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Apr. 22, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/303,809 06/13/2014
144578 7590 04/24/2019
FAY SHARPE LLP / CONDUENT
1228 Euclid Avenue, 5th Floor
The Halle Building
Cleveland, OH 44115
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
WenchengWu
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.
20140433USNP-CNDT3 l 63US01 1471
EXAMINER
LUDWIG, PETER L
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3687
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/24/2019 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):
docketing@faysharpe.com
Conduent.PatentDocketing@conduent.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte WENCHENG WU, STEVEN R. MOORE,
THOMAS F. WADE, DENNIS L. VENABLE,
ADRIEN P. COTE, and PETER PAUL
Appeal2018-002087
Application 14/303,809
Technology Center 3600
Before: ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, BETH Z. SHAW, and
JASON M. REPKO, Administrative Patent Judges.
SHAW, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal2018-002087
Application 14/303,809
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims
1, 2, 5-10, and 23, which are the only claims currently pending. Claims 11-
22 and 24 are canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
The claims are directed to a store shelf-imaging system. Claim 1,
reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A store profile generation system comprising:
a mobile base;
an image capture assembly mounted on the mobile base,
the assembly comprising image capture devices which acquire
images of associated product display units in a product facility,
product labels being associated with the product display units
which include product-related data, a first of the image capture
devices capturing low resolution photographic images of the
product display units and a second of the image capture devices
capturing high resolution photographic images of the product
display units at a higher resolution than the first image capture
device, the low and high resolution images including pixels; and
a control unit comprising memory which stores
instructions and a processor which executes the instructions, the
control unit instructions including instructions which process the
images captured by the image capture devices at a sequence of
locations of the mobile base in the product facility, using the low
resolution photographic images acquired from the first image
capture device to identify candidate locations of the product
labels, thereafter extracts the product-related data from the
acquired high resolution photographic images of the product
display units, in the candidate locations, captured by the second
image capture device, and constructs a store profile indicating
locations of the product labels throughout the product facility
based on the extracted product-related data, a spatial
characterization of the image capture assembly, and information
on locations of the mobile base in the sequence of locations at a
2
Appeal2018-002087
Application 14/303,809
time that the low resolution or high resolution images were
acquired.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Prudhomme et al. US 2004/0233278 Al
Silverstein et al. US 2006/0072176 Al
Zimmerman US 2008/0077511 Al
REJECTIONS
The Examiner made the following rejections:
Nov. 25, 2004
Apr. 6, 2006
Mar. 27, 2008
Claims 1, 2, 5-7, 9, 10, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Zimmerman and Prudhomme.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Zimmerman, Prudhomme, and Silverstein.
CONTENTIONS AND ANALYSIS
Appellants make various arguments, including that Zimmerman does
not teach "the control unit using the low resolution photographic images
acquired from the first image capture device to identify candidate locations
of the product labels," as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 13-15. The Examiner
"finds this limitation to be 'intended use' as this is a 'system' claim and how
the control unit uses the acquired images is design choice/intended use."
Final Act. 3; Ans. 7. The Examiner also finds Zimmerman teaches this
element because "the RFID reader is used to identify items such that the
items may or may not have barcodes on them that can be captured by high
resolution imaging device and where these images are used to determine if
3
Appeal2018-002087
Application 14/303,809
items are out-of-place (e.g. not above their shelf bar code.)" Id. We address
each of these findings in tum.
First, the Examiner erred by refusing to give "patentable weight" to
the claimed candidate locations as a design choice. Final Act. 8 ("What the
designer/engineer decides to do with the image(s) is a matter of design
choice and is not granted patentable weight."); Ans. 7. We agree with
Appellants that the Examiner has provided no persuasive evidence that
"using the low resolution photographic images acquired from the first image
capture device to identify candidate locations of the product labels" is an
obvious matter of design choice or intended use. Other than a conclusory
statement, the Examiner provides no analysis, evidence, or reasoning to
support this conclusion.
The Examiner also points to paragraph 50 of Zimmerman as teaching
"the control unit using the low resolution photographic images acquired
from the first image capture device to identify candidate locations of the
product labels," as recited in claim 1. Ans. 7. The Examiner concludes that
"[ w ]hen the control unit is configured to analyze image( s) and determine
where a barcode is on an item from the image, the examiner finds that the
control unit is configured to 'identify candidate locations of the product
labels' as the barcode is a product label." Id. "Further in [0050] the RFID
reader is configured to read RFID tags on pallets and containers, which is
another 'product label."' Id.
The cited paragraph 50 of Zimmerman does not teach "using the low
resolution photographic images acquired from the first image capture device
to identify candidate locations of the product labels," as recited in claim 1
( emphasis added), because it does not identify candidate locations of the
4
Appeal2018-002087
Application 14/303,809
product labels from the identified "low resolution" photographic images
acquired from the first image capture device. The Examiner identifies
Zimmerman's "RFID reader" as the claimed image-capture device capturing
low resolution image data. Final Act. 3 ("RFID reader, where the RFID
reader captures low resolution image/data such as a code"). Paragraph 50 of
Zimmerman contains no teaching of using Zimmerman's captured RFID
tags to identify candidate locations of the product labels. App. Br. 16-17.
Rather, paragraph 50 of Zimmerman describes reading RFID tags on pallets
and containers in backrooms to provide inventory. Zimmerman ,r 50.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of independent claim 1.
For the same reasons, we do not sustain the rejection of dependent claims 2,
5-7, 9, 10, and 23. The Examiner does not allege Silverstein remedies the
deficiencies of Zimmerman and Prudhomme discussed above. Accordingly,
we do not sustain the rejection of dependent claim 8.
DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 2, 5-10,
and 23 is reversed.
REVERSED
5