13865362 - (D) (P.T.A.B. May. 6, 2020)

INFINEON TECHNOLOGIES AG

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardMay 6, 2020

13865362 - (D) (P.T.A.B. May. 6, 2020)

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. 13/865,362 04/18/2013 Rainer Matischek INFAP600US 2047 51092 7590 05/06/2020 Eschweiler & Potashnik, LLC. Rosetta Center 629 Euclid Ave., Suite 1000 Cleveland, OH 44114 EXAMINER KANAAN, SIMON P ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2492 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/06/2020 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@eschweilerlaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte RAINER MATISCHEK Appeal 2019-002135 Application 13/865,362 Technology Center 2400 Before JOHNNY A. KUMAR, JUSTIN BUSCH, and LINZY T. McCARTNEY, Administrative Patent Judges. McCARTNEY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant1 seeks review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1–11 and 13–17. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. 1 Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Infineon Technologies AG. Appeal Brief 1, filed May 23, 2018 (Appeal Br.). Appeal 2019-002135 Application 13/865,362 2 BACKGROUND This patent application concerns “an apparatus for generating trusted image data, an apparatus for authentication of an image[,] and a method for generating trusted image data.” Specification 1, filed April 18, 2013 (Spec.). Claims 1, 15, and 16 are independent. Claim 1 illustrates the claimed subject matter: 1. A camera for generating trusted image data, the camera comprising: an image data generator of the camera configured to generate image data of an image to be taken of a three- dimensional scene and trust data of the three-dimensional scene, wherein the trust data comprises a pixel depth value of at least one pixel of the image to be taken or comprises data used to calculate the pixel depth value of at least one pixel of the image to be taken; a processor of the camera configured to generate encrypted image data by encrypting within the camera at least the trust data or characteristic data derivable from at least the trust data; and an output unit of the camera configured to provide trusted image data comprising the encrypted image data; wherein the pixel depth value is a relative depth between different objects of the three-dimensional scene, or is an absolute depth between an object of the three-dimensional scene and the camera. Appeal Br. 9. Appeal 2019-002135 Application 13/865,362 3 REJECTIONS Claims 35 U.S.C. § References 1, 2, 5, 6 14, 17 103 Leyvand,2 Tagawa,3 Woodfill4 3, 4, 8, 10 103 Leyvand, Tagawa, Woodfill, Avrahami5 76 103 Leyvand, Tagawa, Woodfill, Iwamura7 9 103 Leyvand, Tagawa, Woodfill, Avrahami, Kienitz,8 Albert9 1110 103 Leyvand, Tagawa, Woodfill, Avrahami, Albert 13 103 Leyvand, Tagawa, Woodfill, Senga11 15 103 Leyvand, Tagawa, Avrahami, Kienitz, Albert 16 103 Leyvand, Tagawa, Albert, Gribaudo12 2 Leyvand et al. (US 8,824,749 B2; September 2, 2014). 3 Tagawa (US 7,436,440 B2; October 14, 2008). 4 Woodfill et al. (US 2006/0013473 A1; January 19, 2006). 5 Avrahami (US 2013/0262536 A1; October 3, 2013). 6 The heading of this rejection refers to claim 13, but the accompanying analysis addresses claim 7. See Final Office Action 7–8, mailed October 19, 2017 (Final Act.). Given the accompanying analysis, we understand claim 7 to stand rejected over Leyvand, Tagawa, Woodfill, and Iwamura. 7 Iwamura (US 6,425,081 B1; July 23, 2002). 8 Kienitz (US 2004/0264542 A1; December 30, 2004). 9 Albert et al. (US 2010/0202436 A1; August 12, 2010). 10 Based on the Examiner’s analysis, we understand claim 11 to stand rejected over Leyvand, Tagawa, Woodfill, Avrahami, and Albert, despite the heading of the rejection listing a different collection of references. See Final Act. 19–20. 11 Senga et al. (US 2007/0226509 A1; September 27, 2007). 12 Ben Gribaudo, Canon EOS Utility–Automatic Camera Clock Synchronization, https://bengribaudo.com/blog/2011/03/17/874/canon-eos- utility-automatic-camera-clock-synchronization (March 17, 2011). Appeal 2019-002135 Application 13/865,362 4 DISCUSSION Claim 1 recites “a processor of the camera configured to generate encrypted image data by encrypting within the camera at least the trust data or characteristic data derivable from at least the trust data.” Appeal Br. 9. Claim 1 recites that “the trust data comprises a pixel depth value of at least one pixel of the image to be taken or comprises data used to calculate the pixel depth value of at least one pixel of the image to be taken.” Appeal Br. 9. Appellant contends that the Examiner has not shown that the cited references teach or suggest a processor that encrypts “trust data or characteristic data derivable from at least the trust data,” the trust data comprising “a pixel depth value of at least one pixel of the image to be taken” or “data used to calculate the pixel depth value of at least one pixel of the image to be taken.” See Appeal Br. 4–6; Reply Brief 2–3, filed December 14, 2018 (Reply Br.). According to Appellant, the cited art teaches an apparatus that encrypts “secret information” about a camera and information about “how the camera takes [a] picture,” not image data such as the pixel depth information included in the trust data. See Appeal Br. 5. Appellant also argues that the Examiner relied on “impermissible hindsight” to conclude that this limitation would have been obvious in light of the cited art. See Reply Br. 2. Appellant has persuaded us that the Examiner erred. The Examiner found that Leyvand teaches a camera that generates depth information and Tagawa teaches an apparatus that encrypts “attribute information.” See Final Act. 3–5. The Examiner concluded that it would have been obvious to combine these teachings to arrive at a processor that encrypts depth Appeal 2019-002135 Application 13/865,362 5 information because doing so “would help authenticate the validity of the image by helping ensure that the information is not tampered with as it is encrypted.” Final Act. 5. This reasoning does not adequately explain why one of ordinary skill in the art would have modified Tagawa to encrypt depth information instead of other information associated with the image. In addition, Tagawa teaches encrypting “attribute information” such as picture-taking information and information that camera makers want to keep secret. See, e.g., Tagawa 2:26– 35, 9:3–8, 13:15–27, 14:30–45, Fig. 6. Given that Tagawa teaches encrypting this information, the Examiner has not adequately explained why one of ordinary skill in the art would have modified Tagawa to also encrypt depth information to “help authenticate the validity of the image” instead of using these readily available encrypted alternatives. This is particularly troublesome because Appellant asserts—and the Examiner does not dispute—that Tagawa teaches encrypting only picture-taking information and secret information, not image data such as depth information. See Appeal Br. 5–6; see also Tagawa 13:15–27, 14:30–45, Fig. 10. As argued by Appellant, the Examiner’s motivation to combine the cited art seems to come from the claimed invention, and “[i]t is impermissible to use the claimed invention as an instruction manual or ‘template’ to piece together the teachings of the prior art so that the claimed invention is rendered obvious.” In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1266 (Fed. Cir. 1992). We thus do not sustain the Examiner’s rejections of claim 1 and its dependent claims. Because the Examiner’s rejections of independent claims Appeal 2019-002135 Application 13/865,362 6 15 and 16 suffer from similar flaws, we also do not sustain the Examiner’s rejections of these claims and their respective dependent claims.13 CONCLUSION The following table summarizes our decision for claims 1–11 and 13– 17, the claims before us on appeal: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 2, 5, 6 14, 17 103 Leyvand, Tagawa, Woodfill 1, 2, 5, 6 14, 17 3, 4, 8, 10 103 Leyvand, Tagawa, Woodfill, Avrahami 3, 4, 8, 10 7 103 Leyvand, Tagawa, Woodfill, Iwamura 7 9 103 Leyvand, Tagawa, Woodfill, Avrahami, Kienitz, Albert 9 11 103 Leyvand, Tagawa, Woodfill, Avrahami, Albert 11 13 103 Leyvand, Tagawa, Woodfill, Senga 13 15 103 Leyvand, Tagawa, Avrahami, Kienitz, Albert 15 16 103 Leyvand, Tagawa, Albert, Gribaudo 16 Overall Outcome 1–11, 13– 17 13 We also agree with Appellant that the Examiner has not shown that the cited art teaches or suggests the “trust data comprising information on the determined position” of the camera required by claim 15. See Appeal Br. 6– 7; Reply Br. 3. Appeal 2019-002135 Application 13/865,362 7 REVERSED