15147736 - (D) (P.T.A.B. May. 20, 2020)

QUALCOMM Incorporated

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardMay 20, 2020

15147736 - (D) (P.T.A.B. May. 20, 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. 15/147,736 05/05/2016 James Wilson Nash 1414-195US01/161046 5311 15150 7590 05/20/2020 Shumaker & Sieffert, P. A. 1625 Radio Drive, Suite 100 Woodbury, MN 55125 EXAMINER SLATER, ALISON T ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2487 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/20/2020 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): ocpat_uspto@qualcomm.com pairdocketing@ssiplaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte JAMES WILSON NASH and KALIN MITKOV ATANASSOV Appeal 2019-002398 Application 15/147,736 Technology Center 2400 BEFORE ROBERT E. NAPPI, JASON J. CHUNG, and BETH Z. SHAW, Administrative Patent Judges. SHAW, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 2, 4–11, 13–22, 24, 25, and 27–29. See Final Act. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. 1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Qualcomm Incorporated, the assignee of the entire interest. Appeal Br. 3. Appeal 2019-002398 Application 15/147,736 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to a depth map generation in structured light system. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter, with disputed limitations in italics: 1. A method of image processing, the method comprising: transmitting structured light, with an optical transmitter, the optical transmitter having a first angle of view relative to a transmitter optical axis; receiving, with an optical receiver, a reflection of the structured light, the optical receiver having a second angle of view relative to a receiver optical axis, wherein the optical transmitter is angled relative to the optical receiver so that the transmitter optical axis intersects the receiver optical axis forming an angle therebetween, and wherein a position of the optical transmitter relative to the optical receiver is constant; scaling the received reflection of the structured light that is received at the optical receiver based on the angle of the optical transmitter relative to the optical receiver and a focal length of the optical receiver; and generating a depth map for one or more images based at least on the scaled reflection. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Name Reference Date van der Burgt Sonoda US 2007/0023716 A1 US 2013/0329942 A1 Feb. 1, 2007 Dec. 12, 2013 REJECTION Claims 1, 2, 4–11, 13–22, 24, 25, and 27–29 are rejected under Appeal 2019-002398 Application 15/147,736 3 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Sonoda and van der Burgt. Final Act. 7. OPINION On this record, we are persuaded of error in the Examiner’s obviousness rejection. The Examiner rejects claim 1 based on the combination of Sonoda and van der Burgt. Final Act. 7–9. The Examiner finds that Sonoda teaches most of the elements of claim 1, but relies on van der Burgt to teach “scaling the received reflection of the structured light that is received at the optical receiver based on the angle of the optical transmitter relative to the optical receiver and a focal length of the optical receiver.” Appellant argues van der Burgt does not teach or suggest scaling the received reflection of the structured light that is received at the optical receiver based on the angle of the optical transmitter relative to the optical receiver and a focal length of the optical receiver. Appeal Br. 10. The Examiner finds that van der Burgt teaches this limitation, citing paragraphs 66, 70 (Final Act. 8–9) and 12 (Ans. 5). Although paragraph 12 of van der Burgt mentions scaling parameters, and paragraph 66 refers to a focal point, we fail to see, on this record, how the cited portions of van der Burgt teach “scaling the received reflection . . . based on the angle of the optical transmitter relative to the optical receiver and a focal length of the optical receiver,” as recited in independent claim 1 (emphasis added). Accordingly, on this record, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1 under § 103. For the same reasons, we also do not sustain the rejections of the remaining pending claims. Appeal 2019-002398 Application 15/147,736 4 CONCLUSION The Examiner’s rejection is reversed. DECISION SUMMARY Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 2, 4–11, 13–22, 24, 25, 27–29 103 Sonoda, van der Burgt 1, 2, 4–11, 13–22, 24, 25, 26–29 Overall Outcome: 1, 2, 4–11, 13–22, 24, 25, 26–29 REVERSED