UNIVERSITE PIERRE ET MARIE CURIE (PARIS 6) et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Oct 5, 2021

2020004799 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 5, 2021)

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.
15/556,596 09/07/2017 Ieng SIO-HOI 0600-1635 1014
466 7590 10/05/2021
NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC
901 NORTH GLEBE ROAD
11TH FLOOR
ARLINGTON, VA 22203
EXAMINER
KALAPODAS, DRAMOS
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2487
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/05/2021 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):
pair_nixon@firsttofile.com
ptomail@nixonvan.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte IENG SIO-HOI, BENOSMAN RYAD, and SHI BERTRAM
Appeal 2020-004799
Application 15/556,596
Technology Center 2400
BEFORE KALYAN K. DESHPANDE, MIRIAM L. QUINN, and
IFTIKHAR AHMED, Administrative Patent Judges.
QUINN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–20. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real parties in interest as Centre National
de la Recherche Scientifique - CNRS of Paris, France; INSERM (Institut
National de la Sante et de la Recherche Medicale) of Paris, France; and
Sorbonne Université of Paris, France. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2020-004799
Application 15/556,596

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a method and a device for the 3D
reconstruction of a scene, “in particular when it is captured using
asynchronous sensors.” Spec. 1:1–2. Claim 1, reproduced below, is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method of 3D reconstruction of a scene, the method
comprising:
receiving a first piece of asynchronous information from
a first vision sensor that has a first pixel matrix positioned
opposite the scene, the first piece of asynchronous information
comprising, for each pixel of the first matrix, the first
successive events coming from said pixel;
receiving a second piece of asynchronous information
from a second vision sensor that has a second pixel matrix
positioned opposite the scene, the second piece of asynchronous
information comprising, for each pixel of the second matrix, the
second successive events coming from said pixel, the second
sensor being separate from the first sensor;
storing the first piece of asynchronous information from
the first vision sensor and the second piece of asynchronous
information from the second vision sensor at a memory;
matching, by a processor in communication with the
memory, a first event from among the first successive events
with a second event from among the second successive events
depending on a minimization of a cost function; and
determining, by the processor, a 3D reconstruction of a
scene based on the matching,
wherein the cost function comprises at least one
component from among:
a luminance component depending on at least:
Appeal 2020-004799
Application 15/556,596

3
a first luminance signal coming from a pixel of the first
sensor convoluted with a convolution core, the luminance of
said first sensor pixel depending on a difference between the
maximums of said first signal, and
a second luminance signal coming from a pixel of the
second sensor convoluted with said convolution core, the
luminance of said second sensor pixel depending on a
difference between the maximums of said second signal, and
a movement component depending on at least:
time values relating to the occurrence of events spatially
located at a predetermined distance from a pixel of the first
sensor, and
time values relating to the occurrence of events spatially
located at a predetermined distance from a pixel of the second
sensor.
Appeal Br. 20–21, Claims App.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Rogister Paul Rogister, Ryad Benosman, Sio-
Hoi Ieng, Patrick Lichtsteiner & Tobi
Delbruck, Asynchronous Event-Based
Binocular Stereo Matching, 23 IEEE
Transactions on Neural Networks and
Learning Systems 347 (2012)
Feb. 1, 2012
Kogler Jürgen Kogler, Martin Humenberger
& Christoph Sulzbachner, Event-
Based Stereo Matching Approaches
for Frameless Address Event Stereo
Data (2011)
Sept. 26, 2011

Appeal 2020-004799
Application 15/556,596

4
REJECTION
Claims 1–20 are rejected under § 103 as being unpatentable over
Rogister and Kogler. Final Act. 11.

Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis
1–20 103 Rogister, Kogler

OPINION
We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues
identified by Appellant, and in light of the arguments and evidence produced
thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential).
Our opinion focuses on the Examiner’s reliance on Rogister and Kogler as
applied to claims 1, 2, 3, 9, and 11 because Appellant’s arguments focus on
those claims. See Appeal Br. 10–19. Therefore, we analyze the pending
rejections based on the argument and evidence presented for claims 1, 2, 3,
9, and 11. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). For the reasons that follow, we
determine that Appellant has not persuaded us that the Examiner erred.

Obviousness of Claims 1, 4–10, and 12–20
Appellant presents argument for the patentability of claims 1 and 9 as
a group and does not separately address claims 4–8, 10, or 12–20. Appeal
Br. 10–19. We select claim 1 as representative, and, therefore, claims 1, 4–
10, and 12–20 stand or fall with claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
The Examiner relies on Rogister as teaching most of the claim 1
limitations, and relies on Kogler for some limitations, including the
“depending on a minimization of a cost function” limitation. Final Act. 11–
Appeal 2020-004799
Application 15/556,596

5
17. As for the cost function limitation, the claim requires at least one of two
components: “the cost function comprises at least one component from
among: a luminance component . . . , and a movement component . . . .”
Appeal Br. 21 (Claims App.). The Examiner finds that Rogister teaches a
luminance component (Final Act. 15–16) and a movement component,
including the “time value[s]” from which the “movement component”
depends on (id. at 17).
The Examiner also finds that Rogister teaches event matching based
on the minimization of at least one component from among the luminance
component and the movement component. Final Act. 13–14. For instance,
the Examiner relies on Rogister as,
“teaching about the Event-Based Matching where collecting
luminance data from within the field of view, within a time
window, therefore a motion related event is captured and
evaluated according to luminance spikes of data spikes being
time dependent . . . and being further defined by a minima
obtained for an incoming event at Eq.(3) where the condition is
not to exceed the value of time window at which the match would
occur, e.g., smaller than < δt
2
.
Id. (citing Rogister 349). The Examiner states, however, that Rogister “does
not expressly use[] the terminology of ‘cost function’ to teach about using
minimization of the luminosity and movement cost functions as claimed,
[or] depending on a minimization of a cost function . . . .” Id. at 17. Thus,
for the “depending on a minimization of a cost function” limitation, the
Examiner instead relies on Kogler. Id. at 17–18.
(1) “Depending on a Minimization of a Cost Function”
Appellant argues that Rogister and Kogler, individually and in
combination, do not disclose the “depending on a minimization of a cost
Appeal 2020-004799
Application 15/556,596

6
function” limitation. Appeal Br. 13–17. As for arguments focused on
Rogister individually, Appellant contends that “Rogister does not disclose
matching a first event from among first successive events with a second
event from among second successive events depending on a minimization of
a cost function that includes at least one component from among a
luminance component and a movement component.” Id. at 13. Appellant
provides two main reasons. First, according to Appellant, “Rogister
discloses that the change of luminance will affect pixels and that a set
containing events that is less than < δt
2
is defined.” Id. (identifying a
constraint of delta(t) divided by 2 as specified in equation 3 of Rogister); see
also Reply 3. But, according to Appellant, Rogister “does not disclose that
the time window is a minimization of a cost function that includes a
component from among a luminance component and a movement
component.” Appeal Br. 13; see also Reply 3. Second, Appellant notes
that, although Rogister discloses lowering a “computational cost,” such a
disclosure is “unrelated to a cost function that includes a component from
among a luminance component and a movement component.” Appeal
Br. 13; see also Reply 4.
In short, Appellant’s arguments amount to disputing whether Rogister
teaches “minimizing the cost function.” The arguments, however, are
unpersuasive because the Examiner relies on Kogler, not Rogister, for this
limitation. Final Act. 17–18; Ans. 6 (stating that Rogister is not relied upon
for teaching the calculation of the cost function).
Nevertheless, we note that, according to the Examiner, Rogister
teaches “processing the luminosity generated by sensors and the time
differences defining motion in the scene by pursuing a low computational
Appeal 2020-004799
Application 15/556,596

7
cost function (Eq.3) of using partial derivatives to establish minima of
luminosity or spatiotemporal movement parameters below a threshold, being
used in the stereo matching process.” Final Act. 17 (citing Rogister 348).
As we noted above, we understand this to be a finding that Rogister
discloses event matching based on the minimization of at least one of a
luminosity component and a movement component, rather than the
“minimization of a cost function” as recited. See id. (stating that Rogister
“does not expressly use[] the terminology of ‘cost function’ to teach about
using minimization of the luminosity and movement cost functions as
claimed”); see also Ans. 6 (“[I]t is to be remarked that the Final Office
Action does not use Rogister for the alleged failure to teach calculating the
cost function, but rather it is mapped for its relative reference to teaching a
cost function calculation in wide terms . . . .”); Final Act. 5 (“Rogister
describes the 3D reconstructive matching process of the event-based
asynchronous data acquiring toward a low computational cost . . . .”
(emphasis added)).
To the extent that Appellant’s argument attempts to challenge the
Examiner’s finding of minimization of certain components as stated above,
Appellant’s argument is unpersuasive. For instance, Appellant argues that
the minimization discussed in Rogister relates only to a “time window at
which a match is most likely to occur,” which Appellant argues is unlike the
claimed minimization. See Appeal Br. 13. Appellant also acknowledges
that Rogister discloses minimizing “computational cost,” but does not equate
this to the minimization being claimed either. See id. at 13–14.
However, the Examiner finds, and we agree, that Rogister teaches the
use of “luminosity or spatiotemporal movement parameters below a
Appeal 2020-004799
Application 15/556,596

8
threshold.” Final Act. 17; see also id. at 13 (citing Rogister 349 as “teaching
about the Event-Based Matching where collecting luminance data from
within the field of view, within a time window . . . and being further defined
by a minima obtained for an incoming event at Eq.(3) where the condition is
not to exceed the value of time window at which the match would occur”
(emphasis added)). Specifically, Rogister’s Fig. 3 teaches minimizing the
number of possible candidates on retina Rj that match the event on retina Ri
by examining only those candidates with luminance spikes occurring within
a distance from the epipolar line and within the time window δt. Rogister
Figure 3, 349. According to Rogister, such minimization incidentally also
minimizes “computational cost.” Id. at 347 (“Frame-based acquisition of
light intensities over regular temporal intervals raises important
computational limitations.”), 348 (“Asynchronous event-based acquisition
properties, as we will show, allow a simplification of the 3-D matching
process together with a low computational cost.”). Consequently, we agree
with the Examiner that by disclosing such minimization of luminance data
and time values, Rogister thus discloses minimization of the claimed
luminosity component and minimization of the claimed movement
component. Appellant’s argument to the contrary are, therefore,
unpersuasive.
(2) “Events Spatially Located at a Predetermined Distance from a
Pixel of the First/Second Sensor.”
Claim 1 requires that the movement component depend on time values
“relating to the occurrence of events spatially located at a predetermined
distance” from a pixel of the sensors. The Examiner finds that Rogister
teaches the claimed time values. Final Act. 17. For instance, the Examiner
Appeal 2020-004799
Application 15/556,596

9
cites to Rogister’s Figure 3a and its accompanying disclosure in support of
its finding that Rogister teaches “the first time value . . . determined at a
predetermined distance from the first sensor to the point X(t) along the
epipolar line Ri in Fig.3a,” as well as “the second time value . . . determined
at a predetermined distance from the second sensor to the point X(t) along the
epipolar line Rj in Fig.3a.” Id. (emphasis added).
Appellant argues that Rogister does not teach or suggest the recited
time values. Appeal Br. 14. According to Appellant Rogister discloses time
stamping that refers to a change of pixel intensity, but the Rogister
timestamps are not “spatially dependent.” Id. We are not persuaded by
these arguments.
Appellant’s arguments do not show that the Examiner erred. The
Examiner relies upon the time-axis charting of signals P1i and P1j shown in
Figure 3 as movement components, where the time value of each occurrence
is determined at a distance from the sensor to X(t) along the epipolar line R1.
Final Act. 16−17. We agree with the Examiner that Rogister describes two
events detected by corresponding pixels at times t1 and t2, and minimizing
the number of matching events based on a distance to the epipolar line and a
time window around t1. Rogister Figure 3, 349 (“we can define a time
window in which true matches are more likely to occur”). Appellant’s
arguments regarding the detection of change in pixel density and spatial
independence of the timestamps do not address the specific findings the
Examiner makes about evaluating a set of events based on circumscribing as
potential matches those with time values within a specific time window and
a particular spatial distance to the epipolar line. Further, Appellant’s
argument that Rogister’s time values are not “spatially dependent” seems
Appeal 2020-004799
Application 15/556,596

10
untethered to the claim language, which has not been shown to require
“spatially dependent” time values.
Other statements by Appellant also do not show error. The statements
we address here concern whether Rogister’s “time stamping is not related to
the occurrence of events spatially located at a predetermined distance from a
pixel of a sensor” or that “Rogister does not disclose time values that refer to
a timestamp of pixels spatially located at a predetermined distance from a
pixel of the first/second sensor.” See Appeal Br. 14. These statements
merely repeat or paraphrase recited claim language and assert that Rogister
fails to disclose it. As such, these statements amount to a general allegation
that the claims define a patentable invention, which is unpersuasive. See In
re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[W]e hold that the Board
reasonably interpreted Rule 41.37 to require more substantive arguments in
an appeal brief than a mere recitation of the claim elements and a naked
assertion that the corresponding elements were not found in the prior art.”).
(3) Kogler-Based Arguments
Next, Appellant argues that “Kogler does not disclose or suggest a
minimization of a cost function, where the cost function comprises at least
one component from among: a luminance component and a movement
component.” Appeal Br. 15. Appellant acknowledges that Kogler discloses
a weighting function that is used to adapt a cost value. Id. But, according to
Appellant, the weighting function in Kogler is different from the cost
function as defined by the present specification. Id. Appellant attempts to
define “minimizing a cost function” by arguing that “a cost function is
minimized by applying derivatives with respect to a variable, in the case of
Appeal 2020-004799
Application 15/556,596

11
the present specification with respect to time, for example.” Id. Such
derivatives, according to Appellant, are not disclosed by Kogler. Id.
We are not persuaded by these arguments because they argue
limitations that are not recited in the claim. For instance, Appellant
narrowly characterizes the recited “minimization” by limiting it to “applying
derivatives with respect to a variable,” when the claim is silent as to any
specific technique for “minimization.” Further, Appellant has not shown
that the Specification defines the “minimization of a cost function” as
argued. Appellant’s arguments, therefore, are not commensurate with the
scope of the claim.
Appellant also argues similarly to the above that “Kogler does not
disclose or suggest time values relating to the occurrence of events spatially
located at a predetermined distance from a pixel of the first/second sensor.”
Appeal Br. 16 (emphasis added). As we noted above, the Examiner relies on
Rogister, not Kogler, for teaching the “movement component” limitation, as
well as the “time values relating to the occurrence of events spatially located
at a predetermined distance from a pixel” of the first and second sensor from
which the “movement component” depends on. Final Act. 16–17. As such,
Appellant’s arguments regarding Kogler are unpersuasive because they do
not show error in the Examiner’s rejection that relies on Rogister, not
Kogler, for the limitation.
(4) Reasons to Combine
Lastly, Appellant challenges the Examiner-stated reasons to combine
the teachings of Rogister and Kogler. Appeal Br. 16–17. In this regard, the
Examiner finds that both Rogister and Kogler describe methods for stereo
matching of event-based imaging. Final Act. 18–19. According to the
Appeal 2020-004799
Application 15/556,596

12
Examiner, Rogister performs stereo matching by the “minimization of [a]
matching function represented by luminosity and motion (or spatiotemporal
components).” Id. at 18. Similarly, Kogler performs stereo matching by
“establishing a minima of the cost function used in matching pixels based on
luminosity or motion in a spatiotemporal domain.” Id. Given these
similarities, the Examiner finds that a person of ordinary skill in the art
would be motivated to combine the references “as representing similar
processes recited by different syntax found in both arts of Rogister and
Kogler describing stereo matching of event-based imaging.” Id. at 19. In
essence, the Examiner’s findings amount to showing that both references
teach similar, known methods, applied in a known manner, to yield
predictable results. Final Act. 19; see also KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550
U.S. 398, 416 (2007) (“The combination of familiar elements according to
known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield
predictable results.”).
In response, Appellant argues that “the Office provides no indication
as to why the weighting of Kogler would be introduced into Rogister and
used in relation to, e.g., a luminance component or a movement component
to match a first event and a second event.” Appeal Br. 16. According to
Appellant, the similarities of Rogister and Kogler fail to show “why the
weighting of the time differences between events would be used in relation
to a luminance component that depends on a first luminance signal coming
from a pixel of a first sensor and a second luminance signal coming from a
pixel of a second sensor.” Id. at 16−17. One skilled in the art, Appellant
argues, thus would not have been led to modify Rogister in view of Kogler
to arrive at the present invention. Id. at 17.
Appeal 2020-004799
Application 15/556,596

13
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments. Contrary to
Appellant’s contentions, the Examiner has provided a reason to combine
with a rational underpinning for such a reason. See KSR Int’l Co., 550 U.S.
at 416. Both references teach similar, known methods of evaluating
matching pixels based on luminosity or motion. Final Act. 18−19. Rogister
uses minimization of the matching function and Kogler uses a matching cost
and time differential cost matching, to yield, with high predictability, a
similar result of event-based stereo matching such that a person of ordinary
skill in the art would be motivated to combine the references. Id.
Consequently, we do not agree with Appellant’s contention that the
Examiner did not explain sufficiently why a person of ordinary skill in the
art would have combined the relied-on teachings.
Moreover, Appellant’s arguments to the contrary assume a bodily
incorporation of Kogler’s technique that the Examiner did not make, i.e.,
requiring that the Examiner provide reasons for introducing a weighting
function into Rogister’s event-based matching. “The test for obviousness is
not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily
incorporated into the structure of the primary reference . . . . Rather, the test
is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to
those of ordinary skill in the art.” In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA
1981) (citations omitted). The Examiner here provides reasons for why the
combined teachings of the references would have suggested to one of
ordinary skill in the art the Appellant’s invention. Appellant’s arguments to
the contrary, on the other hand, urge us to improperly require reasons to
incorporate a particular weighting function of Kogler into the structure of
Rogister.
Appeal 2020-004799
Application 15/556,596

14
Accordingly, we are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that the
Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 as obvious over Rogister and Kogler.

Obviousness of Claim 2
In addition to the arguments presented for claim 1, Appellant presents
separate argument for the patentability of claim 2. Appeal Br. 17. Claim 2
recites:
2. The method according to claim 1, wherein the cost function
additionally comprises:
a time component depending on a difference between:
a time value relating to an event of the first sensor,
and
a time value relating to an event of the second
sensor.
Id. at 21–22 (Claims App.). The Examiner relies on Kogler as disclosing the
“time component” limitation, including the “time value[s]” from which the
“time component” depends on. Final Act. 19–20.
Appellant acknowledges that “Kogler discloses weighting a time
difference between events.” Appeal Br. 17. However, according to
Appellant, “Rogister in view of Kogler does not disclose or suggest that a
cost function is minimized in order to match first and second events, the cost
function including at least a luminance component or a movement
component and a time component.” Id. Thus, Appellant’s argument focuses
on the logical structure of the claim, asserting that the combination of
Rogister and Kogler does not disclose a cost function including (1) at least a
luminance component or a movement component recited in claim 1, and (2)
a time component recited in claim 2.
Appeal 2020-004799
Application 15/556,596

15
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument. As stated above with
respect to claim 1, the Examiner has cited Rogister as teaching the two
recited components: the luminance component and movement component.
We find unpersuasive Appellant’s argument that Rogister does not teach the
time values of the movement component. Thus, Appellant’s arguments do
not persuade us that the Examiner erred in finding that Rogister teaches both
components recited in claim 1, even though the claim requires only one of
those components. Furthermore, the Examiner relies on Kogler, not
Rogister, for teaching the time component limitation recited in claim 2.
Final Act. 19–20. Appellant does not argue that Kogler fails to teach the
time component limitation—and, therefore, does not show error in the
rejection of this claim. As we understand the rejection, the combination of
Rogister and Kogler’s teachings would therefore include (1) at least a
luminance component or a movement component taught by Rogister, and
(2) the time component taught by Kogler.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that the
Examiner erred in rejecting claim 2 as obvious over Rogister and Kogler.

Obviousness of Claim 3
In addition to the arguments presented for claim 1, Appellant presents
separate argument for the patentability of claim 3. Appeal Br. 17–18. Claim
3 recites:
3. The method according to claim 1, wherein the cost function
additionally comprises:
a geometric component depending on:
Appeal 2020-004799
Application 15/556,596

16
a spatial distance from a pixel of the second sensor
at an epipolar straight line or at an epipolar intersection
defined by at least one pixel of the first sensor.
Id. at 22 (Claims App.). The Examiner relies on Rogister as disclosing the
“geometric component” limitation. Final Act. 20.
Appellant addresses Rogister and Kogler individually and in
combination. Appeal Br. 17–18. Addressing Kogler individually first,
Appellant argues that “Kogler only discloses weighting a time difference
between events.” Id. at 17 (emphasis added). As we noted above, the
Examiner relies on Rogister, not Kogler, as disclosing the geometric
component limitation. Final Act. 20. As such, Appellant’s argument
regarding Kogler are unpersuasive.
Next, Appellant addresses Rogister individually. Appeal Br. 17–18.
Appellant asserts that “Rogister does not disclose that the geometric
relationship is a geometric component included in a cost function that is
minimized in matching a first event with a second event.” Id. Appellant,
however, admits that “Rogister discloses generating an event according to a
geometric relationship.” Id. Thus, Appellant’s argument focuses on
whether Rogister’s disclosed geometric relationship is “included in a cost
function that is minimized in matching a first event with a second event.”
However, as we noted above, the Examiner finds that Rogister does not
disclose the “depending on a minimization of a cost function” limitation of
claim 1, and instead relies on Kogler for this limitation. Final Act. 17–18.
Lastly, Appellant addresses the combination of Rogister and Kogler,
asserting that “the combination of teachings of Rogister and Kogler does not
disclose or suggest minimizing a cost function that includes at least a
Appeal 2020-004799
Application 15/556,596

17
luminance component or a movement component and a time component.”
Appeal Br. 18.
Appellant’s argument is not commensurate in scope with the claim
limitations because claim 3 does not recite a time component.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that the
Examiner erred in rejecting claim 3 as obvious over Rogister and Kogler.

Obviousness of Claim 11
In addition to the arguments presented for claim 1, Appellant presents
separate argument for the patentability of claim 11. Appeal Br. 18. Claim
11 recites:
11. The method according to claim 2, wherein the cost function
additionally comprises:
a geometric component depending on:
a spatial distance from a pixel of the second sensor
at an epipolar straight line or at an epipolar intersection
defined by at least one pixel of the first sensor.
Id. at 26 (Claims App.). Given claim 11’s nearly identical language to claim
3 other than dependence on claim 2, the Examiner rejects claim 11 over the
same evidentiary premises mutatis mutandis. Final Act. 25. Appellant
presents argument similar to those presented with respect to claims 2 and 3.
See Appeal Br. 18. Appellant’s additional argument with respect to claim 11
thus focuses on the logical structure of the claim, asserting that the
combination of Rogister and Kogler does not disclose a cost function
including (1) at least a luminance component or a movement component
recited in claim 1, and (2) a time component recited in claim 2, and (3) a
Appeal 2020-004799
Application 15/556,596

18
geometric component recited in claim 11 and recited identically also in
claim 3.
Appellant’s argument, however, does not specifically address how the
Examiner erred in finding that claim 11 is obvious over Rogister and Kogler.
Instead, Appellant’s argument merely asserts that the recited logical
structure of the “cost function” is not found in the combination of Rogister
and Kogler. Such an argument amounts to “a mere recitation of the claim
elements and a naked assertion that the corresponding elements were not
found in the prior art,” which is unpersuasive. See Lovin, 652 F.3d at 1357.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that the
Examiner erred in rejecting claim 11 as obvious over Rogister and Kogler.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejection is sustained.

DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–20 103 Rogister, Kogler 1–20

TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
Appeal 2020-004799
Application 15/556,596

19
AFFIRMED