Yang CaiDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardMar 16, 20212019006067 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 16, 2021) Copy Citation 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. 12/669,685 05/12/2010 Yang Cai 08-104-US 6265 718 7590 03/16/2021 Reed Smith LLP P.O. Box 488 PITTSBURGH, PA 15230-0488 EXAMINER VAZQUEZ COLON, MARIA E ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2482 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/16/2021 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): PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte YANG CAI1 ____________________ Appeal 2019-006067 Application 12/669,685 Technology Center 2400 ____________________ Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, and LARRY J. HUME, Administrative Patent Judges. NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 8, 10, 12, 19 through 23, and 32 through 42 have been canceled. 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). According to Appellant, Carnegie Mellon University is the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 1. Appeal 2019-006067 Application 12/669,685 2 INVENTION The disclosed and claimed invention relates generally to a system with a plurality of multiple resolution cameras including a camera resolution module configured for instructing at least one of the multiple resolution cameras to operate at a first resolution at a first period of time and at a second resolution at a second period of time. Abstract. Claim 1 is reproduced below. 1. A system comprising: a plurality of multiple resolution (MR) cameras, wherein each of the plurality of MR cameras has a single type of image sensor, wherein each MR camera in the plurality of MR cameras is configured to capture a field of view that is independent of any fields of view captured by other MR cameras in the plurality of MR cameras, and wherein a location of each MR camera is independent of locations of other MR cameras in the plurality of cameras; a display device configured to: receive a first plurality of images at the same frame rate from the plurality of MR cameras, wherein each image in the first plurality of images corresponds to an MR camera in the plurality of MR cameras and wherein at least two of the first plurality of images are at different resolutions; and concurrently display the first plurality of images, wherein at least two of the first plurality of images are displayed at different resolutions; and one or more computing devices communicably connected to the plurality of MR-cameras, wherein the one or more computing devices comprise: one or more processors; and one or more memories operatively coupled to at least one of the one or more processors and having instructions stored thereon that, when executed by at least Appeal 2019-006067 Application 12/669,685 3 one of the one or more processors, cause at least one of the one or more processors to: receive a user eye position from an eye tracking device; identify an MR camera in the plurality of MR cameras by associating the user eye position to an image in the first plurality of images concurrently displayed on the display device and associating the image with a corresponding MR camera in the plurality of MR cameras; transmit a plurality of commands to the plurality of MR cameras, wherein the plurality of commands comprise one or more first commands configured to cause the identified MR camera to operate at a first resolution and one or more second commands configured to cause one or more other MR cameras in the plurality of MR cameras to operate at a second resolution different from the first resolution; receive a second plurality of images from the plurality of MR cameras; and transmit the second plurality of images to the display device, wherein the second plurality of images are displayed concurrently on the display device. EXAMINER’S REJECTIONS2 The Examiner rejected claims 1, 8, 10, 12, 19 through 23, and 32 through 38 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Jones (US 8,446,509 B2; May 21, 2013) and Sakai (US 2005/0078184 A1; 2 Throughout this Decision we refer to the Appeal Brief filed February 22, 2019 (“Appeal Br.”); Reply Brief filed August 12, 2019 (“Reply Br.”) Final Office Action mailed February 23, 2018 (“Final Act.”); and the Examiner’s Answer mailed June 12, 2019 (“Ans.”). Appeal 2019-006067 Application 12/669,685 4 Apr. 14, 2002). Final Act. 3–12. The Examiner rejected claims 39 through 42 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Jones, Sakai and Uebbing (US 2004/0212677 A1; Oct. 28, 2004). Final Act. 12–14 ANALYSIS We have reviewed Appellant’s arguments in the Appeal Brief, the Reply Brief, the Examiner’s rejections, and the Examiner’s response to Appellant’s arguments. Appellant’s arguments have not persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 8, 10, 12, 19 through 23, and 32 through 42 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Rejection based upon Jones and Sakai With respect to this rejection, the Appellant’s arguments present us with two issues: 1) Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Jones and Sakai teach or suggest the limitation directed to each camera being configured to capture a field of view that is independent of the fields of view of the other cameras and wherein the location of the camera is independent of the locations of the other cameras? 2) Did the Examiner present a reasoned rationale with rational underpinnings for combining the systems of Jones and Sakai? With respect to the first issue, Appellant’s arguments are directed to Sakai, the reference the Examiner relied upon to teach this limitation. Appeal Br. 5–9, Reply Br. 1–3 Appellant argues that Sakai teaches a system where plural cameras are used to detect a number of persons in an image capture area and that when the number of persons exceeds a threshold a command is issued to adjacent cameras to change the image capture region. Appeal Br. 5. Appellant cites to Figure 4–6 and argues that although Appeal 2019-006067 Application 12/669,685 5 Figure 4 shows non-overlapping image capture regions, after the command is issued to the cameras the image capture regions of the cameras are changed such that the overlap as shown in Figure 6. Appeal Br. 5–8. Thus, Appellant argues that because the image capture regions overlap, the fields of view of the cameras must necessarily overlap. Appeal Br. 8. Further, Appellant argues that because Sakai teaches the cameras are nearby, other cameras which have overlapping fields of view, the location of the individual cameras are dependent upon each other. Appeal Br. 9 The Examiner finds that Sakai discloses in Figure 5 three cameras 10a-c with respective image regions Ra, Rb, and Rc directly below the camera (which are considered to be the fields of view of the cameras). Ans. 15. Further, the Examiner finds that Figure 5, also shows that the cameras are independent and therefore Sakai teaches the disputed limitation. Ans. 15. Appellant’s arguments have not persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s rejection. Initially, we note that Appellant’s Specification provides no disclosure of the locations of the cameras relative to each other, nor the field of view of the cameras, and therefore provides no guidance as to how the disputed limitations are to be interpreted.3 As such we consider the Examiner’s findings regarding the monitoring regions of Sakai to be the equivalent of Appellant’s claimed field of view as they are both the areas observed by the cameras. See Sakai Figs. 4 and 5. We concur with the 3We also note that Appellant’s arguments seem to imply that camera’s with overlapping fields of view are not independent fields of view. We do not find that this narrow interpretation of the term independent field of view is supported by the Appellant’s Specification, i.e., independent and overlapping have different meanings. Appeal 2019-006067 Application 12/669,685 6 Examiner that in Figures 4 and 5, the cameras are configured with non- overlapping views which meets the limitation of representative claim 1. Further, these figures show that the cameras are configured to capture a field of view that is independent from the fields of view of the other cameras. Sakai also teaches that each camera’s position and angle can be changed to adjust the image capture region, which can provide overlapping views, as shown in Figure 6, cited by Appellant. Appeal Br. 5–8; Sakai ¶ 56. We do not consider this teaching, in Figure 6, to show that the cameras are not configured to have independent fields of views, as Figure 4 clearly depicts use of such a configuration. Further, we are not persuaded that the cameras are not in locations independent from each other. As discussed above, Appellant’s Specification, does not provide any guidance as to how this limitation is to be interpreted, as such the limitation may be broadly interpreted as the cameras being in a separate housing or being moved independently of each other, both features Sakai teaches. See Sakai, Fig. 3 ¶ 56. Accordingly, Appellant’s arguments directed to the first issue have not persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 and the claims grouped with claim 1. With respect to the second issue, Appellant’s arguments are directed to Jones, and assert that Jones is concerned with using cameras with overlapping fields of view to ensure that there are no gaps in the larger field of view. Appeal Br. 10, Reply Br. 4–6. As such Appellant argues that it would be counterintuitive and non-obvious to modify the system to make the camera locations or the field of views independent as claimed. Appeal Br. 11. Further, Appellant contends, Appeal 2019-006067 Application 12/669,685 7 the entire purpose of the system of Jones is to achieve coverage of a panoramic area by placing sensors adjacent to one another, statically mounting the sensors, and ensuring that the sensors have overlapping fields of view. Separating the sensors of Jones to make them location independent and to remove overlap between fields of view would defeat the entire purpose of the system of Jones. Appeal Br. 11 (emphasis omitted). The Examiner’s rejection finds that the skilled artisan would combine the teachings as it “allows for increased covered area enhancing the experience of the user and increasing the efficiency of a monitoring operation. It is further noted it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art.” Final Act 6–7. Further, the Examiner cites to Sakai paragraph 9 to support the conclusion that it would improve efficiency. On this record, Appellant’s arguments have not persuaded us that the Examiner failed to provide sufficient “articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006). As discussed above, Appellant’s arguments focus on Jones’ teachings of creating a panoramic view from cameras with overlapping fields of view. While this is one of the features of Jones, Jones also teaches that in systems with plural cameras of multiple resolutions, having some of the cameras producing low resolution images reduces the amount of bandwidth needed. See Jones, col. 7, ll. 25–41, col. 15, ll.13–26. It is this bandwidth saving teaching of Jones, which the Examiner is combining with the camera arrangement of Sakai. See, e.g., Final Act. 5–6. As such, we are not persuaded of error by Appellant’s arguments that the combination is counterintuitive and changes the principal Appeal 2019-006067 Application 12/669,685 8 operation of Jones (which are focused on the overlapping image feature of Jones) as these arguments are not applicable to the bandwidth saving features of Jones which the Examiner’s rejection relies upon. Accordingly, Appellant’s arguments have not persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1. Appellant has not presented separate arguments directed to the other claims similarly rejected and thus has grouped claims 8, 10, 12, 19 through 23, and 32 through 38 together with claim 1. As such we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 1, 8, 10, 12, 19 through 23, and 32 through 38. Rejection based upon Jones, Sakai, and Uebbing With respect to this rejection, Appellant argues that the combination of the references do not teach the claim 39 limitation directed to identifying objects of interest in a first field of view and generating two images of the field of view at a first and second resolution. Appeal Br. 11–13. Appellant’s arguments are directed to Uebbing, the reference the Examiner relied upon to teach this limitation, and asserts that the Uebbing’s detection camera (which produces an image at a first resolution) and the tracking cameras (which produce an image at a second resolution) have different fields of view and as such the Uebbing does not teach the disputed limitation. Appeal Br. 13, Reply Br. 7. The Examiner responds to Appellant’s arguments, and finds: In Uebbing, Figure 5 and corresponding descriptive paragraphs 0030-0031, low resolution images of the scene within a detection camera’s field of view are captured. When the motion of an object is detected the location of the motion is identified. Based on said identified location a tracking camera corresponding to said location is operated in order to capture high resolution images (par. 0030-0031). It is noted both the Appeal 2019-006067 Application 12/669,685 9 tracking camera and the detection camera capture images corresponding to a detected location, the area corresponding to the detected location is being interpreted as the field of view. Therefore, Uebbing teaches the limitation “a first image of the field of view at the first resolution and a second image of the field of view at the second resolution”. Ans. 16–17. Appellant’s arguments have not persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 39. Appellant’s Specification contains no discussion of fields of view, how they relate to objects of interest or having different resolution images of the same fields of view. As such Appellant’s Specification provides no guidance as to how to interpret this limitation. Against this lack of disclosure in Appellant’s Specification, we do not find that the Examiner’s interpretation of the field of view as being an “area corresponding to the detected location” is unreasonable, and we concur with the Examiner’s finding that Uebbing teaches or suggests the disputed limitation. Ans. 17. Claim 39 recites that the objects are in the field of view and that the images are of the field of view which supports the Examiner’s interpretation that the field of view is an area corresponding to the object of interest. Appellant’s arguments in the Appeal Brief and the Reply Brief are directed to the field of view of the cameras in Uebbing being different, however, claim 39 does not recite that the field of view is the field of view of the camera, nor does Appellant’s Specification compel such an interpretation. Accordingly, Appellant’s arguments have not persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 39 or claims 40 through 42 similarly rejected and grouped with claim 39. Thus, we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 39 through 42. Other issues Appeal 2019-006067 Application 12/669,685 10 In the event of further prosecution of this application, we leave it to the Examiner to evaluate whether Appellant’s Specification complies with 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) as providing sufficient written description of the invention claimed. The written description requirement serves “to ensure that the inventor had possession, as of the filing date of the application relied on, of the specific subject matter later claimed by him; how the specification accomplishes this is not material.” In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 262 (CCPA 1976) (citation omitted). Specifically, the Examiner is encouraged to consider whether Appellant’s originally filed Specification demonstrates Appellant had possession of a) the claim 1 limitation directed to the multiple resolution cameras being “configured to capture a field of view that is independent of any fields of view captured by other MR cameras in the plurality of MR cameras, and wherein a location of each MR camera is independent of locations of other MR cameras in the plurality of cameras” ; and b) the claim 39 claim limitation directed to the “identify any objects of interest within a field of view (FOV); generate a first image of the FOV at the first resolution and a second image of the FOV at the second resolution in response to identifying any objects of interest within the FOV.” Appeal 2019-006067 Application 12/669,685 11 CONCLUSION In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 8, 10, 12, 19–23, 32–38 103 Jones, Sakai 1, 8, 10, 12, 19–23, 32–38 39–42 103 Jones, Sakai, Uebbing 39–42 Overall Outcome 1, 8, 10, 12, 19–23, 32–42 No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f). AFFIRMED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation