Benjamin Hendricks

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardOct 22, 2019

13756097 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Oct. 22, 2019)

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. 13/756,097 01/31/2013 Benjamin Hendricks 201104392.02 6862 51518 7590 10/22/2019 MAYER & WILLIAMS PC 55 Madison Avenue Suite 400 Morristown, NJ 07960 EXAMINER KWON, YONG JOON ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2486 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 10/22/2019 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): docket@mwpatentlaw.com kwilliams@mwpatentlaw.com mwolf@mwpatentlaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE _____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD _____________ Ex parte BENJAMIN HENDRICKS1 _____________ Appeal 2018-008895 Application 13/756,097 Technology Center 2400 ______________ Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, DENISE M. POTHIER, and BETH Z. SHAW, Administrative Patent Judges. NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Final Rejection of claims 1, 6 through 9 and 18 through 21. 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 party in interest as Sony Pictures Technologies. App. Br. 2 Appeal 2018-008895 Application 13/756,097 2 INVENTION The invention is directed to a method to correct for rotational differences in images between stereo cameras. Spec. ¶ 26. Claim 1 is illustrative of the invention and is reproduced below: 1. A method for correcting stereo images, comprising: receiving a first set of images from a first physical camera, and from the first set of images determining a position and orientation of the first camera; receiving a second set of images from a second physical camera, and from the second set of images determining a position and orientation of the second camera; providing a first virtual camera and a second virtual camera, the first virtual camera having a location and orientation coincident with the first physical camera, and the second virtual camera having a location and orientation coincident with the second physical camera; determining a perspective shift between the first physical camera and the second physical camera based on the position of the first camera, the orientation of the first camera, the position of the second camera, and the orientation of the second camera; performing a homographic transformation to adjust the orientation of the first or second virtual camera based on the determined perspective shift; and performing an equivalent homographic transformation on the second set of images based at least in part on the determined perspective shift, such that differences in images caused by misalignment of the second physical camera relative to the first physical camera are corrected. Appeal 2018-008895 Application 13/756,097 3 REJECTIONS AT ISSUE The Examiner has rejected claims 1, 6 through 9 and 18 through 212 under 35 U.S.C. § 112 (a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. Final Act. 7–9.3 The Examiner has rejected claims 1, 6, 7, 9, and 19 through 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Tytgat (US 2012/0007943 A1, published Jan. 12, 2012), and Levin (US 8,564,641 B1, issued Oct. 22, 2013). Final Act. 10–14. The Examiner has rejected claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Tytgat, Levin, and Chen (US 8,194,993 B1, issued June 5, 2012). Final Act 14–15. The Examiner has rejected claim 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Tytgat, Levin, Chen, and Liu (US 7,327,899 B2, issued Feb. 5, 2008). Final Act. 15. The Examiner has rejected claim 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Tytgat, Levin, and Sambongi (US 2006/0222260 A1, published Oct. 5, 2006). Final Act. 15. 2 The Examiner mistakenly included claim 22, which does not exist, in the rejection’s heading. Final Act. 7. 3 Throughout this Opinion, we refer to the Appeal Brief, filed March 12, 2018 (“App. Br.”), the Reply Brief, Filed September 17, 2018 (Reply Br.); the Examiner’s Answer, mailed July 17, 2018 (“Answer”), and the Final Office Action, mailed September 12, 2017 (“Final Act.”). Appeal 2018-008895 Application 13/756,097 4 ANALYSIS We have reviewed Appellant’s arguments in the Briefs, the Examiner’s rejections, and the Examiner’s response to Appellant’s arguments. Appellant’s arguments have persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1, 6 through 9 and 18 through 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a), but have not persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1, 6 through 9 and 18 through 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) The Examiner rejected claim 1 as not complying with the written description requirement as: the specification does not indicate that the inventors had possession of the details of particular software or instructions that would implement “receiving a first set of images from a first physical camera, and from the first set of images determining a position and orientation of the first camera” and “receiving a second set of images from a second physical camera, and from the second set of images determining a position and orientation of the second camera”. Final Act. 7–8. Further, the Examiner states that the Specification does not demonstrate Appellant had possession of the details concerning un-warping and re-warping. Id.4 Appellant argues that the written description rejection is in error as the disputed limitations are recited in the originally filed claims. App. Br. 5, Reply Br. 5. Further, Appellant argues that the Specification discusses 4 We note that the Examiner withdrew the written description rejection as to the limitations concerning perspective shift, homograph transformations, and equivalent homographic transformations. Answer 2. Appeal 2018-008895 Application 13/756,097 5 determining positons and orientation of the camera from images through the use of match moving techniques. App. Br. 5–11 (citing Spec. ¶ ¶ 12, 28, and 38), Reply Br. Appellant asserts that the match move technique is a known technique to obtain camera position and orientation. App. Br. 9–10, Reply Br. 2–5. To support this assertion, Appellant points out that Levin, a reference used in the obviousness rejections, teaches using match moving for the purpose of determining position and orientation information of cameras. Reply Br. 4–5. The Examiner responds to Appellant’s arguments stating that the Specification does not proved an adequate written description of match moving and Appellant has provided insufficient evidence to show match moving is well known. Answer 3–4. Thus, the Examiner considers there to be insufficient written description to demonstrate Appellant possessed the claimed invention. Answer 5–7. Further, with respect to the limitation directed to un-warping and re-warping, the Examiner states that the Specification merely discloses using the steps of un-warping and re-warping but does not provide a written description. Answer 7. We agree with the Appellant that the Specification, which includes the originally filed claims, demonstrates Appellant possessed the claimed invention. 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). As argued by Appellant, the originally filed claims, e.g., claim 5, recite determining the position of the cameras by using the match Appeal 2018-008895 Application 13/756,097 6 moving technique. Further, as identified by Appellant, the originally filed Specification (¶¶12, 15, 28, and 38) discusses using match moving for the purpose of determining position and orientation information of cameras from images. Additionally, we find that Levin demonstrates that match making is a known technique for determining camera position from images to those having ordinary skill in the art. See Levin, Col. 4, ll. 21–28. Thus, the discussion of using match making in Appellant’s Specification would convey reasonably to the skilled artisan that Appellant possessed the claim limitations directed to determining positions and orientations of the camera from images as claim 1 recites. Accordingly, we find the originally filed Specification demonstrates that Appellant possessed using the known technique in the claimed method. With respect to the recitation directed to un-warping and re-warping (in appealed claims 8 and 18), these limitations were recited in Appellant’s originally filed claim 8 and discussed in Appellant’s Specification, see e.g., ¶¶. 18, 29, and 36. . Thus, we find the originally filed Specification demonstrates that Appellant possessed using the known techniques in the claimed method. Accordingly, we are persuaded of error, and do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 6 through 9 and 18 through 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. Appeal 2018-008895 Application 13/756,097 7 Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 Claim 1 Appellant argues that the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 is in error on pages 13 through 16 of the Appeal Brief. Appellant argues that Tytgat does not teach a) providing first and second virtual cameras having locations and orientations coincident with their respective physical cameras; b) determining a perspective shift between the two physical cameras based upon determined positions; and c) performing a homograph shift based upon determined perspective shift. App. Br. 12–13. Further, Appellant argues that Levin does not teach performing a homographic transformation to adjust the orientation of the virtual cameras based upon the determined perspective shift or performing equivalent homographic transformation on a set of images. App. Br. 14 (citing Final Act. 4, and Levin, col. 4, l. 48 – col. 5 l. 23). Appellant argues that Levin is concerned with adjusting physical cameras and does not perform a transformation on a set of images. App. Br. 16, Reply Br. 6. Finally, Appellant argues that the Examiner’s rationale to combine the references is conclusory. App. Br. 17, Reply Br. 6–7.5 The Examiner responds to Appellant’s arguments, identifying that the arguments directed to the teachings of Tytgat are not persuasive because 5 We note for the first time in the Reply Brief, that Appellant also argues the Examiner’s rationale to combine is in error as Tytgat is mutually exclusive with Levin and the combination would “eviscerate the very point of Tytgat.” Reply Br. 7. These new arguments in the Reply Brief could have been presented in the Appeal Brief, are not prompted by the Examiner’s Answer, and are not based on any new arguments or grounds of rejection in the Examiner’s Answer. As a result, Appellant has waived such untimely arguments because Appellant has not shown good cause for belatedly raising the new argument. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.41(b)(2). We have not considered these waived arguments. Appeal 2018-008895 Application 13/756,097 8 Levin was relied upon for teaching the first and second virtual cameras, determining the perspective shift, and performing the homographic shift. Answer 8. Further, in response to Appellant’s arguments directed to Levin, the Examiner states: Levin teaches adjusting stereo images by creating left and right images in a 3D virtual setting based on real left and right cameras (Col.4 lines 50-60). Then the virtual cameras are transformed by homographic transformation, including camera tilt, roll, zoom, and pan (Levin: Col.12 liens 27-36), based on interocular distance between two cameras to correct discrepancies between the actual and recorded settings (Levin: Col.4 lines 61-67 to Col.5 lines 1-5). Then the updated virtual camera settings can be used to modify the settings for the physical stereoscopic camera (Levin: Col.12 lines 37-44). Levin adjusts virtual camera's tilt, roll, zoom and pan, i.e. homographic transformation, based on interocular distance, i.e. perspective shift, between real cameras. Answer 8. We concur with the Examiner and similarly find Appellant’s arguments concerning Tytgat are not persuasive of error. The Examiner’s rejection relied upon Tytgat to teach the limitation of receiving images from a first and second camera to determine relative position and orientation of the cameras from the images and not for the limitations argued by Appellant. Final Act. 10. We additionally note that Appellant’s arguments, when addressing the lack of written description rejection, identify that Levin’s “Matchmoving” also teaches the feature of determining a camera position from a series of images. See, e.g., Reply Br. 4–5. Appeal 2018-008895 Application 13/756,097 9 Further, Appellant’s arguments directed to Levin are not persuasive of error. Initially, we note that Appellant’s arguments only addressed the Examiner’s finding concerning columns 4–5 of Levin and not the teachings in column 12 of Levin. We concur that the cited portions of Levin teach adjusting the orientation of the first and second virtual cameras. See Levin, col. 5, ll. 8–12. While we concur with Appellant that Levin teaches the physical cameras are adjusted based upon the modified settings from the adjusted virtual cameras (see id., e.g., col. 12, ll. 38–40), we also find that Levin teaches in other embodiments the images from the actual cameras are transformed based upon the modified settings from the adjusted virtual cameras (see id., e.g., col. 12, ll. 40–44 and col. 8, ll. 42–43, 52–58). Further, we are not persuaded of error by Appellant’s argument concerning the Examiner’s rationale to combine the Tytgat and Levin. In KSR, the Supreme Court stated that “there must be some articulated reasoning with [a] rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). Here, the Examiner has provide a reasoned rationale based upon the teaching of the references. Final Act. 12 (citing Levin, Abstract and discussing reducing discrepancies). We have reviewed this rationale and the evidence cited to support and consider the Examiner to have provide an adequate rationale. That the rationale only cites to Levin is not persuasive of error because the rejection addresses the teaching of both references, and as discussed above, the Examiner relied upon Tytgat to teach determining the positions of two Appeal 2018-008895 Application 13/756,097 10 cameras from images, a feature with Appellant admitted is also taught by Levin. As Appellant’s arguments have not persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1, we sustain the rejection of claim 1, and claims 6, 7, 9, and 19 through 20, which are similarly rejected and not separately argued. Claims 8 and 21 Appellant has not presented arguments directed to the rejections of these claims other than they are similarly in allowable condition. App. Br. 16. As Appellant has not persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1, we sustain the Examiner’s rejections of claims 8 and 21 for the same reasons. Claim 18 Appellant argues that the Examiner’s rejection of claim 18 is in error as the combination of Tytgat, Levin, Chen, and Liu do not teach “warping [of the image] is in any way related to preserving natural characteristics of original photography.” App. Br. 16. The Examiner responds to Appellant’s arguments stating: Appellant does not explicitly disclose what preserving natural characteristics of original photography entails. Examiner interprets the limitation to be read by Liu because the main purpose of warping and stitching images is to create a panoramic image that preserves the natural characteristic of original image, alleviating distortion and perception problems associated with warped images (Liu: col.1 lines 17-22). Answer 10. We are not persuaded of error in the Examiner’s rejection. Claim 18 recites re-warping images “whereby natural characteristics Appeal 2018-008895 Application 13/756,097 11 of original photography are preserved.” Appellant has not identified a definition or description in the Specification of what constitutes the “natural characteristics” of a photograph that are being preserved. In the absence of any specific definition or description, we find the Examiner’s interpretation of Liu’s teaching as preserving the natural characterizes of the original image is reasonable. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 18. Other issues Appellant argues on page 18 of the Appeal Brief that this application should be afforded the benefit of the filing date of the provisional application 61/667,135. We note the prior art cited in the obviousness rejections all pre-date the filing date of the provisional application. Thus, we do not reach this issue because it is not pertinent to deciding the appealed obviousness rejections. CONCLUSION The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 6 through 9 and 18 through 21 is affirmed. Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 6–9, 18–21 112 (a) Written Description 1, 6–9, 18–21 1, 6, 7, 9, 19– 20 103(a) Tytgat, Levin 1, 6, 7, 9, 19– 20 8 103(a) Tytgat, Levin, Chen 8 Appeal 2018-008895 Application 13/756,097 12 Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 18 103(a) Tytgat, Levin, Chen, Liu 18 21 103(a) Tytgat, Levin, Sambongi 21 Outcome 1, 6–9, 18–21 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). AFFIRMED