Ex Parte Chrysanthakopoulos

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 28, 2018

13156341 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 28, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/156,341 06/09/2011
69316 7590 03/30/2018
MICROSOFT CORPORATION
ONE MICROSOFT WAY
REDMOND, WA 98052
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Georgios Chrysanthakopoulos
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
332975.01 4877
EXAMINER
PATTON, SPENCERD
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3664
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/30/2018 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):
usdocket@microsoft.com
chriochs@microsoft.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte GEORGIOS CHRYSANTHAKOPOULOS
Appeal2017-000921
Application 13/156,341
Technology Center 3600
Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, KRISTEN L. DROESCH, and
TERRENCE W. McMILLIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
SAADAT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant 1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Non-Final Rejection of claims 1-20, which are all the claims pending in this
application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm-in-part.
1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Microsoft Technology
Licensing, LLC. App. Br. 2.
Appeal2017-000921
Application 13/156,341
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant's invention relates to a systems and methods for performing
localization and navigation within an environment. Spec. i-f 3. Exemplary
claims 1 and 19 under appeal read as follows:
1. A location system, comprising:
a processor configured to implement location modules
for an agent, wherein the modules comprise:
a belief determination module configured to determine a
predicted location from a probabilistic belief associated with an
extent to which the agent is associated with a location
represented on a directed graph, based, at least in part, on a
comparison of a currently collected input image with a plurality
of images associated with the directed graph; and
a comparison module configured to analyze a currently
collected input image having a highest probability of matching
a current location to generate a list of indices representing
features in the currently collected input image, and compare
each of the indices representing features in the currently
collected input image with a dictionary of indices representing
locations in a three dimensional (3D) point cloud to obtain a
metric-accurate location for the agent.
19. One or more computer-readable storage media for
storing computer readable instructions, the computer-readable
instructions providing a location system when executed by one
or more processing devices, the computer-readable instructions
compnsmg:
code configured to receive an input image provided by an
agent within an environment;
code configured to compare the input image with a
plurality of images associated with a directed graph to produce
a probable location for the agent;
code configured to analyze a currently collected input
image correlated with the probable location to generate a list of
2
Appeal2017-000921
Application 13/156,341
indices representing three dimensional (3D) features in the
input image; and
code configured to compare the list of indices from the
currently collected input image with a dictionary of indices to
generate a metric-accurate location, wherein each value in the
list of indices is a single number representing a feature in a 3 D
point cloud and wherein the list of indices comprises a metric
map of the environment.
Claims 19 and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being
directed to patent-ineligible subject matter. See Non-Final Act. 3--4.
Claims 1-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) or 35 U.S.C.
§ 112 (pre-AIA), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written
description requirement. See Non-Final Act. 4---6.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellant's
arguments in the Briefs. For the reasons discussed below, we are not
persuaded by Appellant's arguments that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claims 19 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 101. We adopt as our own, the findings
and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Office Action from which this
appeal is taken (Non-Final Act. 2-3) and in the Examiner's Answer in
response to Appellant's Appeal Brief (Ans. 6-10). However, we reach the
opposite conclusion with respect to the rejection of claims 1-20 under
35 U.S.C. § 112 (pre-AIA), first paragraph. For emphasis, we consider and
highlight specific arguments as presented in the Briefs.
3
Appeal2017-000921
Application 13/156,341
Section 101 Rejection
The broadest reasonable interpretation of claims drawn to computer
readable media generally includes transitory propagating signals. See David
J. Kappos, Subject Matter Eligibility of Computer Readable Media, 1351
Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 212 (Feb. 23, 2010). Under such interpretation,
although claim 19 recites the word "storage," this claim includes transitory
propagating signals and encompasses non-statutory subject matter. See In re
Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1356-57 (Fed. Cir. 2007); Ex parte Mewherter, 726
F.3d 62 (PTAB 2013) (precedential). Further, although Appellant's
Specification describes "computer readable storage" (Spec. i-f 187),
Appellant's description of "computer readable storage media" does not
unambiguously disclaim transitory forms, rather it encompasses media for
transitorily carrying a signal as follows:
Id.
More generally, code and other information can be stored on
any computer readable storage 2912, including, but not limited
to, static memory storage devices, magnetic storage devices,
optical storage devices, and so on. Such computer readable
storage 2912 may include hard drives, flash drives, digital
versatile disks (DVDs), compact disks (CDs), and the like. The
term computer readable storage also encompasses plural storage
devices.
Furthermore, Paragraph 186 of the Specification describes that
system 2900 "may be in communication with an agent 100" and Paragraph
188 describes system 2900 as including "one or more network interface
2922 for exchanging data with other devices via one or more communication
conduits 2924." Because Appellant has not offered a persuasive reason to
depart from the usual presumptions regarding claims drawn to computer
4
Appeal2017-000921
Application 13/156,341
readable media, we agree with the Examiner that claim 19 is directed to non-
statutory subject matter. See Ans. 5-7.
Thus, for the reasons discussed above, we sustain the Examiner's
rejection of representative claim 19, as well as claim 20 not separately
argued, under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Section 112 Rejection
The Examiner finds the term "to analyze a currently collected input
image having a highest probability of matching a current location," as
recited in claim 1, has no support in the Specification. Non-Final Act. 4---6.
The Examiner specifically asserts Paragraph 111 of the Specification
describes "identifying a portion of the 3D point cloud having the highest
probability of matching the current image," but does not provide any
specific description of the claimed feature. Non-Final Act. 5. We disagree.
"[T]he description requirement does not demand any particular form
of disclosure, or that the specification recite the claimed invention in haec
verba." Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1352 (Fed.
Cir. 2010) (en bane) (citation omitted). Rather, "the test for sufficiency is
whether the disclosure of the application relied upon reasonably conveys to
those skilled in the art that the inventor had possession of the claimed
subject matter as of the filing date." Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1351.
Here, as explained by Appellant, the disclosure in Paragraphs 117-
119 of Specification describes a belief determination module and image
similarity scores that assess a degree of similarity between the current input
image and the graph images. App. Br. 12. Appellant further points to
Paragraph 121 of the Specification describing a comparison module 1008
5
Appeal2017-000921
Application 13/156,341
that analyzes the input image or images with the highest probabilities. App.
Br. 13; Reply Br. 3--4. Consistent with Appellant's arguments, we agree
with Appellant that these descriptions would reasonably convey to a person
of ordinary skill in the art that analyzing the output from a probabilistic
calculation, among other things, specify "to analyze the currently collected
input image having a highest probability of matching a current location."
See Reply Br. 3.
Thus, we are persuaded by Appellant's argument that the
Specification provides written description support for the limitation "to
analyze a currently collected input image having a highest probability of
matching a current location," as recited in claim 1 and similarly in other
independent claims, and that the Examiner erred by rejecting the pending
claims under§ 112, first paragraph.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision to reject claims 19 and 20 under
35 U.S.C. § 101.
We reverse the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-20 under
35 U.S.C. § 112.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
6