Ex Parte Eibye

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 24, 2014

11757586 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 24, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte ANDERS BERTRAM EIBYE
____________

Appeal 2012-001356
Application 11/757,586
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, JAMES R. HUGHES, and
ERIC S. FRAHM, Administrative Patent Judges.

HUGHES, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner’s final decision rejecting claims 1–3, 5–7, 9–18, and 20. Claims
4, 8, and 19 have been canceled. (App. Br. 5.)1 We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

1 We refer to Appellant’s Specification (“Spec.”) and Appeal Brief (“App.
Br.”) filed February 8, 2011. We also refer to the Examiner’s Answer
(“Ans.”) mailed July 21, 2011.
Appeal 2012-001356
Application 11/757,586

2

Appellant’s Invention
The invention at issue on appeal concerns portable devices and
methods for capturing images, identifying objects therein, outputting and
displaying a description (first text string) of the identified objects in a native
language (associated with a user), translating the description into a different
(foreign) language (second text string), and displaying the translated
description. (Spec. ¶¶ 2–22; Abstract.)
Representative Claim
Independent claim 1, reproduced below with the key disputed
limitations emphasized, further illustrates the invention:
1. A portable device, comprising:
a camera to capture a picture or a video;
object recognition logic to:
identify a type of a target object within the picture
or the video captured by the camera,
identify the target object corresponding to the
identified type of the target object, and
output a first string corresponding to a term,
descriptive of the identified target object, in a language
associated with a user of the portable device;
translation logic to translate the first string to a second
string, corresponding to the term, in another language; and
a display to display the first string, to allow the user to
confirm that the term is accurate with respect to the identified
target object, together with the second string.

Appeal 2012-001356
Application 11/757,586

3

Rejection on Appeal
The Examiner rejects claims 1–3, 5–7, 9–18, and 20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent App. Pub. No.
2003/0164819 A1, published Sept. 4, 2003 (“Waibel”).

ISSUE
Based upon our review of the administrative record, Appellant’s
contentions, and the Examiner’s findings and conclusions, the pivotal issue
before us follows:
Does the Examiner err in concluding that Waibel would have taught
or suggested “output[ing] a first string corresponding to a term, descriptive
of the identified target object, in a language associated with a user,”
“translat[ing] the first string to a second string, corresponding to the term, in
another language,” and “display[ing] the first string, to allow the user to
confirm that the term is accurate with respect to the identified target object,
together with the second string” within the meaning of Appellant’s claim 1
and the commensurate limitations of claims 5, 11, and 20?

ANALYSIS
The Examiner rejects independent claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being obvious in view of Waibel. (Ans. 4–6, 19–24.) Appellant contends
that Waibel does not teach the disputed features of claim 1. (App. Br. 11–
21.) Specifically, Appellant contends that “[a]t best, [the cited portions] of
WAIBEL disclose[ ] that text (in an original language) identified in an
object (e.g., a sign) is translated into text in the user’s native language.”
(App. Br. 14.) Appellant further contends that:
Appeal 2012-001356
Application 11/757,586

4

WAIBEL does not mention displaying two different strings, in
two different languages, let alone, a display to display a first
string, that corresponds to a term descriptive of an identified
target object, in a language associated with a user of a portable
device together with a second string, that corresponds to the
term descriptive of the identified target object, in another
language.
(App. Br. 14.)
We agree with Appellant that the portions of Waibel identified by the
Examiner do not disclose the disputed features of independent claim 1.
(App. Br. 11–21.) As pointed out by Appellant, Waibel does not teach two
text strings in two different languages. (App. Br. 14.) Instead Waibel
describes identifying an object, such as a sign, identifying a region within
the object containing characters, presenting the region to a user for
confirmation, translating the characters in the confirmed/selected region, and
displays the object with translated characters. (Waibel, ¶¶ 28, 34–40, 48–
50.) Alternately, in a different embodiment, Waibel describes identifying an
object and providing information concerning the identified object. (Waibel,
¶¶ 57, 60, 62, 74, 80, 82, 83.)
In the first instance/embodiment, Waibel does not disclose/teach a
first text string. Even if we were to interpret a displayed region for
confirmation by a user (extracted region with characters) as text, this text is
not a description of the object in “a language associated with a user” — i.e.,
the user’s native language. Rather, the characters/text are part of the object
in a foreign language (thus, the need for translation). In the second
instance/embodiment, Waibel does not disclose a second text string in a
second (foreign) language. The Examiner has not sufficiently explained
how the different embodiments disclosed by Waibel could be combined.
Appeal 2012-001356
Application 11/757,586

5

Accordingly, we cannot agree that Waibel (or a modified version of Waibel)
teaches displaying a first string that corresponds to a description of an
object, in a native language associated with a user, together with a second
string corresponding to a translated description of the object in a different
(foreign) language as required by claim 1.
Consequently, we are constrained by the record before us to find that
the Examiner erred in concluding the Waibel teaches the recited features of
Appellant’s claim 1. Appellant’s independent claims 5, 11, and 20 include
limitations of commensurate scope. Appellant’s dependent claims 2, 3, 6, 7,
9, 10, and 12–18 depend on and stand with claims 1, 5, 11, and 20
respectively. Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s obviousness rejection
of claims 1–3, 5–7, 9–18, and 20.

CONCLUSION
Appellant has shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1–3,
5–7, 9–18, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–3, 5–7, 9–18, and 20.

REVERSED

tj