Ex Parte EibyeDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 24, 201411757586 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 24, 2014) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation