Ex Parte Garcia et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 8, 2016

13058962 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 8, 2016)

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.
13/058,962 05/06/2011 Frederic Garcia 8527-3004-1 5374
29318 7590 12/09/2016
TA1UFS n NTFVFNN EXAMINER
REISING ETHINGTON P.C. RETALLICK, KAITLIN A
P.O. BOX 4390
TROY, MI 48099 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2482
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/09/2016 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte FREDERIC GARCIA, FREDERIC GRANDIDIER,
BRUNO MIRBACH, ROBERTO ORSELLO, and THOMAS SOLIGNAC
Appeal 2015-002051
Application 13/058,962
Technology Center 2400
Before ERIC S. FRAHM, NATHAN A. ENGELS, and JOHN D.
HAMANN, Administrative Patent Judges.
FRAHM, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2015-002051
Application 13/058,962
STATEMENT OF CASE
Introduction
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejections of claims 16—20, 22—28, and 30-39. Claims 1—15, 21, 26, and 29
have been canceled. Because claim 26 was canceled by After Final
Amendment, only claims 16—20, 22—25, 27, 28, and 30-39 are before us on
appeal. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.
Exemplary Claims
Exemplary independent claim 16 and dependent claim 20 under
appeal, with emphases added, read as follows:
16. Position and orientation calibration method for a
camera system including a 3D time-of-flight camera, said
method comprising:
acquiring a camera-perspective range image of a scene
using said 3D time-of-flight camera;
detecting one or more planes within said range image
and selecting a reference plane among said one or more planes
detected, said selecting of said reference plane
comprising presenting said one or more detected planes using a
user interface and fixing said reference plane based upon user
interaction; and
computing position and orientation parameters of said 3D
time-of-flight camera with respect to said reference plane.
20. The method as claimed in claim 19, wherein said
selection of said reference plane is effected by said camera
based upon and following input of user-defined limits of at least
one of camera roll angle and camera pitch angle with respect
to said floor plane.
The Examiner’s Rejection
The Examiner rejected claims 16—20, 22—25, 27, 28, and 30-39 as
being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combination of Rafii
2
Appeal 2015-002051
Application 13/058,962
(US 7,741,961 Bl; published June 22, 2010 and filed Sept. 28, 2007) and
Palm (US 5,699,444; issued Dec. 16, 1997). Final Act. 3—20; Ans. 2—18.
Principal Issues on Appeal1
Based on Appellants’ arguments in the Appeal Brief (App. Br. 5—8)
and the Reply Brief (Reply Br. 2—7), the following two principal issues are
presented on appeal:
(1) Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 16—19, 22—25, 27, 30-36,
38, and 39 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combination of Rafii and Palm
because the combination fails to teach or suggest the limitations at issue in
representative independent claim 16, namely selecting a reference plane
through user interaction?
(2) Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 20, 28, and 37 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combination of Rafii and Palm because the
combination fails to teach or suggest the limitations at issue in dependent
claims 20, 28, and 37, namely utilizing at least one parameter from amongst
the group consisting of camera roll angle and camera pitch angle with
reference to a floor plane?
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections (Final Act. 3—20; Ans.
2—18) in light of Appellants’ arguments in the Appeal Brief (App. Br. 5—8)
1 Independent claims 24, 32, 35, and 39 (and claims 17—19, 22, 23, 25, 27,
30, 31, 33, 34, 36, 38, and 39 which depend respectively therefrom) contain
the same disputed limitations pertaining to calibration for a 3D time-of-flight
camera including selection of a reference plane through user interaction, and
are argued together as a group by Appellants in the Appeal Brief (App. Br.
5—7). We select claim 16 as representative of the group of claims 16—19,
22-25,27,30-36,38, and 39.
3
Appeal 2015-002051
Application 13/058,962
and the Reply Brief (Reply Br. 2—7) that the Examiner has erred in view of
the Advisory Action mailed May 16, 2014 and the Examiner’s Answer
including the Examiner’s response to Appellants’ arguments (Ans. 9—26).
We disagree with Appellants’ arguments. With respect to representative
claim 16, we adopt as our own (1) the findings and reasons set forth by the
Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken (Final Act. 4—7), as
well as the Advisory Action mailed May 16, 2014, and (2) the reasons set
forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer (Ans. 9—26) in response to
Appellants’ Appeal Brief. We concur with the conclusions reached by the
Examiner.
We note that each reference cited by the Examiner must be read, not
in isolation, but for what it fairly teaches in combination with the prior art as
a whole. See In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986)
(finding one cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references
individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references).
In this light, Appellants’ arguments as to representative independent claim
16 (App. Br. 5) concerning the individual shortcomings in the teachings of
Rafii and Palm are not persuasive, and are not convincing of the non­
obviousness of the claimed invention set forth in representative independent
claim 16.
The Examiner has relied upon the combination of Rafii and Palm as
teaching or suggesting the method of calibrating a 3D time-of-flight camera
as recited in claim 16. We agree with the Examiner (Ans. 4—6) that Rafii
teaches the time-of-flight (see col. 1,11. 23—26 and col. 6,1. 14; see also col.
4,11. 52—55 describing depth analysis using world coordinates) and reference
planes (i.e., road planes 230, 230-1, and 230-2 discussed extensively in cols.
4
Appeal 2015-002051
Application 13/058,962
6, 7, and 10) features of claim 16. We also agree with the Examiner (Ans.
19—20) that Palm (see e.g., col. 15,11. 43 46) teaches the user interaction and
selection features, as well as using triangles in the calculations (see Figs. 3
and 6). Appellants have not shown otherwise. Based on the foregoing,
Appellants’ contentions are not persuasive of Examiner error with regard to
representative claim 16.
With regard to dependent claims 20, 28, and 37 separately argued, we
agree with the Examiner (Ans. 24—26) that the combination of Rafii and
Palm teaches or suggests the subject matter recited in these claims. The
Examiner finds, and we concur, that (i) at least Rafii’s Figure 8A and
columns 6 and 10 teach planes for selection in a time-of-flight camera
system, as well as pitch and roll (see e.g., col. 10,11. 7—21); and (ii) Palm
teaches user selection of points under consideration (see col. 15,11. 43^46).
Additionally, both Rafii (see Figs. 1 A, 3, and 4) and Palm (Figs. 3 and 6;
col. 5,11. 18-40) operate on triangles to determine camera orientation. It
would have been reasonable in view of the aforementioned findings to select
a reference plane according to user-input parameters such as camera roll
angle and/or camera pitch angle, as set forth in claims 20, 28, and 37.
In view of the foregoing, we sustain the rejection of claim 16, as well
as the respective claims 17—19, 22—25, 27, 30-36, 38, and 39 grouped
therewith, under § 103(a) over the combination of Rafii and Palm for the
reasons provided by the Examiner (see e.g.. Final Act. 4—7; Ans. 2—6 and
19-24)(discussing claim 16).
5
Appeal 2015-002051
Application 13/058,962
CONCLUSION OF LAW
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 16—20, 22—25, 27, 28,
and 30—39 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combination of Rafii and Palm
because Appellants’ arguments are not persuasive of Examiner error in
reaching the conclusion of obviousness as to representative claim 16 and/or
dependent claims 20, 28, and 37 separately argued.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claims 16—20, 22—25, 27, 28,
and 30-39.
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). See 37 C.F.R.
§§ 41.50(f), 41.52(b).
AFFIRMED
6