Ex Parte Ma et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 9, 2017

14048513 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 9, 2017)

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.
14/048,513 10/08/2013 Xiang Ma 064359/500774 8380
139885 7590 08/11/2017
HFRF fllnhal/Alstnn fr RirH
EXAMINER
Bank of America Plaza NGUYEN, KIMBINH T
101 South Tryon Street, Suite 4000
Charlotte, NC 28280-4000 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2612
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/11/2017 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):
u sptomail @ alston .com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte XIANG MA, XIN CHEN, and HANG DOU
Appeal 2017-005303
Application 14/048,513
Technology Center 2600
Before ERIC B. CHEN, JEREMY J. CURCURI, and
MICHAEL M. BARRY, Administrative Patent Judges.
CHEN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection of
claims 1—18, 20, and 21. Claim 19 has been cancelled. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm-in-part.
Appeal 2017-005303
Application 14/048,513
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ invention relates to rendering three-dimensional photo
meshes having dynamic content, including detecting a shadow in a three-
dimensional photo mesh, removing the shadow from the three-dimensional
photo mesh to form a modified photo mesh having a shadow-free texture,
simulating a real-time condition in the modified photo mesh, and rendering
an image that shows an effect of the real-time condition. (Abstract.)
Claim 1 is exemplary, with disputed limitation in italics:
1. A method comprising:
detecting, by a processor, a shadow in a three-
dimensional photo mesh including one or more polyhedral
objects and defined according to a photographic image;
removing, by the processor, the shadow from the three-
dimensional photo mesh to form a modified photo mesh having
a shadow-free texture;
receiving data indicative of a real-time weather
condition;
receiving a time stamp for a current time;
simulating, by the processor, the real-time weather
condition in the modified photo mesh to graphically represent
the real-time weather condition;
calculating an artificial shadow based on the time stamp
for the current time; and
rendering, by the processor, an image that shows an
effect of the real-time weather condition and the artificial
shadow.
Claims 1, 4, 5, 14, 20, and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Miyamoto (US 2010/0254595 Al, published Oct. 7,
2010) and Engel et al. (US 2014/0354672 Al, published Dec. 4, 2014).
2
Appeal 2017-005303
Application 14/048,513
Claims 2, 3, 6—13, and 15—18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Miyamoto, Engel, and Morgan et al. (US 8,436,855 Bl,
issued May 7, 2013).1
ANALYSIS
§103 Rejection—Miyamoto and Engel
We are persuaded by Appellants’ arguments (Br. 6—10) that the
combination of Miyamoto and Engel would not have rendered obvious
independent claim 1, which includes the limitation “removing, by the
processor, the shadow from the three-dimensional photo mesh to form a
modified photo mesh having a shadow-free texture.”
The Examiner found that Figure 4 of Miyamoto, a flowchart
illustrating the operation of the graphic recognition device, corresponds to
the limitation “removing, by the processor, the shadow from the three-
dimensional photo mesh to form a modified photo mesh having a shadow-
free texture.” (Final Act. 3; see also Ans. 13—14.) Moreover, the Examiner
found that “Fig. 4 shows the process excluding the image input unit 1 and
the recognition result output unit 7” (Ans. 13) and “Fig. 4 is a flow chart to
exclude the shadow from the 30 photo” {id. at 14). We do not agree with the
Examiner’s findings.
Miyamoto relates to a graphic recognition device, in particular, a
“recognition program [that] recognize graphics without being influenced by
an image shadow area” (Abstract), for example, a “road surface sign may
1 Appellants do not present any substantive arguments with respect to the
rejection of independent claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Thus, any such
arguments are deemed to be waived.
3
Appeal 2017-005303
Application 14/048,513
not be recognized ... if the contrast of one part of the road surface sign is
significantly lowered by the shadow of the own vehicle” (14). Figure 1 of
Miyamoto illustrates a block diagram of a graphic recognition device, which
includes image input unit 1, light source location information acquiring
unit 2, vehicle shape acquiring unit 3, other vehicle shape acquiring unit 4,
shadow area calculating unit 5, shadow/non-shadow area emphasis flag
recognizing unit 6, recognition result output unit 7, and three-dimensional
map database 10. (1 50.) Figure 4 of Miyamoto illustrates a flowchart
showing the operation of the graphic recognition device, in particular, “a
flowchart of the process excluding the image input unit 1 and the recognition
result output unit 7.” (170.) Moreover, with respect to Figure 4, Miyamoto
explains the following:
step SI shows the operation of the light source location
information acquiring unit 2, step S2 and step S3 of the own
vehicle shape acquiring unit 3, step S4 and step S5 of the other
vehicle shape acquiring unit 4, step S6 of the three-dimensional
map database 10, step S7 to step S15 of the shadow area
calculating unit 5, and step S16 to step S21 of the shadow/non­
shadow area emphasis flag recognizing unit 6.
(Id.; see also 71—85.)
Although the Examiner cited to Figure 4 of Miyamoto, which
illustrates steps S1 to S21 for determining shadow areas and setting flags,
Miyamoto is silent with respect to removal of such shadows from an input
image. Additionally, although Miyamoto states that Figure 4 is a “flowchart
of the process excluding the image input unit 1 and the recognition result
output unit 7” (170), the term “excluding” is used in the context that image
input unit 1 and recognition result output unit 7 are not shown in Figure 4,
rather than omitting both input unit 1 and recognition result output unit 7
4
Appeal 2017-005303
Application 14/048,513
from the graphic recognition device of Figure 1. Even if the Examiner’s
findings with respect to “excluding” is correct, the Examiner has not
provided any explanation of how the omission of input unit 1 and
recognition result output unit 7 would result in the removal of shadows.
Thus, on this record, the Examiner has not shown that Miyamoto
teaches the limitation “removing, by the processor, the shadow from the
three-dimensional photo mesh to form a modified photo mesh having a
shadow-free texture.” In addition, Engel does not cure the above noted
deficiencies of Miyamoto.
Accordingly, we are persuaded by Appellants’ arguments that
“Miyamoto’s shadow recognizing algorithm, and the resulting score, does
not remove any shadows from the three-dimensional coordinate data or two-
dimensional coordinate data” (Br. 9) and “[t]he Examiner is relying on a
specific statement of Miyamoto that reads ‘FIG. 4 shows a flowchart of the
process excluding the image input unit 1 and the recognition result output
unit 7’” (id.) but “[t]he ‘excluding’ in Miyamoto is not related to removing a
shadow” (id. at 10).
Thus, we do not agree with the Examiner’s findings and reasons for
how the combination of Miyamoto and Engel would have rendered obvious
independent claim 1, which includes the limitation “removing, by the
processor, the shadow from the three-dimensional photo mesh to form a
modified photo mesh having a shadow-free texture.”
Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of independent claim 1
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Claims 4, 5, and 21 depend from claim 1 and
stand rejected over Miyamoto and Engel and, therefore, we do not sustain
5
Appeal 2017-005303
Application 14/048,513
the rejection of claims 4, 5, and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), for the same
reasons discussed with respect to independent claim 1.
Independent claims 14 and 20 recite limitations for removing a
shadow similar to those discussed with respect to independent claim 1 and
also stand rejected over Miyamoto and Engel. Appellant argues the
Examiner erred in the rejection of claims 14 and 20 for the same reasons as
for claim 1. (App. Br. 11—14.) We agree and do not sustain the rejection of
claims 14 and 20 for the same reasons discussed with respect to claim 1.
§103 Rejection—Miyamoto, Engel, and Morgan
Claims 2, 3, 6—13, and 15—18 depend from independent claims 1 and
14. Morgan was cited by the Examiner for teaching the additional features
of claims 2, 3, 6—13, and 15—18. (Ans. 6—12.) However, the Examiner’s
application of Morgan does not cure the above noted deficiencies of
Miyamoto and Engel. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of
claims 2, 3, 6—13, and 15—18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claim 10 is affirmed.
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—9, 11—18, 20, and 21 is
reversed.
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