Ex Parte Muto et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 16, 2016

13423514 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 16, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/423,514 03/19/2012 27572 7590 02/18/2016 HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, PLC P.O. BOX 828 BLOOMFIELD HILLS, MI 48303 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR KenjiMuto 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. 40411-001065/US/DVB 7563 EXAMINER TORRENTE, RICHARDT ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2485 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/18/2016 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): troydocketing@hdp.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte KENJI MUTO, KAZUOKI MATSUGATANI, and JUN KOSAI Appeal2014-003650 Application 13/423,514 Technology Center 2400 Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, JOHNNY A. KUMAR, and JON M. JURGOV AN, Administrative Patent Judges. JURGOV AN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants 1 filed this appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from the Examiner's Final Rejection of claim 21, the only claim pending in the Application. App. Br. 1. Claims 1-20 have been cancelled. Id. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). We reverse. 2 1 Appellants identify Denso Corp. as the real party in interest. App. Br. 1. 2 Our Decision refers to the Specification filed Mar. 19, 2012 ("Spec."); the Appeal Brief filed Oct. 11, 2013 ("App. Br."); the Examiner's Answer mailed Nov. 20, 2013 ("Ans."); and the Reply Brief filed Jan. 10, 2014 ("Reply Br."). Appeal2014-003650 Application 13/423,514 STATEivIENT OF THE CASE The claim is directed to delivering images of a vehicle's surroundings. Spec. 1, 11. 15-18. Claim 21 is reproduced below, with the disputed limitation in italics: 21. An image server comprising: a first storing medium for storing a picked image of surroundings of a vehicle, and image pickup information associated with the picked image, the picked image being inputted from the vehicle and picked up with a camera mounted on the vehicle, the vehicle including a speed sensor to provide a running speed of the vehicle during running; and means for delivering a picked image stored on the first storing medium to an image display terminal that displays a received picked image, while causing the first storing medium to store an inputted picked image and image pickup information of the inputted picked image, wherein: the image pickup information includes information about an image pickup point at which the inputted picked image was picked up; and the delivering means causes the first storing medium to store one image selected from among the inputted picked images with respect to each of segments of zones to which the image pickup points of the inputted picked images belong based on the image pickup information and a predetermined selection condition, wherein: the image pickup information further includes a running speed provided by the speed sensor of the vehicle when the inputted picked image was picked up in the vehicle; and the selection condition is such that the inputted picked image picked up when the running speed of the vehicle during the running was slowest in the segment is preferentially selected. 2 Appeal2014-003650 Application 13/423,514 REJECTION Claim 21 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) over Shintani et al. (US 2003/0212567 Al; Nov. 13, 2003) ("Shintani") and Nozaki et al. (US 2003/0193610 Al; Oct. 16, 2003) ("Nozaki"). Ans. 2--4. ANALYSIS Issue: Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Shintani and Nozaki teaches selecting an image when the running speed of the vehicle was slowest in the segment, as required by claim 21? The Examiner finds Shintani teaches selecting an image, which is acquired from a camera mounted on a vehicle and includes vehicle running speed information, in accordance with a predetermined selection rule. Ans. 2-3. The Examiner further finds Nozaki teaches selecting an image based on the smallest amount of blur, and thus selecting the image with the lowest "speed" or movement of the camera. Ans. 3 and 6. The Examiner concludes the combination of Shintani and N ozaki results in selecting an image with the lowest movement (i.e., least blur) in all 3-dimensional directions, which teaches picking an image when the running speed of the vehicle during the running was slowest. Ans. 5-7. Appellants contend the combination of Shintani and Nozaki does not teach selecting an image associated with the slowest vehicle running speed because vehicle speed would not be the only movement of the camera that causes blur. App. Br. 9-10; Reply Br. 2-3. Appellants argue any movement, such as vibration of the camera or angular speed of the object being photographed, will cause blurring, and therefore blur is not necessarily related to vehicle speed. Id. Appellants contend the combination ofNozaki with Shintani would only ensure the image with the least blurring would be 3 Appeal2014-003650 Application 13/423,514 selected, and does not teach the preferential selection of the image taken when the speed of the vehicle is the slowest. Id. We agree with Appellants' contentions. The combination of Shintani and Nozaki would merely result in a vehicle with a camera mounted on it that corrects image blur in the horizontal and vertical directions. See Nozaki i-fi-196-101 (discussion of blur detection). The Examiner has not identified, nor do we find, any teaching in Shintani or Nozaki that an image is selected based on the slowest running speed of a vehicle. Thus, because we are persuaded by Appellants' arguments, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection. DECISION The Examiner's rejection of claim 21 is reversed. REVERSED kme 4