Ex Parte Myokan et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 2, 2017

14044065 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 2, 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. 1946-0552 3488 EXAMINER ITSKOVICH, MIKHAIL ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2483 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 14/044,065 10/02/2013 60803 7590 08/02/2017 Paratus Law Group, PLLC 1765 Greensboro Station Place Suite 320 Tysons Corner, VA 22102 Yoshihiro MYOKAN 08/02/2017 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 YOSHIHIRO MYOKAN, HIDEKI OYAIZU, NODOKA TOKUNGA, AKIO OHBA, and HIROYUKI SEGAWA Appeal 2017-0047871 Application 14/044,065 Technology Center 2400 Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, NORMAN H. BEAMER, and ADAM J. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judges. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 1—13. App. Br. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 Appellants identify Sony Corporation and Sony Computer Entertainment Inc. as the real parties in interest. See App. Br. 3. Appeal 2017-004787 Application 14/044,065 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants’ disclosure relates to the “calibration of multiple cameras, which take stereo images, at high accuracy in a small space.” Spec. 1:13— 14. Claims 1 and 7—9 are independent. Claim 1 is reproduced below for reference (with emphasis added): 1. An image processing apparatus comprising: a plurality of imaging units included in a stereo camera, the plurality of imaging units being configured to image a first chart pattern including a pattern that is a plurality of feature points and a mirror surface; and a correction parameter calculation unit configured to calculate a correction parameter that corrects a gap of the plurality of imaging units, based on the pattern included in the first chart pattern imaged by the plurality of imaging units and a pattern mirrored in the mirror surface, wherein the plurality of imaging unit and the correction parameter calculation unit are each implemented via at least one processor. The Examiner’s Rejections R1: Claims 1—6 and 9-13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite. Final Act. 5—6. R2: Claims 1—13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Zhang et al., “A flexible new technique for camera calibration,” IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, pp. 1330—1334 (2000), R. Tsai, “A Versatile Camera Calibration Technique for High-Accuracy 3D Machine Vision Metrology Using Off-the-shelf TV Cameras and Lenses,” IEEE Journal of Robotics and Automation, Vol. RA-3, No. 4 (August 1987), and Yasuyuki (JP 2006- 250889; Sept. 9, 2006) (collectively, “Applicant Admitted Prior Art,” or 2 Appeal 2017-004787 Application 14/044,065 “AAPA”), in view of Beardsley (US 2009/0297020 Al; Dec. 3, 2009). Final Act. 10. ANALYSIS A. Rejection Rl: Indefiniteness The Examiner finds the claimed “imaging units” and “correction parameter calculation unit” invoke the means plus function requirements of 35U.S.C. §112, sixth paragraph. Final Act. 6. The Examiner further finds “the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for each claimed function.” Id. Regarding the claimed “processor,” the Examiner finds “an informative use of at least one processor does not limit the claimed apparatus to a particular structure, and thus it is suggestive rather than limiting.” Ans. 13. Appellants argue the Examiner erred, because a “processor” is clearly a structural element, the “at least one processor” should indisputably be proper recitation of sufficient structure (i.e., not an optional element or a mere “suggestion”) to perform functions of the recited “unit” or “units,” and thereby 35 U.S.C. §112(f) should not apply. App. Br. 13. Although we agree with the Examiner’s finding that the claimed units invoke an analysis under 35 U.S.C. §112, sixth paragraph, we do not agree with the remainder of the Examiner’s findings. Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph, the terms “unit” and “units” in claim 1 are analogous to the term “module” and other generic terms referred to as “nonce” words that can substitute for “means” in the context of §112, sixth paragraph. See Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Here, there is no evidence that the “unit” terms recited in the claim have 3 Appeal 2017-004787 Application 14/044,065 sufficiently definite meaning as the names for structures. See id. at 1348. Although there is a rebuttable presumption that a claim term lacking the word “means” does not invoke § 112, sixth paragraph, the presumption is overcome here because the claim terms fail to recite sufficiently definite structure for performing the functions recited in the claim. See id. (citing Watts v. XL Sys., Inc., 232 F.3d 877, 880 (Fed. Cir. 2000)). Thus, we find the disputed limitations invoke 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph. We further find, however, that the Specification provides sufficient details on the structure of these limitations that the claims are not indefinite pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §112, second paragraph. Regarding the claimed “imaging units,” Appellants’ disclosure states that “[t]he stereo camera 11 includes the imaging units 21-1 and 21-2 and a parameter storage unit 61. The imaging units 21-1 and 21-2 include imaging elements such as a CCD (Charge Coupled Device) and CMOS (Complementary Metal Oxide Semiconductor).” Spec. 9:8—11. We find the disclosure provides sufficient structure for one of ordinary skill art to understand the meaning of “imaging units.” Regarding the claimed “correction parameter calculation unit,” Appellants’ disclosure expresses the related structure as an algorithm with a combination of prose, mathematical formulas, and at least one flow chart. See, e.g., Spec. 14:13—19:18, Fig. 6 (describing mathematical formulas and steps performed by “parameter estimation unit 102” to estimate “correction parameters”). Such description provides structure for the claimed limitations. See Aristocrat Techs. Austl. PtyLtd. v. Int’l Game Tech., 521 F.3d 1328, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2008); see also Noah Systems, Inc. v. Intuit, Inc., 675 F.3d 1302, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“In cases . . . involving a special 4 Appeal 2017-004787 Application 14/044,065 purpose computer-implemented means-plus-fimction limitation, . . . [w]e require that the specification ‘disclose an algorithm for performing the claimed function.’”). Thus, under a 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth-paragraph analysis, we find the disclosure provides sufficient structure for one of ordinary skill art to understand the meaning of “correction parameter calculation unit.” Accordingly, we do not sustain the indefmiteness rejection of independent claims 1 and 9, and claims 2—6 and 10-13 dependent therefrom. B. Rejection R2: Obviousness Appellants argue the Examiner erred, because Beardsley taken in combination with AAPA also fails to teach, suggest, or render obvious, a calculation of a correction parameter, such calculation beins based on both a pattern included in a first chart pattern imaged by a plurality of imaging units and also based on a pattern mirrored in a mirror surface, the mirror surface beins included within the first chart pattern. App. Br. 18. Appellants contend “[t]he planar mirror that is placed near the camera in the photographing set up as taught by the combined teachings of AAPA in view of Beardsley is clearly not mirroring any pattern that is included in a first chart pattern imaged by the AAPA’s multiple cameras.” App. 17-18. We are persuaded by Appellants’ arguments. The Examiner finds Beardsley teaches “the context of 3D imager calibration using a marked calibration object as in the AAPA.” Ans. 11, citing Beardsley 138. The complete sentence cited by the Examiner states “[w]e determine the 3D positions of the LEDs 125 by placing a planar mirror, augmented with 5 Appeal 2017-004787 Application 14/044,065 calibration marks near the camera.” Beardsley 138. From this sentence it is unclear whether the “calibration marks” are on the planar mirror or are merely “near the camera.” In any event, we disagree with the Examiner that this portion of Beardsley teaches 3D imager calibration; rather, Beardsley teaches a calibration of light emitting diodes (LEDs) using a mirror, with the LEDs positioned with respect to a camera and its subject. AAPA, furthermore, does not teach or suggest calibrating a camera using two patterns, with one pattern mirrored in a mirror surface. See Final Act. 11. Thus, the Examiner has not shown how to combine the teachings of Beardsley and the AAPA to arrive at the recited “correction parameter calculation unit configured to calculate a correction parameter . . . based on the pattern included in the first chart pattern imaged by the plurality of imaging units and a pattern mirrored in the mirror surface.” Accordingly, we are persuaded the cited references do not teach or suggest the limitations recited by independent claim 1. Independent claims 7—9 recite similar limitations which we find are not taught or suggested by the cited references. Thus, we do not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of independent claims 1 and 7—9, and claims 2—6 and 10-13 dependent therefrom. DECISION The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—13 is reversed. REVERSED 6