Ex Parte SCHLOTER

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 27, 2017

14106391 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 27, 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.
14/106,391 01/15/2014 Philipp SCHLOTER P3177US01 8546
11764 7590
Ditthavong & Steiner, P.C.
44 Canal Center Plaza
Suite 322
Alexandria, VA 22314
EXAMINER
TRUONG, CAM Y T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2169
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/31/2017 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):
docket@dcpatent.com
Nokia. IPR @ nokia. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte PHILIPP SCHLOTER
Appeal 2016-002739
Application 14/106,3911
Technology Center 2100
Before ERIC S. FRAHM, NORMAN H. BEAMER, and
JAMES W. DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judges.
DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1—20. We have jurisdiction over the pending claims under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We reverse.
1 Appellant identifies Nokia Corporation as the real party in interest. App.
Br. 1.
Appeal 2016-002739
Application 14/106,391
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellant’s claimed invention is directed to “establishing] standard
real world to virtual world links in a search system such as a visual search
system.” Spec. 19. In a disclosed embodiment, a mobile terminal
comprising a media capturing element (e.g., a camera) is used to capture an
image within the field of view of the camera. Spec. 126. Additionally, the
mobile terminal further comprises a positioning sensor configured to locate
the device and locating points of interest in images captured by the media
capturing element. Spec. 127.
Claim 1 is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal and is
reproduced below with the disputed limitation emphasized in italics'.
1. A method comprising:
determining at least one point of interest based, at least in part,
on position information of at least one mobile terminal;
causing, at least in part, a presentation of the at least one point
of interest in an image of a field of view of the at least one mobile
terminal',
determining an input for selecting the at least one point of
interest; and
causing, at least in part, a generation of at least one invitation to
a location associated with the at least one point of interest.
The Examiner’s Rejections
1. Claims 1, 4—8, 11—15, and 18—20 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Suomela et al. (US
2006/0069503 Al; Mar. 30, 2006) (“Suomela”) and Kreitler et al. (US
2006/026170 Al; Feb. 2, 2006) (“Kreitler”). Final Act. 8-13.
2
Appeal 2016-002739
Application 14/106,391
2. Claims 2, 9, and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Suomela, Kreitler, and Amano (US 7,860,647 B2;
Dec. 28, 2010). Final Act. 13-16.
3. Claims 3,10, and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Suomela, Kreitler, and Landschaft et al. (US
2007/0082700 Al; Apr. 12, 2007) (“Landschaft”). Final Act. 16.
4. Claims 1, 4—8, 11—15, and 18—20 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Suomela and Sheha et al. (US
2003/0036848 Al; Feb. 20, 2003) (“Sheha”). Final Act. 17-20.
5. Claims 2, 9, and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Suomela, Sheha, and Amano. Final Act. 20—22.
6. Claims 3,10, and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Suomela, Sheha, and Landschaft. Final Act. 22—23.
Issue on Appeal2
Did the Examiner err in finding Suomela teaches or suggests
presenting at least one point of interest “in an image of a field of view of the
at least one mobile terminal,” as recited in claim 1?
ANALYSIS3
Appellant argues the Examiner erred in finding Suomela teaches or
suggests presenting at least one point of interest “in an image of a field of
2 We only address this issue, which is dispositive. We do not address
additional issues raised by Appellant’s arguments.
3 Throughout this Decision we have considered the Appeal Brief, filed
August 4, 2015 (“App. Br.”); the Reply Brief, filed January 4, 2016 (“Reply
3
Appeal 2016-002739
Application 14/106,391
view of the at least one mobile terminal,” as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 4—
12; Reply Br. 2—3. In particular, Appellant asserts the Examiner’s
construction of “field of view” is not reasonable or consistent with the
Specification or how a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand
the term. App. Br. 5—7.
In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner finds Suomela teaches displaying
“an image of the destination from an angle that the user probably will reach
the destination.” Final Act. 9 (citing Suomela 145). The Examiner explains
“[ajngle is represented as field and display ... is represented as view.” Final
Act. 9. Further, the Examiner states the term “field of view” is not defined
in the Specification and, thus, it may be broadly defined as “an angle of a
display. Final Act. 2—3. Specifically, the Examiner states: “Examiner
construes that the display ... is represented as a field of view for a user
viewing at that moment based on the location of the mobile device.”
Ans. 4—6.
When construing claim terminology during prosecution before the
Office, claims are to be given their broadest reasonable interpretation
consistent with the Specification, reading claim language in light of the
Specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art.
In re Am. Acad. ofSci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
We are mindful, however, that limitations are not to be read into the claims
from the Specification. In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed.
Cir. 1993).
Br.”); the Examiner’s Answer, mailed on November 5, 2015 (“Ans.”); and
the Final Office Action (“Final Act.”), mailed on February 4, 2015, from
which this Appeal is taken.
4
Appeal 2016-002739
Application 14/106,391
The Specification describes, inter alia, a mobile terminal comprising a
media capturing element, such as a camera, having a lens or other such
optical component(s) necessary for creating a digital image file from a
captured image. Spec. 126. Additionally, the Specification describes
objects “within a field of view of the camera module 36 may be displayed on
the display 28 of the mobile terminal 10 to illustrate a view of an image
currently displayed which could be captured if desired by the user.” Spec.
126. Images captured by the camera module may be sent to a visual search
client/database to identify objects in the captured image. Spec. 128. The
Specification also states that an image “currently within the field of view of
the camera module” may provide the basis for a content based retrieval
operation. Spec. 143.
We agree with Appellant that a “field of view” is a term of art (see
App. Br. 6—8; Reply Br. 2—3) and that a person of ordinary skill in the art
would understand, consistent with the Specification, that the claimed “field
of view of the at least one mobile terminal” refers to a solid angle through
which the media capturing element of the mobile terminal is able to detect
and capture an image.
Suomela is generally directed to “displaying a map having a close
known location and a destination and for providing navigation
recommendations for traveling from the close known location to the
destination.” Suomela, Abstract. In other words, a map and travel
instructions to a destination are provided based not on a user’s starting
location, but rather from a known location nearby the desired destination,
which the user has previously visited (i.e., a close known location).
Regarding the Examiner’s finding of Suomela displaying an image from an
5
Appeal 2016-002739
Application 14/106,391
angle the user may approach the destination, Suomela describes well-known
locations may have multiple images “from one or more viewable directions”
in a well-known locations database that may be optionally included on the
navigation map. Suomela 145. Thus, the image described is not an image
captured by the mobile terminal, or dependent upon the field of view of the
mobile terminal (or, more correctly, the field of view of the media capturing
element of the mobile terminal). Instead, Suomela refers to images from a
well-known locations database. Suomela 145.
We disagree with the Examiner’s finding that “Suomela teaches
claimed feature ‘field of view’ as display 1028 or display 1228 that is
represented as a field of view for a user viewing at that moment based on the
location of the mobile device.” Ans. 3. As an initial matter, we note the
claim language further restricts the field of view to that of the at least one
mobile terminal, and not the field of view of the user. Further, as discussed,
Suomela uses the display to provide map and navigation information to a
user and may additionally provide images of well-known points of interest
from a database. The Examiner has not provided sufficient evidence or
technical reasoning to support a finding that the display of Suomela teaches
or suggests the claimed field of view of the at least one mobile terminal.
For the reasons discussed supra, and on the record before us, we do
not sustain the Examiner’s rejections of claim 1. For similar reasons we do
not sustain the Examiner’s rejections of independent claims 8 and 15, which
recite similar limitations. Further, we do not sustain the Examiner’s
rejections of claims 2—7, 9—14, and 16—20.
6
Appeal 2016-002739
Application 14/106,391
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1—20.
REVERSED
7