Ex Parte SCHLOTERDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJan 27, 201714106391 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 27, 2017) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation