Ex Parte Striemer et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 23, 2017

13275392 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 23, 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. 13/275,392 10/18/2011 Grant Edward Striemer 11906 1585 27752 7590 08/25/2017 THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY Global IP Services Central Building, C9 One Procter and Gamble Plaza CINCINNATI, OH 45202 EXAMINER PETERSON, CHRISTOPHER K ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2661 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/25/2017 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): centraldocket. im @ pg. com pair_pg @ firsttofile. com mayer.jk @ pg. com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte GRANT EDWARD STRIEMER, DEAN LARRY DUVAL, and FAIZ FEISAL SHERMAN Appeal 2015-005742 Application 13/275,392 Technology Center 2600 Before JUSTIN BUSCH, CATHERINE SHIANG, and JOHN P. PINKERTON, Administrative Patent Judges. BUSCH, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the rejection of claims 1—20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. Appeal 2015-005742 Application 13/275,392 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Claims 1, 8, and 15 are independent claims. The claims relate generally to providing an augmented display of real-time video images of an article, wherein the augmentation or alteration may include highlighting the article or providing information about the identified article. Spec. 1:24— 2:11; Figs. 5, 6. Claim 1 is reproduced below: 1. A system for utilization of an article, comprising: a first image capture device that captures a first real-time video image of the article; a memory component that stores a computer application, the computer application causing the system to perform at least the following: identify the article from the first real-time video image; identify an action to be performed on the article; and provide data for performing the action via an altered version of the first real-time video image; and a display device for displaying the altered version of the first real-time video image, wherein altering the first real-time video image includes at least one of the following: highlighting the article in the first real-time video image and providing a predicted image of the article if treatment is performed. REJECTIONS Claims 1—12 and 14—20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable in view of Bloebaum (US 2009/0237546 Al; Sept. 24, 2009) and Yoo (US 2010/0141784 Al; June 10, 2010). Final Act. 2-14. Claim 13 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable in view of Bloebaum, Yoo, and Bodin (US 2007/0287893 Al; Dec. 13,2007). Final Act. 14-15. 2 Appeal 2015-005742 Application 13/275,392 OPINION The Examiner rejects independent claims 1 and 15 as obvious in view of the combined teachings of Bloebaum and Yoo. The Examiner finds Bloebaum teaches identifying an article in an image and displaying an altered version of the image, wherein the image is taken from a camera in a mobile phone that can capture both still images and video images. Final Act. 2—3, 11 (citing Bloebaum || 41, 48, 75); Ans. 15 (citing Bloebaum H 41, 47). The Examiner further finds Yoo teaches altering a real-time video image. Final Act. 3—4, 11—12 (citing Yoo Tflf 84—97); Ans. 16 (citing Yoo ^Hf 84, 86). The Examiner explicitly construes the recited “first real time video image” to be “one video image.” Ans. 15. Appellants’ only argument regarding the independent claims is that they “relate to the capture and enhancement/a[l]teration/augmentation of video sequences, not the mere editing of single images,'1'’ and that Bloebaum and Yoo relate to the capturing and processing of single static images. Br. 3 (emphases added). We agree with the Examiner. The claims recite “a first real-time video image,'” not “video sequences.” Thus, Appellants’ argument is not persuasive simply because it is not commensurate with the scope of the claims. Furthermore, as pointed out by the Examiner, Bloebaum explains that the identified image capture device is capable of capturing videos. Bloebaum || 41, 47. Additionally, the entire context of Bloebaum is related to “portable electronic devices including cameras and video displays” in the context of augmented reality, which “is concerned with the use of live video imagery which is digitally processed and ‘augmented’ by the addition of computer-generated graphics.” Id. H 1, 3 (emphasis added). Yoo also 3 Appeal 2015-005742 Application 13/275,392 discloses using electronic devices capable of “capturing images or video.'1'’ Yoo 16 (emphasis added). Yoo further explains that its system includes a camera that “processes image frames of still pictures or video.'” Id. 138 (emphasis added). Furthermore, Appellants’ Specification repeatedly refers to the use of “real-time video image[s],” not sequences. See Spec .passim. Appellants’ usage of “real-time video image” includes references to still images depicted in the figures. E.g., Spec. 3:5—10. Appellants provide no separate substantive argument for dependent claims 2—7, 9-14,1 and 16—20. Accordingly, for the reasons discussed above, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1—20. DECISION For the reasons discussed above, we affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1—20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f). AFFIRMED 1 Appellants present a separate argument section with respect to claim 13. Br. 3^4. However, that argument is substantively the same as Appellants’ argument asserted with respect to claims 1 and 15, with the additional assertion that Bodin fails to cure the deficiencies of Bloebaum and Yoo. Id. at 4. Therefore, we are unpersuaded by Appellants’ arguments regarding claim 13 for the same reasons discussed with respect to claims 1 and 15. 4