Ex Parte Winter et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardNov 29, 2016

13792483 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 29, 2016)

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. 13/792,483 03/11/2013 Marco Winter PD120010 3762 24498 7590 12/01/2016 Robert D. Shedd, Patent Operations THOMSON Licensing LLC 4 Research Way 3rd Floor Princeton, NJ 08543 EXAMINER BALI, VIKKRAM ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2667 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/01/2016 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): uspto@technicolor.com pat. verlangieri @ technicolor.com russell. smith @ technicolor.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte MARCO WINTER, WOLFRAM PUTZKE-ROEMING, and JOERN JACHALSKY Appeal 2016-001326 Application 13/792,483 Technology Center 2600 Before ERIC S. FRAHM, CATHERINE SHIANG, and NATHAN A. ENGELS, Administrative Patent Judges. SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—9, which are all the claims pending and rejected in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction According to the Specification, the present invention relates to identifying an object in an image or images. See generally Spec. 1. Claim 1 is exemplary: 1. A method for identifying an object in an image or a sequence of images, the method comprising: - segmenting a first image into superpixels; Appeal 2016-001326 Application 13/792,483 - determining a set of grouped superpixels belonging to an object; - sending the set of grouped superpixels to a remote search engine; and - receiving results of a search performed by the search engine on the set of grouped superpixels, wherein the results comprise information about the object. References and Rejections Claims 1—2, 5—6, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Yuan (US 8,554,011 B2; iss. Oct. 8, 2013) and Rothschild (US 2012/0113273 Al; publ. May 10, 2012). Claims 3^4 and 7—8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Yuan, Rothschild, and Komoto (US 8,401,243 B2; iss. Mar. 19, 2013). ANALYSIS On this record, the Examiner did not err in rejecting claim 1. We disagree with Appellants’ arguments, and agree with and adopt the Examiner’s findings and conclusions in (i) the action from which this appeal is taken and (ii) the Answer to the extent they are consistent with our analysis below.1 Appellants contend the cited references do not teach “sending the set of grouped superpixels to a remote search engine; and [jreceiving results of a search performed by the search engine on the set of grouped superpixels,” 1 To the extent Appellants advance new arguments in the Reply Brief without showing good cause, Appellants have waived such arguments. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.41(b)(2). 2 Appeal 2016-001326 Application 13/792,483 as recited in claim 1 (emphases added). See App. Br. 5—6. In particular, Appellants assert “Rothschild does not even mention superpixels, let alone grouped superpixels.” App. Br. 6; see also App. Br. 5—6. Appellants have not persuaded us of error. Because the Examiner relies on the combination of Yuan and Rothschild to teach the disputed claim limitations, Appellants cannot establish nonobviousness by attacking the references individually. See In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The Examiner finds—and Appellants do not dispute—Yuan teaches “determining a set of grouped superpixels belonging to an object.” Ans. 6, 9. Therefore, Yuan teaches “a set of grouped superpixels.” As a result, Rothschild does not need to teach that claim element separately. Because Appellants have not persuaded us the Examiner erred, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1, and independent claim 6 for similar reasons. We also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of corresponding dependent claims 2—5 and 7—9, which Appellants do not separately argue with substantive contentions. 3 Appeal 2016-001326 Application 13/792,483 DECISION We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—9. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv). AFFIRMED 4