Josh Bradley

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jun 16, 2021

2020000586 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 16, 2021)

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.
13/622,948 09/19/2012 Josh Bradley 026.P002 2805
65638 7590 06/16/2021
Columbia IP Law
4957 Lakemont Blvd. SE
C-4165
Bellevue, WA 98006
EXAMINER
LUU, CUONG V
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2129
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/16/2021 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):
ROBERT.CHANG@COLUMBIAIPLAW.COM
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte JOSH BRADLEY
____________________

Appeal 2020-000586
Application 13/622,948
Technology Center 2100
____________________

Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, DAVID M. KOHUT, and
JON M. JURGOVAN, Administrative Patent Judges.

JURGOVAN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appellant1 seeks review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final
rejection of claims 1–20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.2

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42. The real party in interest is the inventor, Josh Bradley.
(Appeal Br. 4.)
2 Our Decision refers to the Specification (“Spec.”) filed September 19,
2012, Final Office Action (“Final Act.”) mailed January 26, 2017, Appeal
Brief (“Appeal Br.”) filed February 26, 2018, and Examiner’s Answer
(“Ans.”) mailed May 16, 2018.
Appeal 2020-000586
Application 13/622,948

2
CLAIMED INVENTION
The claims are directed to a method and apparatus “for determining
one or more dimensions of a space and/or object and visualizing usage of
space” as well as “visualizing objects within [the] space” to enable
a visual representation of [the] space including some objects that
may not be currently present in the space . . . [to] be generated.
For example, a visual representation of a room may be generated.
As part of the representation, furniture (e.g., a couch, or the like)
that may not be shown in the room, may be shown in the visual
representation as being in the room.

(Spec. ¶ 3; Abstr.)
Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed
subject matter:
1. A computer-implemented method comprising:
detecting, via a camera, a reference object within a space,
the reference object providing a dimensional reference and
having a predetermined dimension;
accessing a database to facilitate recognition of the
reference object;
once recognized, obtaining the predetermined dimension
of the reference object from the database;
determining one or more dimensions of the reference
object relative to a view point of the reference object within the
space, the view point being a perspective view of the reference
object;
determining one or more dimensions of the space based
at least in part on the determined one or more dimensions of the
reference object relative to the view point of the reference
object within the space;
receiving a first image portraying a first object;
determining one or more dimensions of the first object;
and
Appeal 2020-000586
Application 13/622,948

3
providing an indication of whether the first object will fit
within the space based at least in part on the determined one or
more dimensions of the space and the determined one or more
dimensions of the first object, the indication including a
graphical representation of a perspective view of the first object
within the space and the graphical representation being
generated on a display of a handheld device.

(Appeal Br. 24–30 (Claims App.).)

REJECTIONS & REFERENCES
Claims 1–3, 5, 6, 10–14, and 16–20 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on Abernethy et al. (US 2009/0010548 A1,
published January 8, 2009) (“Abernethy”) and Dujmich (US 2006/0012611
A1, published January 19, 2006) (“Dujmich”). (Final Act. 6–12.)
Claim 4 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on Abernethy,
Dujmich, and Sakai et al. (US 2006/0106757 A1, published May 18, 2006)
(“Sakai”). (Final Act. 12–13.)
Claims 7–9 and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on
Abernethy, Dujmich, and Bonner et al. (US 7,137,556 B1, issued Nov. 21,
2006) (“Bonner”). (Final Act. 13–15.)

ANALYSIS
Appellant has the burden on appeal to the Board to demonstrate error
in the Examiner’s position. See In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 985–86 (Fed. Cir.
2006). We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues
identified by Appellant and in light of the arguments and evidence produced
thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential),
(cited with approval in In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011)
Appeal 2020-000586
Application 13/622,948

4
(“[I]t has long been the Board’s practice to require an applicant to identify
the alleged error in the examiner’s rejections.”)). After considering the
evidence presented in this Appeal and each of Appellant’s arguments, we are
not persuaded that Appellant identifies reversible error. Thus, we affirm the
Examiner’s rejections for the reasons expressed in the Final Office Action
and the Answer. We add the following primarily for emphasis.
With respect to the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1, Appellant argues
Abernethy does not teach or suggest various limitations of claim 1, including
“detecting, via a camera, a reference object within a space,” “accessing a
database to facilitate recognition of the reference object,” “once
recognized, obtaining the predetermined dimension of the reference
object from the database,” “determining one or more dimensions of the
reference object relative to a view point of the reference object within the
space, the view point being a perspective view of the reference object,”
and “providing an indication . . . including a graphical representation of a
perspective view of the first object within the space and the graphical
representation being generated on a display of a handheld device.”
(Appeal Br. 12–14.) In particular, Appellant argues claim 1 is “directed
towards an intelligent real-time imaging of an area, where the imaged area
may be used to make various dimensional determinations,” while
Abernathy[sic]3 discloses using photographs [(e.g., photographic
images of a space)], and accordingly, Abernathy does not teach
or suggest using a computer system (e.g., mobile device
disclosed in the present application) to take real-time and
interactive determinations of spatial relationships as claimed in
the present application. As disclosed in the present application,

3 Appellant generally misnames the Abernethy reference throughout the
Brief as Abernathy.
Appeal 2020-000586
Application 13/622,948

5
a user may take their handheld device (e.g., smartphone, digital
imaging device, etc.) to determine spatial relationships with
respect to an object that the user may have placed in the imaging
space. Taking a photograph and analyzing the photograph, as
disclosed in Abernathy, would be not advantageous (e.g., not so
cool) as disclosed in the present disclosure. . . .
Accordingly, Abernathy does not teach or suggest present
claimed subject matter directed towards intelligent space
analysis with minimal user interaction as claimed in independent
claim 1.

(Id. at 13–14.) Appellant also argues, in contrast to claim 1 which “may be
considered to include intelligent spatial determinations based, at least in part,
on reference objects and recognition of reference objects from a database,”
Dujmich “requires input of at least one dimension” and does not teach or
suggest “[claim 1’s] utilization of a database or intelligent spatial
determinations.” (Id. at 16.) Appellant further argues the Examiner’s
combination of Abernethy and Dujmich is deficient because “the disclosure
of Dujmich, which is directed towards furniture, would not be combined
with the disclosure of Abernethy, which is directed towards computer
components.” (Id. at 15.)
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments, and agree with the
Examiner that the asserted combination of Abernethy and Dujmich teaches
the steps of the computer-implemented method recited in claim 1. (See Final
Act. 6–8; Ans. 3–6.) At the outset, we note Appellant has submitted
arguments unsupported by corresponding language in claim 1. (Ans. 3–4.)
For example, claim 1 does not recite (or specify characteristics of an)
“intelligent real-time imaging” of a space, “intelligent space analysis with
minimal user interaction,” or “interactive determinations of spatial
relationships” performed on a “mobile device” or “handheld device,” as
Appeal 2020-000586
Application 13/622,948

6
Appellant argues. (See Appeal Br. 13–14, 16 (emphases added).) The
“handheld device” referenced in the last line of claim 1 is used to display the
claimed graphical representation, but is not recited as being the device
performing the detecting, accessing, determining, and indication-providing
steps of the claim. Similar to claim 1, the “handheld device” referenced at
the end of independent claims 11 and 16 is used to display the claimed
graphical representation, but is not identified as being the earlier-claimed
“apparatus,” “processor,” or “computer” performing the detecting,
accessing, determining, and indication-providing operations recited therein.
As to Appellant’s arguments that Abernethy and Dujmich do not teach
or suggest the claimed “detecting,” “accessing,” and “obtaining the
predetermined dimension” (see Appeal Br. 12, 14, 16), Appellant’s
arguments do not address the Examiner’s specific findings that Abernethy’s
“intelligent dimension data gathering” teaches and suggests these steps. (See
Ans. 4 (citing Abernethy ¶¶ 27, 37, 41, 43–44).) We agree with the
Examiner’s findings. Abernethy detects a reference object within an imaged
space, as required by claim 1. (Ans. 4; see Abernethy ¶¶ 36–37 (“the
photographic image of the current system configuration may be
supplemented by manual measurements and/or intelligent dimension data
gathering. . . . Intelligent dimension data gathering involves identifying or
naming one or more of the individual components in the existing computer
system by a product identifier”), 41 (“[an] information source may include
images of each hardware component for comparison to existing components
in the photographic image. In this manner, the images can be compared in
order to identify one or more of the existing components” and “[o]nce an
existing component is specifically identified, a three dimensional model or
Appeal 2020-000586
Application 13/622,948

7
other relevant information about the existing component can be accessed”),
43–44 (providing that “standard dimension objects, such as a standard
dimension pantry door” or “a yard stick or other standard dimension item . . .
positioned in the space during the taking of the photographic image,” or
“connectors hav[ing] standardized dimensions” can be “easily identified” in
the photographic image to “serve as a scale for measuring other existing
components in the same photographic image”).) Abernethy also accesses a
database (e.g., an “information source to lookup the known dimensions of
that component [of the existing computer system]” or a “hardware
component information source,” see Abernethy ¶¶ 37, 41) to facilitate
recognition of the reference object (e.g., connector of standardized
dimensions in a computer system, standard dimension object in a kitchen, or
yard stick, see id. ¶¶ 37, 41, 43–44) and obtain a predetermined dimension
of the reference object from the database (e.g., using an “information source
to lookup the known dimensions of that component,” see id. ¶¶ 37, 43–44),
as recited in claim 1. (Ans. 4–5; Final Act. 7.) Appellant reproduces
portions from Abernethy and portions from claim 1, and asserts the claimed
“accessing” and “obtaining the predetermined dimension” (as well as other
claim limitations, see Appeal Br. 10, 12–14) are not found in the reference,
without providing an explanation as to why that is the case (e.g., why the
Examiner’s cited portions of Abernethy, see Ans. 3–5, would be deficient).
Appellant also repeats claim language arguing that various recited
limitations are not found in Dujmich (see Appeal Br. 10, 15), without
providing an explanation as to why the Examiner’s cited portions of
Dujmich (see Ans. 5–6 and Final Act. 7–8) would be deficient.
Appeal 2020-000586
Application 13/622,948

8
Appellant also submits an argument that Abernethy is deficient with
respect to claim 1 because “Abernathy discloses using photographs, and
accordingly, Abernathy does not teach or suggest using a computer system
(e.g., mobile device disclosed in the present application) to take real-time
and interactive determinations of spatial relationships,” and “[t]aking a
photograph and analyzing the photograph, as disclosed in Abernathy, would
be not advantageous (e.g., not so cool) as disclosed in the present
disclosure.” (See Appeal Br. 13–14.) This argument is unpersuasive
because the language of claim 1 is broader than the language argued by
Appellant. (Ans. 3–4.) As discussed supra, claim 1 does not recite or
otherwise require a “mobile device . . . to take real-time and interactive
determinations of spatial relationships” (as Appellant argues). In addition,
claim 1’s “detecting, via a camera, a reference object within a space” does
not preclude detection of reference objects in digital images taken by digital
cameras, as described in Abernethy. (Ans. 4 (citing Abernethy ¶ 27); see
Abernethy ¶ 27 (“The photographic image is preferably a digital image, such
as a picture taken with a typical digital camera. . . . Since almost any digital
image format is suitable, the format is preferably a format that is common to
digital cameras and associated digital photography software applications”).)
Appellant further generally contends Abernethy and Dujmich are non-
analogous to one another and cannot logically be combined. (Appeal Br.
15.) We agree with the Examiner that, “Abernethy and Dujmich are
analogous art because they are in the field of searching for matched
components or objects based on a feature or attribute,” more particularly by
searching for matched furniture based on features of a space (see Abernethy
¶ 43, Dujmich ¶¶ 4, 19)—which matches Appellant’s field of endeavor.
Appeal 2020-000586
Application 13/622,948

9
(Final Act. 8; Ans. 6.) As such, we are not persuaded by Appellant’s
arguments that Abernethy and Dujmich cannot be combined. (See Appeal
Br. 15.)
As Appellant’s arguments have not persuaded us of error in the
Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claim 1, we sustain the Examiner’s
§ 103 rejection of claim 1, independent claims 11 and 16 argued for the
same reasons, and dependent claims 2, 3, 5, 6, 10, 12–14, and 17–20, argued
for their dependency. (See Appeal Br. 16.)
With respect to dependent claims 4, 7–9, and 15, Appellant provides
substantially the same arguments as for claims 1 and 11, and additionally
argues that Sakai and Bonner (i) do not cure the alleged deficiencies of
Abernethy and Dujmich, and (ii) are non-analogous to Abernethy and
Dujmich and cannot logically be combined with the primary references.
(Appeal Br. 17–22.)
Because we find the combination of Abernethy and Dujmich is not
deficient with respect to claims 1 and 11, Sakai and Bonner are not needed
to cover any deficiency in the base combination. We are also unpersuaded
by Appellant’s arguments that “Dujmich, which is directed towards
furniture, and Abernathy, which is directed towards discrete computer
components, would not be combined with the disclosure of Sakai, which is
directed towards sheet metal” and “with the disclosure of Bonner, which is
directed towards parcel imaging on a conveyor belt.” (See Appeal Br. 19,
21–22.) Appellant’s statements that “Sakai . . . is directed towards sheet
metal” and “Bonner . . . is directed towards parcel imaging on a conveyor
belt” misrepresent the disclosures and the focus of Sakai and Bonner. (See
Sakai Abstr.; Bonner Abstr.; Final Act. 13, 14). We agree with the
Appeal 2020-000586
Application 13/622,948

10
Examiner that Abernethy, Dujmich, Sakai, and Bonner are “analogous art
because they are in the field of searching for matched components based on
a feature or attribute,” whereby “Sakai’s teachings would have helped define
relationship between features to search for a match based on one or more
features” and “Bonner’s teachings would have provided efficient access to
the increasing volume of information available about an object.” (Final Act.
13–14 (citing Sakai ¶¶ 191, 196, 203, 208; Bonner 2:3–5, 9:19–39, 12:48–
60).) Accordingly, Appellant’s arguments have not persuaded us of error in
the Examiner’s obviousness rejections of claims 4, 7–9, and 15. Therefore,
we sustain the Examiner’s § 103 rejections of claims 4, 7–9, and 15.

DECISION SUMMARY
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is
AFFIRMED.

In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/
Basis
Affirmed Reversed
1–3, 5, 6,
10–14,
16–20
103(a) Abernethy,
Dujmich
1–3, 5, 6,
10–14, 16–20

4 103(a) Abernethy,
Dujmich, Sakai
4
7–9, 15 103(a) Abernethy,
Dujmich,
Bonner
7–9, 15
Overall
Outcome
1–20

Appeal 2020-000586
Application 13/622,948

11
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.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED