Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (publ)Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardAug 9, 20212020003040 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 9, 2021) 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. 15/604,078 05/24/2017 Daniel Catrein 4015-9975 / P29514-US2 9214 24112 7590 08/09/2021 COATS & BENNETT, PLLC 1400 Crescent Green, Suite 300 Cary, NC 27518 EXAMINER GADOMSKI, STEFAN J ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2485 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/09/2021 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte DANIEL CATREIN, FRANK HARTUNG, MARKUS KAMPMANN, and THOMAS RUSERT Appeal 2020-003040 Application 15/604,078 Technology Center 2400 Before JEAN R. HOMERE, BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, and JASON V. MORGAN, Administrative Patent Judges. HOMERE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE1 Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant2 appeals from the Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1–20, which constitute all of the claims pending. Appeal Br. 2. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). 1 We refer to the Specification, filed May 24, 2017 (“Spec.”); the Final Office Action, mailed Apr. 25, 2019 (“Final Act.”); the Appeal Brief, filed Sept. 16, 2019 (“Appeal Br.”); the Examiner’s Answer, mailed Jan. 22, 2020 (“Ans.”), and the Reply Brief, filed Mar. 16, 2020 (“Reply Br.”). 2 “Appellant” refers to “Applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2020-003040 Application 15/604,078 2 We AFFIRM. II. CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER According to Appellant, the claimed subject matter relates to a method and system for synchronizing cameras in a multi-view capturing session. Spec. ¶¶ 4, 48–51. Figure 3, reproduced below, is useful for understanding the claimed subject matter: Figure 3 above illustrates telecommunication network (300) with synchronization module (301), and cameras (302) capturing multi-view scene (303). Spec. ¶ 63. Upon receiving from cameras (302) capturing Appeal 2020-003040 Application 15/604,078 3 parameters that match parameters of multi-view session scene (303), synchronization module (301) selects and notifies two or more cameras (302) to start capturing multi-view scene (303) at respective times to provide a synchronized multi-view session. Id. ¶ 67. Independent claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: A method, implemented by a synchronization device, for synchronizing cameras capturing a multi-view session, the method comprising: receiving a respective capturing parameter for each of a plurality of individual cameras; selecting a multi-view capturing parameter, to be used in capturing a multi-view session, that matches with the capturing parameters of at least some of the individual cameras; selecting at least two cameras, from the plurality of individual cameras, suitable for capturing the multi-view session using the multi-view capturing parameter; notifying the selected cameras to start capturing the multi-view session at respective times using the multi-view capturing parameter. Appeal Br. 12 (Claims App.) (emphasis added). III. REFERENCES The Examiner relies upon the following references as evidence.3 Name Reference Date Benco US 2007/0002129 A1 Jan. 4, 2007 Kindborg US 2008/0122949 A1 May 29, 2008 Border US 2008/0297608 A1 Dec. 4, 2008 Georgios Litos et al., (“Litos”) Synchronous Image Acquisition based on 2006 3 All reference citations are to the first named inventor only. Appeal 2020-003040 Application 15/604,078 4 Network Synchronization, Conference of Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Workshop, IEEE, 1– 10 IV. REJECTIONS The Examiner rejects claims 1–20 as follows: Claims 1–4, 6–9, 11–14, and 16–19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the combined teachings of Border and Kindborg. Final Act. 4–10. Claims 5 and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the combined teachings of Border, Kindborg, and Benco. Final Act. 10. Claims 10 and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the combined teachings of Border, Kindborg, and Litos. Final Act. 11. V. ANALYSIS We consider Appellant’s arguments seriatim, as they are presented in the Appeal Brief, pages 4–11 and the Reply Brief, pages 2–5.4 We are unpersuaded by Appellant’s contentions. Except as otherwise indicated herein below, we adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth in the Final Action, and the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellant’s Appeal 4 We have considered in this Decision only those arguments Appellant actually raised in the Briefs. Arguments not made are forfeited. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2019). Appeal 2020-003040 Application 15/604,078 5 Brief.5 Final Act. 3–11; Ans. 3–11. However, we highlight and address specific arguments and findings for emphasis as follows. Appellant argues that the Examiner erred in finding that the combination of Border and Kindborg teaches or suggests “receiving a respective capturing parameter for each of a plurality of individual cameras; selecting a multi-view capturing parameter, to be used in capturing a multi- view session, that matches with the capturing parameters of at least some of the individual cameras,” as recited in independent claim 1. Appeal Br. 4–5. In particular, Appellant argues that Border’s disclosure of any capable camera at a given location capturing images in response to receiving an image capture request does not teach or suggest the disputed limitations. Id. (citing Border ¶¶ 8, 9, Fig. 6). According to Appellant, Border’s cameras are not selected by the requestor based on matching multi-view capturing parameters, nor do they provide their parameters to the requestor for multi-view comparison and subsequent selection. Id. That is, each of the cameras decides for itself instead of being selected by the requestor on the basis of the camera’s matching parameters. Id. at 10 (citing Border ¶¶ 9, 41, 42). Further, Appellant argues that Kindborg’s disclosure of using a feedback loop for correcting parameter values of cameras to calibrate 5 See ICON Health and Fitness, Inc. v. Strava, Inc., 849 F.3d 1034, 1042 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“As an initial matter, the PTAB was authorized to incorporate the Examiner’s findings.”); see also In re Brana, 51 F.3d 1560, 1564 n.13 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (upholding the PTAB’s findings, although it “did not expressly make any independent factual determinations or legal conclusions,” because it had expressly adopted the examiner’s findings). Appeal 2020-003040 Application 15/604,078 6 pictures with those of other cameras does not cure the noted deficiencies of Border. Id. at 6–7 (citing Kindborg ¶¶ 4, 5, 10, 11, 17). According to Appellant, Kindborg’s matching of resultant attributes of various cameras does not teach matching parameters of cameras with those of a multi-view capturing session. Id. at 7. Further according to Appellant, Kindborg’s disclosure of modifying a camera location would render Border’s system unsatisfactory for its intended purpose because Border is intended to capture a scene at a specified or predetermined location. Id. at 9. Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive of reversible Examiner error. As a preliminary matter, we agree with the Examiner that because the Specification indicates “multi-view capturing parameter” encompasses the location and orientation of a camera, such a parameter can be broadly but reasonably interpreted6 as a predetermined capture location of the camera. Ans. 4 (citing Spec. ¶¶ 42, 43). Further, as correctly noted by the Examiner, Border’s disclosure of digital devices, in response to a request from a first digital device, transmitting their respective location parameters to the first digital device, which in turn compares the received location parameters with the location parameter where the image needs to be captured to select two or more devices suitable to capture the desired image substantially teaches the disputed limitations. Id. at 4–5 (citing Border ¶¶ 42, 43). 6 During prosecution, claims must be given their broadest reasonable interpretation when 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. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004); see also In re Smith Int’l, Inc., 871 F.3d 1375, 1382–83 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (noting that such interpretation is one “that corresponds with what and how the inventor describes his invention in the specification, i.e., an interpretation that is ‘consistent with the specification’”). Appeal 2020-003040 Application 15/604,078 7 We further agree with the Examiner that Kindborg’s disclosure of modifying or adjusting the location parameters of cameras to synchronize the throughput thereof would complement Border’s camera synchronization system. Id. at 5–6 (citing Kindborg ¶ 105).7 We find the Examiner’s proposed combination of the cited teachings of Border and Kindborg is no more than a simple arrangement of old elements with each performing the same function it had been known to perform, yielding no more than what one would expect from such an arrangement. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 416. Therefore, the ordinarily skilled artisan, being “a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton,” would have been able to fit the teachings of the cited references together like pieces of a puzzle to predictably result in a cooperative image capture system for selecting and synchronizing suitable cameras for performing a multi-view capture session. Id. at 420–21. We do not agree with Appellant that Kindborg’s teaching of adjusting the location parameters of the cameras would render Border’s predetermined camera locations unsuitable for its intended purpose. Appeal Br. 9, Reply Br. 4–5. The argument that the proposed combination of references would render one of the references unsuitable for its intended purpose, or would change its principle of operation, is a teaching away argument. In re Gordon, 7 “The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference . . . . Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.” Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). “The obviousness analysis cannot be confined by [the] formalistic conception of the words teaching, suggestion, and motivation, or by overemphasis on the importance of . . . the explicit content of issued patents.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 419 (2007). Appeal 2020-003040 Application 15/604,078 8 733 F.2d 900, 902 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (The court concluded that in effect, “French teaches away from the board’s proposed modification” because “if the French apparatus were turned upside down, it would be rendered inoperable for its intended purpose”).8 As noted above, the proposed combination of Kindborg’s adjusting the location parameters of cameras is not intended as a criticism or a disparagement against modifying the predetermined locations of Border’s cameras. It is, instead, intended as an alternative for improving the image quality of the cameras or the throughout thereof, thereby optimizing Border’s camera synchronization or cooperation. Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner that the proposed combination of Border and Kindborg does not teach away from the claimed subject matter.9 Id. Because Appellant has not demonstrated that the Examiner’s proffered combination would have been “uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art,” we agree with the Examiner that the 8 “If references taken in combination would produce a ‘seemingly inoperative device,’ . . . such references teach away from the combination and thus cannot serve as predicates for a prima facie case of obviousness.” McGinley v. Franklin Sports, Inc., 262 F.3d 1339, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (citation omitted); see also ICON, 496 F.3d at 1382 (“[A] reference teaches away from a combination when using it in that combination would produce an inoperative result,” but the obviousness analysis must account for “modifications that one skilled in the art would make to a device borrowed from the prior art”). 9 The Federal Circuit has held “[a] reference may be said to teach away when a person of ordinary skill, upon reading the reference, would be discouraged from following the path set out in the reference, or would be led in a direction divergent from the path that was taken by the applicant.” In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 990 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (quoting In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 553 (Fed. Cir. 1994)). Appeal 2020-003040 Application 15/604,078 9 proposed modification would have been within the purview of the ordinarily skilled artisan. See Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing KSR, 550 U.S. at 418). Ans. 5. Consequently, we are satisfied that, on this record, the Examiner has established that the combination of Border and Kindborg teaches or suggests the disputed claim limitations. Because we are not persuaded of Examiner error, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 as unpatentable over the combination of Border and Kindborg. Regarding the rejections of claims 2–20, because Appellant does not present separate patentability arguments or reiterates substantially the same arguments as those previously discussed for the patentability of claim 1 above, claims 2–20 fall therewith. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). VI. CONCLUSION We affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1–20. VII. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1–4, 6–9, 11–14, 16– 19 103 Border, Kindborg 1–4, 6–9, 11–14, 16–19 5, 15 103 Border, Kindborg, Benco 5, 15 10, 20 103 Border, Kindborg, Litos 10, 20 Overall Outcome 1–20 Appeal 2020-003040 Application 15/604,078 10 VIII. TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation