Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (publ)

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Aug 9, 2021

2020003040 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 9, 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.
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