Ex Parte Aliaga et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 13, 201410449929 (P.T.A.B. May. 13, 2014) 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. 10/449,929 05/30/2003 Daniel G. Aliaga 3-14 1366 46304 7590 05/13/2014 RYAN, MASON & LEWIS, LLP 48 South Service Road Suite 100 Melville, NY 11747 EXAMINER LEE, Y YOUNG ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2485 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/13/2014 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 G. ALIAGA and INGRID BIRGITTA CARLBOM 1 __________ Appeal 2014-001767 Application 10/449,929 Technology Center 2600 ____________ Before JEAN R. HOMERE, JASON V. MORGAN, and MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, Administrative Patent Judges. MORGAN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1, 3–12, and 14–23 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). This appeal is related to Appeal No. 2009-014346 (rejection affirmed-in-part; Dec. 29, 2011). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE and enter a NEW GROUND OF REJECTION. 1 Lucent Technologies Inc. is the Real Party in Interest. App. Br. 1. Appeal 2014-001767 Application 10/449,929 2 Invention Appellants invented techniques for computing error-bounded position and orientation (pose) of a panoramic camera in real-world environments. Abst. Exemplary Claim Claim 1, reproduced below with key limitations emphasized, is illustrative: 1. A method of estimating pose for a panoramic camera in an environment, comprising the steps of: determining placement of fiducials in the environment, wherein fiducial placement is determined in accordance with an automated planning algorithm; determining an error-bounded pose of the camera based on projections of the fiducials in images of the environment captured by the camera; and refining the fiducial placements so as to obtain fiducial placements that provide bounded error pose estimates. Rejection The Examiner rejects claims 1, 3–12, and 14–23 under 35 U.S.C. §102(b) as being anticipated by Jain (US 5,729,471). Ans. 4–7. ISSUE Did the Examiner err in finding that Jain discloses both “determining placement of fiducials in the environment, wherein fiducial placement is determined in accordance with an automated planning algorithm” and “refining the fiducial placements so as to obtain fiducial placements that provide bounded error pose estimates,” as recited in claim 1? Appeal 2014-001767 Application 10/449,929 3 ANALYSIS Appellants note the claim 1 recitation “refining the fiducial placements so as to obtain fiducial placements that provide bounded error pose estimates” is similar to the claim recitation, previously found in dependent claim 2, of “optimizing the fiducial placements so as to obtain optimal fiducial placements that provide bounded error pose estimates.” App. Br. 5–6. Appellants argue the Examiner’s findings do not show that “Jain discloses refining the fiducial placements so as to obtain fiducial placements that provide bounded error pose estimates as recited in claim 1.” Id. at 6. The Examiner responds that Appellants’ Specification “does not provide an express definition of ‘refining to obtain . . . fiducial placements.’” Ans. 4. The Examiner finds the Specification instead “refers to improving the previous estimates” of where the fiducials are relative to the camera. Id. However, the Examiner’s interpretation of the disputed “refining” claim recitation is unreasonably broad. Claim 1 recites “refining the fiducial placements” (emphasis added), where antecedent for the fiducial placements comes from the recitations “determining placement of fiducials in the environment, wherein fiducial placement is determined in accordance with an automated planning algorithm” (emphasis added). The environment referred to is the physical environment in which the panoramic camera itself is a part, as evidenced by the preamble recitation of “a panoramic camera in an environment” (emphasis added). In other words, the initial determining step relates to the process of specifying where to place fiducials in an environment shared by Appeal 2014-001767 Application 10/449,929 4 the camera while the refining step relates to the process of modifying the specification of where to place the fiducials in the environment. The Examiner’s findings regarding Jain are based on disclosures that merely relate to refining an estimate of where fiducials are located (i.e., updating object hypotheses). Ans. 4–5 (citing Jain, col. 32, l. 53–col. 33, l. 28). The Examiner’s findings do not show that Jain’s object hypotheses update process changes the specification of where to place fiducials in the environment. Therefore, we agree with Appellants the Examiner erred in finding Jain discloses both “determining placement of fiducials in the environment, wherein fiducial placement is determined in accordance with an automated planning algorithm” and “refining the fiducial placements so as to obtain fiducial placements that provide bounded error pose estimates,” as recited in claim 1. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1, and of claims 3–12 and 14–23, which contain similar recitations. NEW GROUND OF REJECTION We enter the following new ground of rejection pursuant to our authority under 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b). We reject claims 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Independent claim 23 recites “[a]n article of manufacture . . . comprising a machine readable medium containing one or more programs which when executed implement the steps of . . .” (emphases added). The Specification does not clearly define either an “article of manufacture” or a “machine readable medium.” Because the claim is directed to an article of manufacture comprising a machine readable medium, the broadest Appeal 2014-001767 Application 10/449,929 5 reasonable interpretation of the claimed “article of manufacture” includes a machine readable medium. The broadest reasonable interpretation of “machine readable medium” claims typically cover forms of transitory propagating signals per se. See Ex parte Mewherter, 107 USPQ2d 1857, 1862 (PTAB 2013) (precedential-in-part). Such signals are non-statutory subject matter. See In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (“A transitory, propagating signal . . . is not a ‘process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.’ . . . [T]hus, such a signal cannot be patentable subject matter.”) Therefore, claim 23 encompasses non-statutory subject matter. DECISION The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1, 3-12, and 14-23 is reversed. We enter a NEW GROUND OF REJECTION of claim 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 101. 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) provides that, “[a] new ground of rejection pursuant to this paragraph shall not be considered final for judicial review.” 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) also provides that the Appellants, WITHIN TWO MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF THE DECISION, must exercise one of the following two options with respect to the new ground of rejection to avoid termination of proceedings (37 C.F.R. § 1.197 (b)) as to the rejected claims: (1) Reopen prosecution. Submit an appropriate amendment of the claims so rejected or new evidence relating to the claims so rejected, or both, and have the matter reconsidered by the Appeal 2014-001767 Application 10/449,929 6 examiner, in which event the proceeding will be remanded to the examiner. . . . (2) Request rehearing. Request that the proceeding be reheard under 37 C.F.R. § 41.52 by the Board upon the same record. . . . 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). REVERSED 37 C.F.R. 41.50(b) kis Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation