Ex Parte Basir et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 28, 201310783390 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 28, 2013) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte OTMAN ADAM BASIR, DAVID BULLOCK, and EMIL BREZA ____________ Appeal 2010-000813 Application 10/783,390 Technology Center 3600 ____________ Before JENNIFER D. BAHR, JOHN C. KERINS and STEVEN D.A. McCARTHY, Administrative Patent Judges. KERINS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2010-000813 Application 10/783,390 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Otman Adam Basir et al. (Appellants) seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1-14 and 25-38. Claims 15-24 are canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM-IN-PART. THE INVENTION Appellants’ invention is directed to a method for classifying an occupant in a vehicle. Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A method for classifying an occupant including the steps of: a. capturing an image of an occupant area in a vehicle; b. dividing the image into a plurality of subimages of different predetermined spatial regions; c. generating a spatial feature matrix of the image based upon the plurality of the subimages; d. analyzing the spatial feature matrix; and e. classifying an occupant in the occupant area based upon step d) into a classification, wherein the classifications include: adult and child. Independent claim 34 contains limitations similar to those in subparts b. and c. above. Independent claim 25 contains a limitation similar to that in step b., and further recites that a plurality of low-level descriptors are generated from each of the subimages, and that the low-level descriptors are analyzed to classify an occupant in the occupant area based on that analysis. Appeal Br., Claims Appendix. Appeal 2010-000813 Application 10/783,390 3 THE REJECTIONS Appellants appeal the following rejections: (i) claims 1-9, 14, 25-29 and 32-38 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Christl (US 2004/0176891 A1, published Sep. 9, 2004) in view of Kung (US 5,850,470, issued Dec. 15, 1998); and (ii) claims 10-13, 30 and 31 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over Christl in view of Kung and Baloch (US 6,459,974 B1, issued Oct. 1, 2002).1 ANALYSIS Claims 1-9, 14, 25-29 and 32-38--Obviousness--Christl/Kung The Examiner takes the position that the Christl patent discloses all steps set forth in independent claim 1, including analyzing a spatial feature matrix, but not the step of dividing an image into a plurality of subimages of predetermined spatial regions, and then, based on those subimages, generating a spatial feature matrix for further analysis. Ans. 4, 7-8. The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious in view of the teachings of Kung that an image may be divided into a plurality of subimages and generating a spatial feature matrix of the image based on the plurality of subimages, “to modify the system as taught by Christl to include the teaching of Kung in order to enhance a safety control system onboard a 1 Both grounds of rejection were denominated as new grounds of rejection in the Examiner’s Answer. Ans. 3. The order of the Christl and Kung references was reversed from that in the Final Rejection, and different findings and conclusions relative to the references were advanced. Compare, Ans. 3-8, with Final Office Action 3-6. Appellants elected to continue the appeal. Reply Br. 1. Appeal 2010-000813 Application 10/783,390 4 motor vehicle that can take and analyzes the images of the occupant’s face as well as another part of the occupant’s body.” Ans. 5, 8. The Examiner further explains that Figure 5 of Kung “graphically shows a spatial feature matrix of the image based upon [a] plurality of subimages.” Ans. 11. Appellants do not contest the Examiner’s findings directed to the Christl and Kung disclosures, including that Kung discloses generating a spatial feature matrix of the image based upon a plurality of subimages. Appellants instead maintain that, while the Christl system does involve classifying an occupant, it does not do so based upon a spatial feature matrix generated from an obtained image. Reply Br. 2. In particular, Appellants argue that the matrix or table cited to by the Examiner, a specific example of which is presented in paragraph [0053] of Christl, contains no “spatial features”, but rather probabilities of the translation of one state of occupancy (e.g., empty, adult, child seat) to another. Id. Appellants’ argument fails to take into account that the Examiner proposes to modify Christl in view of Kung such that the Christl occupant classification procedure will involve the use of Kung’s dividing of an image into subimages of different predetermined spatial regions, and generating a spatial feature matrix based upon the plurality of subimages. As such, we are not persuaded that claim 1 is patentable on this basis. Appellants additionally argue that “even if Christl were somehow modified as proposed by the Examiner in view of Kung, the vehicle in Christl might be able to identify the driver for security purposes, but it would not meet the terms of claims 1 and 25,” in terms of classifying an occupant in a vehicle. Reply Br. 3. In the same vein, Appellants maintain that “[i]t would not be acceptable to include a system like King’s in a vehicle Appeal 2010-000813 Application 10/783,390 5 occupant classification system,” because “[i]t would not be useful to identify occupants” in performing the claimed method for classifying an occupant. Id. These contentions are in the nature of arguing that it would not have been obvious to bodily incorporate the entire facial recognition process of Kung, and use that to replace the entirety of the Christl classification scheme. This is not, however, what the Examiner proposes. The Examiner draws only on the teachings in Kung of dividing an image into a plurality of subimages and generating a spatial feature matrix of those subimages. This is appropriate, in that the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981) (internal citations omitted). We are thus not apprised of error in the Examiner’s position relative to independent claim 1. Appellants present no separate arguments for claims 2-9 and 14 depending therefrom. Accordingly, the rejection of claims 1-9 and 14 is sustained. Appellants point out, with respect to claim 32, which depends from claim 1, that neither Kung nor Christl performs the claimed step of “determining the classification of the occupant from among the classifications including: adult, child and infant seat.” Reply Br. 4. The argument is unpersuasive, in that it attacks each reference individually and does not take into account the modification of the Christl method in view of the teachings of Kung as proposed by the Examiner. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (nonobviousness cannot be established by attacking references individually Appeal 2010-000813 Application 10/783,390 6 where rejections are based on combinations of references). The rejection of claim 32, and that of claim 33 depending therefrom and not separately argued, is sustained. For independent claim 25, Appellants argue that Christl does not disclose classifying an occupant wherein the classifications include an infant seat by “analyzing the low-level descriptors.” Reply Br. 4. Unlike independent claim 1, claim 25 does not recite the generation of a spatial feature matrix, and then classifying an occupant based on an analysis of the spatial feature matrix. Claim 25 calls for the generation of low-level descriptors based upon a plurality of subimages, and classifying the occupant based on analysis of the low-level descriptors. The Examiner’s findings directed to claim 25 do not identify wherein either Christl or Kung discloses or suggests generating low-level descriptors from a plurality of subimages and analyzing the low-level descriptors to classify an occupant. Ans. 6-7. As such, we are constrained to reverse the rejection of independent claim 25, and that of claims 26-29 depending therefrom. Appellants note that the language in independent claim 34 differs in certain respects from the language in independent claim 1, and argue that Kung “does not relate to whether an occupant area of [a] vehicle is occupied or not.” Reply Br. 4. Appellants further maintain that it would not be logical to use a face recognition system in order to determine whether there is an empty seat in the vehicle. Id. These arguments are not persuasive as they fail to address the combination of the teachings of Christl and Kung that forms the basis for the rejection. The rejection of claim 34 is sustained. Appellants argue that claim 35 includes a step of “determining whether the person is an adult or a child,” that the Kung system does not do Appeal 2010-000813 Application 10/783,390 7 this, and that this has nothing to do with facial recognition. Reply Br. 4-5. The arguments are not persuasive as they fail to address the combination of the teachings of Christl and Kung that forms the basis for the rejection. The rejection of claim 35 is sustained. Appellants argue that the limitations set forth in claims 36-38 are not met by the teachings of Christl, because Christl does not perform classifications and determinations based upon analysis of a spatial feature matrix. Reply Br. 5. Appellants further maintain that the Kung system would not perform the claimed steps, either. Id. The arguments are not persuasive as they attack the cited references individually and fail to address the combination of the teachings of Christl and Kung that forms the basis for the rejection. The rejection of claims 36-38 is sustained. Claims 10-13, 30 and 31--Obviousness--Christl/Kung/Baloch Claims 30 and 31 depend indirectly from independent claim 25. As noted above, the Examiner did not identify where in the references it was taught or suggested to generate low-level descriptors and classifying an occupant on the basis of an analysis of the low-level descriptors. The Examiner does not rely on Baloch as teaching these steps. Accordingly, the rejection of claims 30 and 31 is not sustained. For claim 10, Appellants argue that Kung is a face recognition system, and that there are thus “no ‘orientations’ or ‘locations’ to alter and no ‘system parameters’ to adjust”. Reply Br. 5. The argument is not persuasive as it fails to address the combination of the teachings of Christl, Kung and Baloch that forms the basis for the rejection. The rejection of claim 10, and of claims 11-13 depending therefrom, is sustained. Appeal 2010-000813 Application 10/783,390 8 DECISION The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-14 and 32-38 is affirmed. The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 25-31 is reversed. AFFIRMED-IN-PART mls Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation