Ex Parte Kennedy et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 23, 2017

13416801 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 23, 2017)

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.
13/416,801 03/09/2012 Howard J. Kennedy 40189/03001 (1 l-DIS-179 1001
M
94470 7590 10/24/2017
DISNEY ENTERPRISES, INC.
c/o Fay Kaplun & Marcin, LLP
150 Broadway
Suite 702
New York, NY 10038
EXAMINER
MONSHI, SAMIRA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2422
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/24/2017 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 HOWARD J. KENNEDY and SMADAR GEFEN
Appeal 2017-003887
Application 13/416,801
Technology Center 2400
Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, TERRENCE W. McMILLIN, and
JASON M. REPKO, Administrative Patent Judges.
REPKO, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1—21. App. Br. I.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We reverse.
1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Disney Enterprises, Inc.
App. Br. 2.
2 Throughout this Opinion, we refer to (1) the Final Rejection (“Final Act.”)
mailed September 22, 2015, (2) the Appeal Brief (“App. Br.”) filed April 22,
2016, (3) the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.”) mailed November 2, 2016, and
(4) the Reply Brief (“Reply Br.”) filed January 3, 2017.
Appeal 2017-003887
Application 13/416,801
THE INVENTION
Appellants’ invention determines a camera’s focal length from the
focal length of another camera positioned nearby. Spec. 11. According to
the Specification, an accurate camera pose is required to take images of
sporting events at stadiums, for example. Id. Tflf 2, 9. The camera’s pose can
be calculated from the focal length. See id. Although the camera can report
the focal length, the value may be too inaccurate to rely upon. Id. Instead of
using the camera’s reported focal length, Appellants’ invention calculates a
focal length using images taken by the cameras. Id. 110. This involves
calculating a relative homography using corresponding feature pairs in the
images. Id.
Claim 1 is reproduced below with our emphasis:
1. A method, comprising:
receiving a first image from a first camera;
receiving a second image from a second camera, wherein
the second camera is positioned with a relative orientation to the
first camera;
receiving a camera parameter of the second camera;
determining a first set of corresponding feature pairs
common to the first image and the second image;
determining, based on the first set of corresponding
feature pairs, a relative homography between the first image and
the second image; and
calculating a focal length of the first camera based on the
relative homography and the camera parameter of the second
camera.
THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner relies on the following as evidence:
Li et al. (Li ’073) US 2006/0023073 A1 Feb. 2, 2006
Li et al. (Li ’624) US 2010/0259624 Al Oct. 14, 2010
2
Appeal 2017-003887
Application 13/416,801
Gefen et al.
Huang
US 2011/0090344 Al Apr. 21, 2011
US 2012/0154599 Al June 21, 2012
Claims 1—4, 7—10, and 13—16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)
as anticipated by Huang. Final Act. 2—9.
Claims 5, 6, 11, 12, 17, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Huang, Li ’073, and Li ’624. Final Act. 9-19.
Claims 19 and 213 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Huang and Gefen. Final Act. 16—19.
Claim 20 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Huang, Li ’073, Li ’624, and Gefen. Final Act. 19—20.
The Examiner finds that Huang discloses every limitation of
independent claims 1,7, and 13. Final Act. 2—3, 5—8. In particular, the
Examiner finds that Huang determines a relative homography based on a set
of feature pairs. E.g., id. at 3. In the Examiner’s view, the recited relative-
homography determination encompasses Huang’s projection of the master
camera’s center point of view (Em), the slave camera’s center point of view
(Es), and the object of interest’s center (C). Ans. 4.
Appellants argue that Haung’s projection does not determine a
relative homography. App. Br. 4—6. According to Appellants, the recited
3 In the heading for this rejection, the Examiner lists claim 20 as being
rejected. Final Act. 16. Under this heading, the Examiner, however,
provides a substantive rejection for claim 21, not claim 20. Id. at 17—19.
Claim 20 is rejected separately, under a different rationale. Id. at 19—20.
For the purposes of this appeal, we treat claim 21 as rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Huang and Gefen.
THE ANTICIPATION REJECTION
3
Appeal 2017-003887
Application 13/416,801
homography is a bijection that maps a first image’s features to the
corresponding features in a second image. Id. at 5. Appellants argue that
Huang does not need to determine a relative homography because Huang
uses a fixed background—i.e., the background is always a known parameter.
Id. at 6. According to Appellants, the invention determines a relative
homography because algorithms like Huang’s are unsuitable for constantly
changing backgrounds, such as a crowd at a sporting event. Id.
Therefore, Appellants’ arguments for independent claims 1, 7, and 13
(see id. at 4—6) present us with the following issue: Under § 102, has the
Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1,7, and 13 by finding that Huang
discloses “determining, based on the first set of corresponding feature pairs,
a relative homography between the first image and the second image,” as
recited. On the record before us, we are persuaded that the Examiner erred
because we disagree with the Examiner’s interpretation that the recited
relative-homography determination encompasses Huang’s projection. See
App. Br. 4—6.
The Specification explains that the invention derives a spatial
mapping between two cameras from a relative homography. Spec. 110.
One embodiment calculates a relative homography from corresponding
feature pairs. Id. For example, the feature pairs can correspond to the same
landmark from the scene that appears in both a first camera’s image and a
second camera’s image. See id. The Specification describes that a
homography maps the points in one image to the corresponding points in the
other image. See id. 116. So, the homography can be determined by
solving an equation using the corresponding pairs of points, lines, and
conics. See id. H 17—20. Although Appellants have not acted as
4
Appeal 2017-003887
Application 13/416,801
lexicographers, these examples, nevertheless, inform our understanding of
how the recited relative homography can be determined.
By the claim’s plain language, the relative-homography determination
uses feature pairs, such as those described in the Specification. See, e.g.,
Spec. 16—20. In particular, the independent claims require (1)
determining the corresponding feature pairs and (2) determining a relative
homography between two images based on these pairs.
Unlike a relative-homography determination based on feature pairs,
Appellants argue that Huang merely projects one point onto another in the
cited embodiment. See App. Br. 6. We agree. Specifically, Huang defines
C as the object of interest’s center. Huang 143. This center has image
coordinates (u,v) and world coordinate (x, y, 0). Id. Image coordinates are
pixel locations in the image. See id. And the world coordinate system
defines a three-dimensional space. See id., Fig. 4A. Huang explains that
world coordinate C can be projected onto an x-y plane. Id. 145. This
projection uses the image dimensions (Iw, In) as well as the master camera’s
tilt angle (0m), world coordinate (hm), and field of view (a, (3). See id. From
the camera parameters, Huang determines the camera’s zooming factor. See
id. ]Hf 55—58.
To be sure, Huang’s projection does involve some relationship
between two points. See id. But the Examiner’s interpretation of the
projection as a relative homography is unreasonable because the Examiner
does not address how the projection is based on the recited corresponding
feature pairs. Ans. 4. Neither the cited portions of Huang nor the
Examiner’s corresponding explanation discuss using a relationship between
features in image pairs in the manner claimed. See Final Act. 2—3, 5—8
5
Appeal 2017-003887
Application 13/416,801
(citing Huang || 34-42, 55—58, Figs. 4A, 4B). Rather, Huang’s projection
merely calculates three coordinates (x, y, and z) for a center point C, using
parameters from the master camera. Huang 145.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
independent claims 1, 7, and 13. For similar reasons, we also do not sustain
the rejection of the corresponding dependent claims 2—4, 8—10, and 14—16.
THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejects claims 5, 6, 11, 12, and 17—21 as being obvious
over Huang, and various combinations of Gefen, Li ’073, and Li ’624.
Final Act. 9-19. Because the additional references are not relied upon to
teach the limitation missing from Huang, the additional references do not
cure the deficiency discussed above. See id. Accordingly, we do not sustain
the Examiner’s rejections of claims 5, 6, 11, 12, and 17—21 for the same
reasons discussed above in connection with claims 1, 7, and 13.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—21.
REVERSED
6