Ex Parte KIM

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 31, 2019

14299550 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 31, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/299,550 06/09/2014
66547 7590 02/04/2019
THE FARRELL LAW FIRM, P.C.
290 Broadhollow Road
Suite 2IOE
Melville, NY 11747
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Kyunghwa KIM
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO.
1398-692
(YPF201303-0058)
CONFIRMATION NO.
5111
EXAMINER
AMIN, JW ALANT B
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2618
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/04/2019 ELECTRONIC
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.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
pto@farrelliplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte KYUNGHW A KIM
Appeal2018-004236
Application 14/299,550
Technology Center 2600
Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, JENNIFERL. McKEOWN, and CARLL.
SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
JEFFERY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
decision to reject claims 1-13, 15-17, and 19. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant's invention provides information in a view mode that can
apply and display virtual information discriminatively according to an
importance value of objects in a reality image. To this end, the reality image
1 Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Samsung Electronics Co.,
Ltd. App. Br. 1.
Appeal2018-004236
Application 14/299,550
is analyzed and classified based on objects in the image. See generally
Abstract; Spec. 35-37; Fig. 2. Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A method of providing information by using an electronic device,
the method comprising:
displaying a reality image including at least one object acquired in a
view mode; analyzing an importance value of objects according to the reality
image; determining a classification of the reality image based on a type of
the at least one object included in the reality image;
determining a display range of virtual information for each of the
objects according to the importance value of the objects, the importance
value of the objects in the reality image is dependent on the classification of
the reality image;
mapping the virtual information according to the display range of the
virtual information onto each of the objects; and
displaying the virtual information for each of the objects according to
the display range of the virtual information,
wherein the display range of the virtual information corresponding to
an object increases with an increased importance value of the object, and
wherein as a number of the object decreases an amount of the virtual
information corresponding to the object increases.
THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejected claims 1-3, 5, and 7-11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as unpatentable over Jin (US 2012/0047244 Al; published Feb. 23, 2012),
Kang (US 2009/0138687 Al; published May 28, 2009), and Pandey (US
2014/0132629 Al; published May 15, 2014). Final Act. 2-9. 2
2 Throughout this opinion, we refer to (1) the Final Rejection mailed June
30, 2017 ("Final Act."); (2) the Appeal Brief filed December 4, 2017 ("App.
2
Appeal2018-004236
Application 14/299,550
The Examiner rejected claims 4, 6, 12, 13, 15-17, and 193 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Jin, Kang, Pandey, and Kim (US
2012/0044263 Al; published Feb. 23, 2012). Final Act. 9-16.
THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OVER JIN, KANG, AND PANDEY
Regarding independent claim 1, the Examiner finds that Jin discloses,
among other things, (1) displaying a reality image including at least one
object; (2) analyzing an importance value of objects according to the reality
image; (3) determining a display range of virtual information for each object
according to the importance value; ( 4) mapping the virtual information
according to the display range onto each object; and (5) displaying the
virtual information for each object according to the display range, where the
display range increases with an object's increased importance value. Final
Act. 2--4. Although the Examiner acknowledges that (1) objects in Jin's
reality image are acquired in a view mode, and (2) Jin's reality image is not
classified based on a type of object in that image, where the importance
value depends on the classification, the Examiner cites Kang and Pandey for
teaching these respective features in concluding that the claim would have
been obvious. Final Act. 5.
Appellant argues the cited prior art does not teach or suggest
determining a classification of the reality image based on a type of at least
one object in the reality image, as claimed. App. Br. 6--10; Reply Br. 2-5.
Br."); (3) the Examiner's Answer mailed January 10, 2018 ("Ans."); and (4)
the Reply Brief filed March 12, 2018 ("Reply Br.").
3 Although the Examiner's rejection includes cancelled claims 14 and 18
(Ans. 9), we nonetheless omit those claims here for clarity, and treat the
Examiner's error as harmless.
3
Appeal2018-004236
Application 14/299,550
According to Appellant, Pandey merely refers to a person, text, etc. as
objects in a reality image, and enables users to classify various types of
regions by specifying their priority. App. Br. 9-10; Reply Br. 3--4.
Appellant emphasizes, however, that Pandey's functionality does not
determine a classification of the reality image as claimed-a classification
that is said to classify reality images themselves. Reply Br. 3--4. Appellant
adds that the Examiner's combination results from impermissible hindsight
by using information gleaned only from Appellant's own disclosure. App.
Br. 10.
ISSUES
(1) Under§ 103, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 by
finding that Jin, Kang, and Pandey collectively would have taught or
suggested determining a classification of a reality image based on a type of
at least one object in that image ("the classification limitation")?
(2) Is the Examiner's proposed combination of the cited references
supported by articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to
justify the Examiner's obviousness conclusion?
ANALYSIS
As noted above, this dispute turns on whether the prior art teaches or
suggests the classification limitation-a limitation that the Examiner finds is
taught or suggested by Pandey. See Final Act. 5; Ans. 2, 6. We, therefore,
limit our discussion of the prior art principally to Pandey.
According to the Specification, a controller analyzes a reality image in
step 205 of Figure 2 by (1) extracting objects configuring the reality image,
4
Appeal2018-004236
Application 14/299,550
and (2) analyzing a classification of the reality image based on the extracted
objects. Spec. 35. For example, the controller may identify which type the
reality image is related to amongst object types, such as a person, a building,
and an object, or whether the reality image is related to an intangible type
such as an intangible space (or spot) provided as a position-based service.
Id. 35-36. In addition, the controller may determine complexity (e.g., the
number of objects, their importance value, and the like) in classifying the
corresponding reality image. Id. 36. The Specification adds that, in
connection with Table 2, an attribute of virtual information may be classified
into (1) contact information; (2) attraction spot information; and (3) Social
Networking Service (SNS)/NEWS information to correspond to a
classification of a reality image ( e.g., a person, a background, and an object).
Id. 24--25.
Although this exemplary description informs our understanding of the
recited reality image classification, it is not so limited. As such, we see no
error in the Examiner's finding that Pandey at least suggests the recited
classification limitation.
As noted in the Abstract, Pandey's system organizes virtual objects
within an augmented reality display. In one aspect, regions that are assigned
lowest priorities are used to display virtual objects. Pandey ,r,r 7, 56. As
shown in Pandey's Table 1, a user can classify region types by specifying
priorities for various regions, including people, text, walls, display devices,
etc. Id. ,r 55.
By classifying a reality image's constituent regions based on
prioritizing various object types in that image in Pandey's paragraph 55, the
image is effectively classified at least with respect to its classified regions.
5
Appeal2018-004236
Application 14/299,550
Accord Ans. 6 (finding that Pandey's reality image is classified based on
various objects in the image). Notably, the objects' importance value
depends at least partly on that image classification, at least with respect to
the relative priorities assigned to the image's constituent regions associated
with those objects in Table 1. See Pandey ,r 55. Appellant's arguments to
the contrary (App. Br. 9-10; Reply Br. 3--4) are unavailing and not
commensurate with the scope of the claim.
Appellant's arguments regarding Kang's individual shortcomings in
this regard (App. Br. 8; Reply Br. 3) are likewise unavailing, for they are not
germane to the limited purpose for which Kang was cited, namely merely to
show that displaying real-time images corresponding to an object in a
camera's preview mode is known in the art, and that providing such a
feature in Jin's system would have been obvious. See Final Act. 5; Ans. 5.
Nor are we persuaded of error in the Examiner's articulated rationale
to combine the cited references as proposed. See Final Act. 5. Such
enhancements are not the product of impermissible hindsight, but rather use
prior art elements predictably according to their established functions-an
obvious improvement. See KSR Int 'l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417
(2007).
Therefore, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 1, and claims 2, 3, 5, and 7-11 not argued separately with
particularity.
THE REJECTION OVER JIN, KANG, PANDEY, AND KIM
We also sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent claim 13 that
recites, in pertinent part, determining a classification of a reality image based
6
Appeal2018-004236
Application 14/299,550
on a type of at least one object included in the reality image. Despite
Appellant's arguments to the contrary (App. Br. 11-13; Reply Br. 5---6), we
see no error in the Examiner's reliance on Pandey for at least suggesting the
recited classification limitation for the reasons indicated previously.
Appellant's arguments regarding Kim's individual shortcomings in
this regard (App. Br. 11; Reply Br. 5) are likewise unavailing, for they are
not germane to the limited purpose for which Kim was cited, namely merely
to show that (1) overlapping and displaying virtual information on each
object, and (2) controlling displaying of that overlapped information is
known in the art, and that providing such a feature in Jin's system would
have been obvious. See Final Act. 16. In short, the Examiner's proposed
enhancements are not the product of impermissible hindsight, but rather use
prior art elements predictably according to their established functions-an
obvious improvement. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 417.
Therefore, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 13, and claims 4, 6, 12, and 14--19 not argued separately with
particularity.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1-13, 15-17, and 19
under§ 103.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-13, 15-17, and
19.
7
Appeal2018-004236
Application 14/299,550
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
8