Ex Parte Ramachandran et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 25, 2018

13725175 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 25, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/725, 175 12/21/2012
73859 7590 09/27/2018
Silicon Valley Patent Group LLP
Attn: Client QCM
4010 Moorpark Avenue
Suite 210
San Jose, CA 95117
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Mahesh Ramachandran
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. CONFIRMATION NO.
Ql21450USmh 6254
EXAMINER
NGUYEN, JIMMY H
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2696
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/27/2018 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):
ocpat_uspto@qualcomm.com
qualcomm_P AIR@svpatentgroup.com
BWYMAN@SVPA TENTGROUP.COM
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MARESH RAMACHANDRAN, CHRISTOPHER BRUNNER,
ARVIND RAMANANDAN, SERAFIN DIAZ SPINDOLA,
AND MURALI RAMASWAMY
Appeal2018---003286
Application 13/725, 175
Technology Center 2600
Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, JENNIFER L. McKEOWN, and
SCOTT B. HOWARD, and Administrative Patent Judges.
McKEOWN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
decision to reject claims 1-27.
We affirm.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is QUALCOMM
Incorporated. App. Br. 3.
Appeal2018-003286
Application 13/725, 175
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants' disclosed and claimed invention is "related generally to
using a computer vision based pose and an inertial sensor based pose
separately in a visualization application, and more specifically to displaying
separate graphics for the computer vision based pose and the inertial sensor
based pose to prompt user movement of the mobile device." Spec ,r 1.
Claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed invention and reads as follows:
1. A method comprising:
determining a vision based pose of a mobile device using
captured images by extracting features from each new image and
comparing the extracted features to features from a reference
image, wherein the vision based pose is a first estimate of a
position and an orientation of the mobile device produced based
on the captured images that are captured by the mobile device;
determining a sensor based pose of the mobile device
using inertial sensors, wherein the sensor based pose is a second
estimate of the position and the orientation of the mobile device
produced based on data from the inertial sensors that are in the
mobile device; and
using the vision based pose and the sensor based pose
separately in a visualization application, wherein using the vision
based pose and the sensor based pose separately in the
visualization application comprises rendering at least one
graphic that moves with respect to a display on the mobile device
based on the vision based pose.
THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejected claims 1-3, 5-10, 15-18, and 20-27 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Mahan (US 2012/0206129 Al; published
August 16, 2012), Mohri (US 2005/0232467 Al; published October 20,
2005), and Gomez (US 8,912,979 Bl; issued December 16, 2014). Final
Act. 8-12.
2
Appeal2018-003286
Application 13/725, 175
The Examiner rejected claims 4, 11, and 19 are rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Mahan, Mohri, Gomez, and Shiozaki (US
2011/0310283 Al; published December 22, 2011). Final Act. 12-13.
The Examiner rejected claims 5-7, 12-14, 20-21 and 25-26 are
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Mahan, Mohri, Gomez,
and Zhang (US 2011/0178708 Al; published Jul. 21, 2011). Final Act. 13-
15.
The Examiner rejected claims 1-3, 5-10, 15-18, and 20-27 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Mahan, Garin (US 2012/0176491 Al;
published July 12, 2012), and Gomez. Final Act. 16-21.
The Examiner rejected claims 4, 11, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Mahan, Garin, Gomez and Shiozaki. Final Act. 21-22.
ANALYSIS
THE REJECTIONS UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 103 BASED ON MAHAN, GARIN, AND
GOMEZ
Claims 1-3, 5-10, 15-18, and 20---27
Based on the record before us, we are not persuaded that the Examiner
erred in rejecting claims 1-3, 5-10, 15-18, and 20-27 as unpatentable over
Mahan, Garin, and Gomez.
The Examiner finds that Garin teaches the determining a vision based
pose and the determining the sensor based pose limitations. Final Act. 16-
18. Appellants do not challenge these findings, but instead assert that
Mahan does not teach the limitations. See, e.g., App. Br. 13-17. One
cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the
rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642
3
Appeal2018-003286
Application 13/725, 175
F.2d 413,426 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed.
Cir. 1986). As such, Appellants' arguments are unpersuasive.
Appellants next assert that it would not be obvious to combine Mahan
with Garin because it would change the principle of operation of Mahan.
App. Br. 17-18. We disagree. Namely, Appellants fail to identify how the
principle of operation would be changed. Garin expressly refers to the
desirability of using position determining methods in mobile devices, such
as the mobile device disclosed in Mahan, and, thus, the combination would
have been obvious to achieve the predictable result of improving position
detection accuracy. Garin ,r,r 3-10; Mahan ,r,r 3-5; Final Act. 18; see also,
e.g., In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1550 (Fed. Cir. 1983) ("[I]t is not
necessary that the inventions of the references be physically combinable to
render obvious the invention under review."); In re Nievelt, 482 F.2d 965,
968 (CCPA 1973) ("Combining the teachings of references does not involve
an ability to combine their specific structures.").
The Examiner finds that Gomez teaches the using the vision and
sensor based poses separately in a visualization application and including the
at least one graphic moving limitations. Final Act. 18-19. Appellants,
though, argue that "[t]here is no disclosure in Gomez of a 'vision based
pose' or using 'the vision based pose and the sensor based pose separately in
a visualization application' as claimed." App. Br. 20; see also 21-22.
According to Appellants, Gomez only disclose one inertial sensor to detect
movement and Gomez's reticle 320 moves based on data from this sensor.
App. Br. 21-22. As such, Appellants conclude that "there is no disclosure in
Gomez that 'reticle 320 ... moves with respect to a display 204 on the mobile
device based on the vision based pose." App. Br. 22.
4
Appeal2018-003286
Application 13/725, 175
Appellants' arguments are unpersuasive as they are not commensurate
with the scope of the claim. The Examiner explains
Col. 11: 33-55 further disclosing the video camera 420 capturing
the image and providing image data to the computing system 418
which receives and analyzes data from the video camera to
generate images including the reticle 320 and displayed on the
display on the mobile device as shown in Figs. 3A-3B, i.e., the
reticle 320 is displayed on the display based on the data received
from the video camera) comprises rendering the graphic 320 that
moves with respect to a display (20414101412; Figs. 3A, 3B and
4; Col. 12:25-27) on the mobile device based on the vision based
pose (Figs. 3A-3B; Col. 7:34-48, disclosing rendering the reticle
320 that moves with respect to a display 204 on the mobile device
(Col. 10:46-49) based on the vision based pose (see the above
discussion or Col. 11: 33-55) ), thereby allowing the user to
properly overlay the selected graphic, such as a building or
landmark on the map, with the reticle so as to perform a function
associated with the selected graphic in according to a particular
application (Col. 7 :49-61 ).
Final Act. 18-19. In other words, we understand the reticle to be positioned
based on captured image data from the camera, i.e. the reticle is displayed at
the center of the captured image. Gomez, thus, discloses a vision based
pose. Gomez also describes that the reticle moves with respect to the
display. Gomez, Col. 7:34-48, Col. 10:46-49, Figs. 3. Notably, the claims
do not require the first graphic' s movement to continually be based on
captured image data and, thus, Gomez's rendering of the reticle over the
captured image is based on the vision based pose.
Likewise unavailing is Appellants' challenge to the combination of
references. Namely, the Examiner reasons that it would have been obvious
at the time of the invention that Mahan's mobile device would benefit
Gomez's method "for the predictable result of allowing the user to properly
overlay the selected graphic with the reticle so as to perform a function
5
Appeal2018-003286
Application 13/725, 175
associated with the selected graphic in according to a particular application,
as taught by the Gomez reference." Final Act. 19. Mahan disclose a mobile
device and Gomez teaches a method that may be applied and beneficial to
mobile devices. See Gomez, col. 10, 11. 14--58 (teaching that the method
may be applied to mobile devices, including for example the mobile device
of Mahan). As such, it would have been obvious at the time of the invention
to incorporate Gomez's method to Mahan's mobile device. See
Final Act. 11.
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-3, 5-10,
15-18, and 20-27 as unpatentable over Mahan, Garin, and Gomez.
THE REJECTIONS UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 103 BASED ON MAHAN, GARIN, GOMEZ,
AND SHIOZAKI
Claims 4, 11, and 19
Appellants assert that Shiozaki fails to cure the deficiencies of Mahan,
Garin, and Gomez. App. Br. 26. As discussed above, we are not persuaded
of error in the rejection based on Mahan, Garin, and Gomez. Accordingly,
we similarly affirm the rejection of claims 4, 11, and 19 as unpatentable over
Mahan, Garin, and Gomez.
REMAINING OBVIOUSNESS REJECTIONS
Because our decision is dispositive regarding patentability of all
appealed claims based on the foregoing combinations of prior art references,
we need not reach the merits of the Examiner's decision to reject also the
claims based on the additionally cited combinations of prior art. See In re
Gleave, 560 F.3d 1331, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (not reaching other rejections
6
Appeal2018-003286
Application 13/725, 175
after upholding an anticipation rejection); see also Beloit Corp. v. Valmet
Oy, 742 F.2d 1421, 1423 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (approving ITC's determination
based on a single dispositive issue, and not reaching other issues not decided
by the lower tribunal).
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-27 as
unpatentable over the cited combinations of prior art.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED
7