Ex Parte Tang

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 24, 2016

13166197 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 24, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/166,197 06/22/2011
22879 7590 03/28/2016
HP Inc,
3390 E. Harmony Road
Mail Stop 35
FORT COLLINS, CO 80528-9544
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Feng Tang
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.
82263503 5391
EXAMINER
GILLIARD, DELOMIA L
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2665
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/28/2016 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):
ipa.mail@hp.com
barbl@hp.com
yvonne.bailey@hp.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte FENG TANG
Appeal2014-006344
Application 13/166,197
Technology Center 2600
Before JAMES R. HUGHES, LINZY T. McCARTNEY, and
MELISSA A. RAAP ALA, Administrative Patent Judges.
McCARTNEY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims
1-3, 5-9, and 11-15. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
Appeal2014-006344
Application 13/166,197
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The present application concerns "optically characterizing and
recognizing objects shown in images." Spec. i-f 12. Claim 1 illustrates the
claimed subject matter:
1. A method of optically characterizing an object, said
method comprising:
in an object learning system implemented by at least one
processor, querying an image search engine for the object;
extracting image features from a plurality of images
returned by the search engine with the object learning system in
response to the query;
clustering the image features extracted from the plurality
of images with the object learning system according to
similarities in optical characteristics of the image features; and
determining a set of image features most representative of
the object based on the clustering with the object learning
system;
in which the optical characteristics of the image features
are derived from a combination of ordinal and spatial labeling.
REJECTIONS
Claims 1 and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Cooper (US 2010/0177956 Al; July 15, 2010) and
Gokturk (US 2008/0212899 Al; Sept. 4, 2008).
Claims 2, 6-8, 12, and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Cooper, Gokturk, Musgrove (US 2008/0109232 Al; May
8, 2008), and Saptharishi (US 2009/0245573 Al; Oct. 1, 2009).
2
Appeal2014-006344
Application 13/166,197
Claims 3, 5, 9, and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Cooper, Gokturk, Saptharishi, and Gray (US
2010/0309225 Al; Dec. 9, 2010).
Claim 11 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Cooper, Gokturk, Musgrove Saptharishi, and Gray.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections and the evidence of
record in light of Appellant's arguments, and we disagree with Appellant
that the Examiner erred. We adopt the Examiner's findings, reasoning, and
conclusions set forth in the Final Action and Answer to the extent they are
consistent with the analysis below.
Appellant argues Cooper does not teach or suggest "the optical
characteristics of the image features are derived from ... ordinal and
spatial labeling" as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 12. In particular, Appellant
contends "claim 1 recites that each image feature is clustered based, not on
the distance vector between a first and second set of features from a first and
second image file, but instead on a single image feature the plurality of
images have in common." Id. Appellant also argues that Cooper fails to
teach or suggest this limitation because Cooper does not teach "deriving
optical characteristics of an image from 'a combination of ordinal and
spatial labeling."' Reply Br. 6; see also App. Br. 11. Appellant asserts the
specification makes clear the claimed optical characteristics are derived from
a single image. Reply Br. 6-7 (quoting Spec. i-fi-131, 34).
3
Appeal2014-006344
Application 13/166,197
We find Appellant's arguments unpersuasive. Claim 1 does not recite
"cluster[ing] based ... on a single image feature the plurality of images
have in common" as argued by Appellant. App. Br. 12. Rather, claim 1
recites "clustering the image features extracted from the plurality of images
... according to similarities in optical characteristics of the image
features." Id. at 23 (emphasis added). Accordingly, this argument is
incommensurate with the scope of claim 1.
Similarly, claim 1 does not recite "deriving optical characteristics of
an image from 'a combination of ordinal and spatial labeling'" as suggested
by Appellant. Reply Br. 6. Claim 1 recites "the optical characteristics of the
image features are derived from a combination of ordinal and spatial
labeling." App. Br. 23. Neither this limitation nor any other limitation
recited in claim 1 explicitly requires using a single image to derive the
claimed optical characteristics.
Moreover, the portions of the specification cited by Appellant do not
establish the "optical characteristics [are] derived from a combination of
ordinal and spatial labeling associated with a single image." Reply Br. 7.
The cited portions of the specification disclose that an ordinal spatial
intensity distribution ("OSID") may be used to generate descriptions and
"[a] description is ... generated (block 320) for each optical feature
extracted from each of the images returned by the search engine." Spec.
i-fi-1 31, 34. These statements simply teach that, at least in some
embodiments, Appellant's method generates a description for each optical
feature extracted from each image. These statements do not disclose how
the method generates a description, much less limit the method to using a
single image. In any event, we do not import limitations from the
4
Appeal2014-006344
Application 13/166,197
specification into the claims. See SuperGuide Corp. v. DirecTV Enters.,
Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ("Though understanding the claim
language may be aided by the explanations contained in the written
description, it is important not to import into a claim limitations that are not
a part of the claim.").
Appellant also contends Cooper fails to teach or suggest "a
combination of ordinal and spatial labeling" as recited in claim 1. App. Br.
12. Appellant notes their specification describes "[b ]inning the pixels in the
ordinal space ensures that the feature is invariant to complex brightness
changes while binning the pixels spatially captures the structural information
of the patch." Id. at 12-13 (quoting Spec. i-f 34) (emphasis omitted).
Appellant argues "both these types of binnings are not being taught in
Cooper." Id. at 13. According to Appellant, Cooper simply teaches
"quantiz[ing] into a fixed number of equally split orientation[] bins to form a
historgram" and "placing a spatial grid over an image." Id. at 12-13.
We find Appellant's arguments unpersuasive. Appellant essentially
contends the specification limits the "combination of ordinal and spatial
labeling" recited in claim 1 to the "binning" operations disclosed in the
specification. But claim 1 recites "a combination of ordinal and spatial
labeling," not binning. App. Br. 23. The cited portions of the specification
do not disclose what the recited "combination of ordinal and spatial
labeling" includes or how it is performed; indeed, the cited portions of the
specification do not include the word "labeling." See Spec. i-fi-131, 34. The
Examiner found, among other things, that Cooper discloses distance vectors
and features (e.g., color histograms, texture features, edge features, etc.) that
teach the claimed "combination of ordinal and spatial labeling," under its
5
Appeal2014-006344
Application 13/166,197
broadest reasonable interpretation. See Ans. 18-19; see also Final Act. 2---6.
Appellant's arguments have not persuaded us this finding is erroneous.
For the above reasons, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1.
Appellant's arguments concerning the remaining claims are similar to the
arguments discussed above and are unpersuasive for the same reasons. See,
e.g., App. Br. 14--22.
DECISION
For the above reasons, we affirm the rejections of claims 1-3, 5-9,
and 11-15.
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
6