QUALCOMM INCORPORATED

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 30, 2022

2021001293 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 30, 2022)

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. 13/723,891 12/21/2012 Judit Martinez Bauza 121791U1 5588 15099 7590 03/30/2022 Moore IP/Qualcomm 13359 N HWY 183, #406-243 Austin, TX 78750 EXAMINER KWAN, MATTHEW K ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2482 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/30/2022 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): docketing@mooreiplaw.com eofficeaction@appcoll.com ocpat_uspto@qualcomm.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte JUDIT MARTINEZ BAUZA, KALIN MITKOV ATANASSOV, and SERGIU RADU GOMA Appeal 2021-001293 Application 13/723,891 Technology Center 2400 Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, JOHNNY A. KUMAR, and JOYCE CRAIG, Administrative Patent Judges. DIXON, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 3-11, 13-18, 21, 24-28, 31, 33, 34, 37, and 41-54. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). Claims 2, 12, 19, 20, 22, 23, 29, 30, 32, 35, 36, and 38-40 are canceled. Claim 49 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be 1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a)(2019). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Qualcomm Incorporated. Appeal Br. 1. Appeal 2021-001293 Application 13/723,891 2 allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. We REVERSE. CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to adjusting structured light camera systems for dynamic scenes with different reflectance properties. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A device adapted to compensate for differences in surface reflectivity in an active depth sensing system, the device comprising: a receiver sensor configured to generate a first captured image of a scene that includes: a first region of the scene including a first codeword projected by a first light element; and a second region of the scene including a second codeword projected by a second light element; and a processing circuit configured to: ascertain, from the first captured image, a first set of parameters for the first region and a second set of parameters for the second region, the first set of parameters associated with decoding the first codeword and the second set of parameters associated with decoding the second codeword; determine, for capture of a subsequent image of the scene, a first light source power of the first light element based on the first set of parameters and a second light source power of the second light element based on the second set of parameters; Appeal 2021-001293 Application 13/723,891 3 cause the receiver sensor to generate a second captured image of the scene using a structured light pattern, the second captured image including a version of the first codeword in the first region of the scene, the version of the first codeword projected by the first light element at the first light source power and a version of the second codeword in the second region of the scene, the version of the second codeword projected by the second light element at the second light source power; and compare portions of the second captured image to a codebook to decode one or both of the version of the first codeword and the version of the second codeword in the second captured image. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Name Reference Date Barrett US 5,467,413 Nov. 14, 1995 Mack et al. US 6,377,700 B1 Apr. 23, 2002 Bean et al. US 2003/0020827 A1 Jan. 30, 2003 Hara et al. US 2004/0262393 A1 Dec. 30, 2004 Banik et al. US 2005/0119527 A1 June 2, 2005 Sasaki (Sasaki1) US 2007/0031029 A1 Feb. 8, 2007 Sasaki (Sasaki2) US 2009/0022367 A1 Jan. 22, 2009 Krichi et al. US 2009/0212111 A1 Aug. 27, 2009 Tonogai et al. US 2010/0110180 A1 May 6, 2010 Bendall et al. US 2011/0205552 A1 Aug. 25, 2011 Katz et al. US 2012/0056982 A1 Mar. 8, 2012 Sharma et al. US 2012/0087573 A1 Apr. 12, 2012 Appeal 2021-001293 Application 13/723,891 4 REJECTIONS Claims 1, 3, 5-7, 10, 11, 15-17, 21, 24-27, 31, 37, 47, 50, and 54 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Sasaki1 in view of Barrett and further in view of Bendall. Claims 4, 13, 14, 33, and 34 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Sasaki1 in view of Barrett and Bendall, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tonogai. Claims 8, 9, 18, and 28 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Sasaki1 in view of Barrett and Bendall, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bean. Claim 41 stands rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Sasaki1 in view of Barrett and Bendall as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Sharma. Claims 42 and 43 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Sasaki1 in view of Barrett and Bendall as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Hara. Claims 44 and 45 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Sasaki1 in view of Barrett and Bendall as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Krichi. Claim 46 stands rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Sasaki1 in view of Barrett and Bendall, as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Banik. Claims 48 and 53 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Sasaki1 in view of Barrett and Bendall, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sasaki2. Appeal 2021-001293 Application 13/723,891 5 Claim 51 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Sasaki1 in view of Barrett and Bendall, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Katz. Claim 52 stands rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Sasaki1 in view of Barrett and Bendall and Katz as applied to claim 51 above, and further in view of Mack. OPINION 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) Independent Claims 1, 11, 21, and 31 The Examiner has the initial burden to set forth the basis for any rejection so as to put the patent Applicant on notice of the reasons why the Applicant is not entitled to a patent on the claim scope that he seeks - the so-called “prima facie case.” In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992). An Appellant may attempt to overcome an Examiner’s rejection on appeal to the Board by submitting arguments and/or evidence to show that the Examiner made an error in either (1) an underlying finding of fact upon which the final conclusion was based, or (2) the reasoning used to reach the legal conclusion. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential) (cited with approval in In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[I]t has long been the Board’s practice to require an applicant to identify the alleged error in the examiner’s rejections.”). The panel then reviews the rejection for error based upon the issues identified by Appellant, and in light of the arguments and evidence produced thereon. See Oetiker, 977 F.2d at 1445; see also Frye, 94 USPQ2d at 1075. Appeal 2021-001293 Application 13/723,891 6 We are bound by the controlling guidance of our reviewing court: “[i]t is the claims that measure the invention.” See SRI Int’l v. Matsushita Elec. Corp. of Am., 775 F.2d 1107, 1121 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (en banc) (citations omitted); In re Hiniker Co., 150 F.3d 1362, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (citations omitted) (“[T]he name of the game is the claim.”) (emphasis added). “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.” SuperGuide Corp. v. DirecTV Enters., Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875 (Fed. Cir. 2004). “We have cautioned against reading limitations into a claim from the preferred embodiment described in the specification, even if it is the only embodiment described, absent clear disclaimer in the specification.” In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2004). “[D]uring examination proceedings, claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification.” In re Hyatt, 211 F.3d 1367, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2000). [A]s an initial matter, the PTO applies to the verbiage of the proposed claims the broadest reasonable meaning of the words in their ordinary usage as they would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, taking into account whatever enlightenment by way of definitions or otherwise that may be afforded by the written description contained in the applicant’s specification. In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Non-obviousness cannot be established by attacking references individually where, as here, the ground of unpatentability is based upon the teachings of a combination of references. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981). Rather, the test for obviousness is whether the combination Appeal 2021-001293 Application 13/723,891 7 of references, taken as a whole, would have suggested the patentee’s invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art. In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). “[R]ejections on obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (citing Kahn, 441 F.3d at 988). The Examiner’s burden of proving non- patentability is by a preponderance of the evidence. See In re Caveney, 761 F.2d 671, 674 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (“[P]reponderance of the evidence is the standard that must be met by the PTO in making rejections.”). “A rejection based on section 103 clearly must rest on a factual basis.” In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017 (CCPA 1967). “The Patent Office has the initial duty of supplying the factual basis for its rejection. It may not . . . resort to speculation, unfounded assumptions or hindsight reconstruction to supply deficiencies in its factual basis.” Id. We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues Appellant identifies, and in light of the arguments and evidence produced thereon. Upon review of the evidence and each of the respective positions set forth in the record, we find that the preponderance of evidence supports Appellant’s position in the record. Accordingly, we reverse each of the Examiner’s rejections on appeal essentially for the reasons set forth in the record by Appellant, and add the following for emphasis only. At the outset, we note that we had difficulty in discerning the Examiner’s and Appellant’s positions in this appeal. First, the Examiner’s rejection of the specific sequence of steps in the claimed process is divided between the three separate references in the obviousness rejection. The Appeal 2021-001293 Application 13/723,891 8 Examiner attempts to provide some rationale for the combination, but does not provide a clear line of reasoning for the intertwining of the various options and alternatives from the three prior art references. Second, the Examiner’s rejection is complicated by Appellant responding to every reference used in the various combinations for the obviousness rejections of all the claims rather than specifically addressing the specific three reference combination in the rejection of the independent claims. Third, the invention is a basic idea of analyzing a first image with two optical codewords embedded into the lighting. The first image is measured [at first power levels of the light elements] for a first region and a second region. The claim further recites “for capture of a subsequent image of a scene” (like an intended use limitation) to determine a first and a second light source power based upon first and second set of parameters. Then, the receiver generates a second captured image based upon those modified power levels used for the light elements at the modified powers of the “subsequent [now second] image” having a “versions” of the two (first and second) codewords. The claimed invention is difficult to parse because the claim is drafted from the view of the receiver, but the claim includes implied/indirect limitations that must be performed at the transmitter/projector to modify the projected second image and produce modified “versions” of the first and second codewords in the subsequent/second image to be received as a captured second image and then decode and compare the versions of the first and second codeword(s) in the captured image with a codebook. Having that as the background, we evaluate the Examiner’s obviousness rejection, and Appellant’s arguments of error in the Examiner’s Appeal 2021-001293 Application 13/723,891 9 obviousness rejection based upon the three prior art references of Sasaki1, Barrett, and Bendall. Appellant presents a first ground of reversal with three arguments. Appellant’s first argument is that none of the prior art reference teach the “generate . . . first image” step with first and second codewords of independent claim 1. Appeal Br. 8-16. Appellant argues that the prior art references do not include a first codeword and a second codeword. Appeal Br. 11-12. But we note that Appellant’s Specification in the Background section discloses the well-known use of structured light to determine the relationship between a projected pattern and a decoded pattern that is used to derive depth information in the captured scene. Spec. ¶ 3. The Specification further identifies the problem of receiving the reflection of light where the reflectance of the surface in the scene with the power of the light to project a pattern such that “[i]f no adjustment to the strength of incident light is included in the system, it’s impossible to capture the variations in illumination of the projected pattern (e.g., code mask) for a wide range of situations (different ambient lights, different pre-set power of the light source, different surface types).” Spec. ¶ 4. As a result, we find Appellant’s Specification admits that it was known in the prior art to generate a codeword and receiving the codeword in at least a first captured image. Appellant contends that although the Sasaki1 reference discloses ascertaining a binary code in a sequence of images, the Sasaki1 reference does not ascertain a first region of a captured image and a second region of the same captured image to determine a first and second codewords. Appeal 2021-001293 Application 13/723,891 10 Appellant’s second argument is that none of the prior art references teach or suggest the “ascertaining” limitation of independent claims 1, 11, 21, and 31. Appeal Br. 16-21. The Examiner’s rejection relies upon the Bendall reference for teaching and suggesting the second power level and the ascertaining step. Final Act. 6-7; Bendall Figures 1-3, ¶¶ 13, 38, 55-60. The Examiner additionally relies upon the Sasaki1 reference to teach or suggest the adjustment of power levels. Final Act. 6; Sasaki1 ¶ 75. We disagree with the Examiner and find that although the Sasaki1 reference discloses adjustment of power, the adjustment is not “based on” any determination of a first set of parameters or a second set of parameters where the “version” of the codeword uses the power determined by the set of parameters of a codeword, as required by claim 1. Additionally, we cannot agree with the Examiner that the relied upon portions of the Bendall reference disclose or suggest a second power level and determining codewords in response to receiving a second captured image with “versions” of codewords. Appellant argues that the prior art does not disclose the specific combinations of the independent claims. For example, the cited portions of the cited art, individually or in combination, fail to disclose at least third features of “a processing circuit configured to: . . . compare portions of the second captured image [ of a scene including a version of the first codeword projected by a first light element at a first light source power in a first region of the scene and a version of the second codeword projected by a second light element at a second light source power in a second region of the scene] to a codebook to decode one or both of the version of the first codeword and the version of the second codeword in the second captured image,” as in claim 1. Appeal 2021-001293 Application 13/723,891 11 Appeal Br. 22-27. Appellant additionally argues a second ground for reversal. Appellant argues that the use of the Bendall reference in the combination of references would result in a change in the principle of operation of the Bendall reference. Appeal Br. 27. Appellant’s argues that the Bendall reference describes a device that creates an image of a fringe pattern produced by a surface exposed to light passed through intensity-modulating masks by light elements. Appeal Br. 27. Appellant further argues the intensity-modulating masks include sinusoidal or other type of repeating patterns, and the device evaluates the image and can turn on or off light elements in order to achieve a desired balance of brightness and contrast for the fringe pattern. Appeal Br. 27. Appellant also argues that the combination would require a reconstruction and redesign of Bendall to shift from the use of a mask that applies a single pattern to a scene (i.e., a surface) to the use of a mask that applies a first codeword to a first region of the scene and a second codeword to a second region of the scene; and would result in a change in the principle of operation of Bendall from determining parameters (e.g., brightness and contrast) of the image to result in a usable fringe pattern to instead determining parameters/or regions of the image that enable decoding of codewords from corresponding regions of the image. Appeal Br. 28. The Examiner disagrees with Appellant and states that the principle of operation argument relates to changing the principle of operation of the prior art being modified (as the Appellant cited on p. 7 of the Appeal Brief filed 8/19/20), which is Sasaki1, not Bendall. The Final Rejection dated 4/17/2020 states that the primary reference Sasaki1 is being modified by Appeal 2021-001293 Application 13/723,891 12 Bendall, not the other way around as the Appellant seems to be arguing. Ans. 22. The Examiner further explains that Sasaki1 (fig. 11) and Barrett already teach projecting and captured an image with multiple parameters, regions or codewords (Barrett col. 11, lines 17-18, col. 13, lines 59-60 and fig. 6). Bendall teaches the projecting and capturing at least one of the plurality of fringe sets or patterns ([0013] and [0066]) and adjusting power based on brightness and contrast ([0058]). The wording of “at least one” fringe set indicates that more than 1 fringe set can be projected and captured. It is unclear how modifying Sasaki1 with a simple power adjustment from Bendall would change Sasaki1’’s principle of operation when both references are in the same field of endeavor, pattern projection (Sasaki1 [0048] and Bendall [0032])). The entire reference of Bendall is not being combined, but rather only the cited portions. Therefore, the combination of Sasaki1, Barrett and Bendall teaches the invention of claim 1. Ans. 22. Although we agree with the Examiner that the Barrett reference discloses codewords and codebooks in an encoded video stream, the specific teachings are not specifically related to projecting codewords in a region of an image to compensate for differences in surface reflectivity in an active depth sensing system, as required by the preamble of independent claim 1. See Reply Br. 6. Furthermore, the Sasaki1 reference discloses “FIG. 1 shows that an image projection section 13, which will be described later, projects a striped pattern light including a series of alternate light and dark patterns for three-dimensional-shape detection of original P serving as an object in the 3D image mode or the planar image mode.” Sasaki1 ¶ 48. With respect to Figures 11(a) and (b), the Sasaki1 reference discloses: Appeal 2021-001293 Application 13/723,891 13 The space code method is one method of detecting the three-dimensional shape of an object by triangulation between projection light and observed images. As shown in FIG. 11 (a), projection light source L and observing instrument O are disposed with a distance D left between them, and the space is divided into narrow fan-shaped areas and coded. When three mask patterns A, B, and C shown in the figure are projected in sequence from the MSB, each fan shaped area is coded to “1” of light or “0” of dark according to the mask pattern. For instance, an area including point P is dark with mask patterns A and B and is light with mask pattern C, and is coded as 001 (A=0, B=0, C=l). Each fan-shaped area is assigned a code corresponding to the direction ϕ, and the boundary of codes can be considered as one slit light. An image of a scene is taken through each mask by the observing instrument, or a camera, and the light and dark patterns are binarized to configure a bit plane of memory. The horizontal position (address) of the obtained multiple- bit-plane image corresponds the observing direction 0, and the contents of memory at the address give projection light code ϕ. The coordinates of a point of interest are determined by θ and ϕ. Mask patterns A, B, and C shown in FIG. 11(a) use pure binary codes. If a mask is misaligned, there is a danger that a great error occurs on the boundary of areas. Sasaki1 ¶¶ 152-156. As a result, we disagree with the Examiner and agree with Appellant that that the Sasaki1 reference discloses a single pattern across the image and does not disclose two regions with a first codeword in a first region of the image and second codeword in a second region in the same image. See Reply Br. 6. In the Reply Brief, Appellant provides more specific responses to the Examiner’s general application of the prior art in the grounds of the rejection and the Examiner’s responses in the Response to Argument Section of the Examiner’s Answer. Reply Br. 2-8. Appellant argues that the combination Appeal 2021-001293 Application 13/723,891 14 of prior art references does not disclose the second features of the claimed invention regarding the claimed ascertaining, at a processing circuit from the first captured image, a first set of parameters for the first region and a second set of parameters for the second region, the first set of parameters associated with decoding the first codeword and the second set of parameters associated with decoding the second codeword; [and] determining, at the processing circuit for capture of a subsequent image of the scene, a first light source power of the first light element based on the first set of parameters [associated with decoding the first codeword] and a second light source power of the second light element based on the second set of parameters [associated with decoding the second codeword]. Appeal Br. 16. The Examiner relies upon the Bendall reference in paragraphs 42, 57, 58, and 60 to teach or suggest the ascertain limitation. Ans. 6. We disagree with the Examiner and do not find express support for the proffered capture of subsequent images at adjusted power in the teachings relied upon by the Examiner. We further find that in the statement of the rejection, the Examiner splits the steps of the entire process into segments and finds that the individual prior art references teach disparate portions of the sequence of steps and the Examiner attempts to cobble together the disparate portions of the claimed process when formulating the grounds of the rejection. Ans. 4- 7. The Examiner further addresses the disparate portions of the process in the Examiner’s responses to Appellant’s arguments. Although Appellant argues every reference (even those not applied in the rejection), Appellant contends that The cited portions of Barrett do not disclose determining, for capture of a subsequent image of a scene, a first power of a first Appeal 2021-001293 Application 13/723,891 15 light element based on a first set of parameters associated with decoding a first codeword and a second power of a second light element based on a second set of parameters associated with decoding a second codeword since no subsequent image of a scene is captured in Barrett. Thus, the cited portions of Barrett fail to disclose at least the above-quoted second features of the independent claims. Appeal Br. 18. Appellant further contends that the patterns of the intensity- modulating masks result in capture of a fringe pattern in the Bendall reference, which is not used to decode the fringe pattern since the fringe pattern contains no information to decode. Appeal Br. 18. Thus, Appellant contends the cited portions of the Bendall reference do not disclose determining a first light source power of a first light element based on a first set of parameters associated with decoding a first codeword and a second light source power based on a second set of parameters associated with decoding a second codeword since the cited portions of Bendall reference do not disclose that codewords are decoded. Appeal Br. 18. We agree with Appellant, and find that the Examiner has not made the requisite factual findings supported be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness. Moreover, we find the Examiner’s rejection to be based upon hindsight reconstruction of the claimed invention by picking and choosing teachings from the various prior art references to reconstruct the claimed process and device limitations. Consequently, we cannot sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of independent claims 1, 11, 21, and 31 because the Appeal 2021-001293 Application 13/723,891 16 Examiner has not made the requisite showing of obviousness and each of the independent claims contain the similar claim limitations. Dependent claims Appellant does not set forth separate arguments for patentability of the dependent claims and relies upon the arguments advanced with respect to independent claims. For the same reasons, we cannot sustain the rejection of dependent claims 3, 5-7, 10, 15-17, 24-27, 37, 47, 50, and 54 for the same reasons discussed above. The Examiner relies upon a number of prior art references to teach various limitations in the dependent claims, but the Examiner does not identify how any of the additional prior art references remedy the noted deficiencies above. As a result, we cannot sustain the obviousness rejection of dependent claims 4, 8, 9, 13, 14, 18, 28, 41-46, 48, 51, and 53 for the reasons discussed above. CONCLUSION We reverse the Examiner’s obviousness rejections of claims 1, 3-11, 13-18, 21, 24-28, 31, 33, 34, 37, 41-48, and 50-54. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 3, 5-7, 10, 11, 15- 17, 21, 24- 27, 31, 37, 47, 50, 54 103(a) Sasaki1, Barrett, Bendall 1, 3, 5-7, 10, 11, 15- 17, 21, 24- 27, 31, 37, 47, 50, 54 4, 13, 14, 33, 34 103(a) Sasaki1, Barrett, Bendall, Tonogai 4, 13, 14, 33, 34 Appeal 2021-001293 Application 13/723,891 17 8, 9, 18, 28 103(a) Sasaki1, Barrett, Bendall, Bean 8, 9, 18, 28 41 103(a) Sasaki1, Barrett, Bendall, Sharma 41 42, 43 103(a) Sasaki1, Barrett, Bendall, Hara 42, 43 44, 45 103(a) Sasaki1, Barrett, Bendall, Krichi 44, 45 46 103(a) Sasaki1, Barrett, Bendall, Banik 46 48, 53 103(a) Sasaki1, Barrett, Bendall, Sasaki2 48, 53 51 103(a) Sasaki1, Barrett, Bendall, Katz 51 52 103(a) Sasaki1, Barrett, Bendall, Mack 52 Overall Outcome 1, 3-11, 13- 18, 21, 24- 28, 31, 33, 34, 37, 41- 48, 50-54 REVERSED