SYMBOL TECHNOLOGIES, LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Apr 6, 2021

2020000263 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 6, 2021)

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.
15/000,660 01/19/2016 Aleksandar Rajak 151257US01 1043
126568 7590 04/06/2021
Zebra Technologies Corporation
3 Overlook Point
Lincolnshire, IL 60069
EXAMINER
HUANG, FRANK F
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2485
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/06/2021 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@zebra.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ALEKSANDAR RAJAK
Appeal 2020-000263
Application 15/000,660
Technology Center 2400

Before AMBER L. HAGY, DAVID J. CUTITTA II, and
SCOTT RAEVSKY, Administrative Patent Judges.

CUTITTA, 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 1–20, all of the claims under
consideration. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a).
Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Symbol Technologies, LLC.
Appeal Brief filed May 24, 2019 (“Appeal Br.”) 3.
Appeal 2020-000263
Application 15/000,660

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Summary
Appellant’s claimed subject matter relates to using a pair of cameras
to capture full-frame stereo image pairs and “transmitting full-frame images
and sub-sampled images over a communication interface.” Spec. ¶ 3.2
According to Appellant, due to bandwidth limitations of USB, “bandwidth
of interface 111 is limited such that a frame rate of full-frame images from
cameras 105 over interface 111 is not large enough to provide a live-image
preview at a host device.” Id. ¶ 38. To reduce the required bandwidth, the
invention scales a first subset of pairs of the full-frame images to produce a
set of pairs of sub-scaled images. Id. ¶ 33. The scaled subset of pairs allows
a live-image preview to be provided to a host device. Id. ¶ 38.
Exemplary Claims
Claims 1, 11, and 20 are independent. Claims 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, and 10,
reproduced below with certain limitations at issue italicized, exemplify the
claimed subject matter:
1. A device comprising:
a first camera device and a second camera device;
one or more camera communication interfaces in
communication with the first camera device and the second
camera device;
an output communication interface; and,
an image streaming processor configured to:

2 In addition to the Appeal Brief noted above, we refer to: (1) the originally
filed Specification filed January 19, 2016 (“Spec.”); (2) the Final Office
Action mailed July 27, 2018 (“Final Act.”); and (3) the Examiner’s Answer
mailed August 16, 2019 (“Ans.”).
Appeal 2020-000263
Application 15/000,660

3
receive full-frame images from each of the first
camera device and the second camera device using the
one or more camera communication interfaces;
synchronize the full-frame images in pairs;
scale a first subset of the pairs of the full-frame
images to produce a set of pairs of sub-scaled images;
and,
transmit the set of pairs of sub-scaled images and
a second subset of the pairs of the full-frame images over
the output communication interface, the second subset of
the pairs of the full-frame images remaining unscaled.
2. The device of claim 1, further comprising a
memory and the image streaming processor is further
configured to store at least the second subset of the pairs of the
full-frame images in the memory prior to transmitting the set of
pairs of sub-scaled images and the second subset of the pairs of
the full-frame images over the output communication interface.
3 The device of claim 1, further comprising an
image converter configured to convert the set of pairs of sub-
scaled images and the second subset of the pairs of the full-
frame images to an output data format prior to transmitting the
set of pairs of sub-scaled images and the second subset of the
pairs of the full-frame images over the output communication
interface.
6. The device of claim 1, wherein the image
streaming processor is further configured to scale the first
subset of the pairs of the full-frame images to produce the set of
pairs of sub-scaled images by one or more of reducing a size
and reducing a resolution of the first subset of the pairs of the
full-frame images.
7. The device of claim 1, wherein the image
streaming processor is further configured to transmit the set of
pairs of sub-scaled images and the second subset of the pairs of
the full-frame images over the output communication interface
by interleaving the pairs of sub-scaled images and the second
subset of the pairs of the full-frame images.
Appeal 2020-000263
Application 15/000,660

4
10. The device of claim 1, further comprising a host
device comprising: a respective communication interface,
physically and communicatively mated with the output
communication interface; a display device; and an image
processor configured to:
receive the set of pairs of sub-scaled images and the
second subset of the pairs of the full-frame images over the
respective communication interface, from the output
communication interface;
render at least a subset of the set of pairs of sub-scaled
images at the display device; and,
process the second subset of the pairs of the full-frame
images to determine dimensions of items represented in the
second subset of the pairs of the full-frame images.
Appeal Br. 18–20.
REFERENCES AND REJECTION
The Examiner rejects claims 1–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious
over the combined teachings of Fu et al., A Reconfigurable Real-Time
Compressive-Sampling Camera for Biological Applications, PLOS ONE,
vol. 6, no. 10 (2011) (“Fu”) and Kim et al. (US 2011/0181694 A1, published
July 28, 2011) (“Kim”). Final Act. 2–10.
OPINION
We review the appealed rejection for error based upon the issues
identified by Appellant and in light of Appellant’s arguments and evidence.
Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential).
Arguments not made are waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2018).
Appellant does not persuade us that the Examiner errs, and we adopt as our
own the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner to the extent
Appeal 2020-000263
Application 15/000,660

5
consistent with our analysis herein. Final Act. 2–10; Ans. 10–12. We add
the following primarily for emphasis.
Obviousness Rejection of Claim 1
The Examiner finds Kim teaches or suggests “scale a first subset of
the pairs of the full-frame images to produce a set of pairs of sub-scaled
images,” as recited in claim 1. Final Act. 6 (citing Kim ¶ 256).
Appellant argues that “Kim nowhere teaches or suggests scaling of
any ‘subset’ of the full-frame images” because “Kim merely discusses two
separate cases that operate on the entire video stream.” Appeal Br. 10
(citing Kim ¶ 256). According to Appellant, in Kim, “both left and right
view frames of the entire video stream are reduced to half size of the original
frame” and thus “Kim nowhere teaches or fairly suggests scaling a ‘subset’
of full-frame images.” Id.
Appellant’s argument is unpersuasive of reversible Examiner error.
Kim discloses an additional-view video stream having a 3D composite frame
format reducing to half “the sizes of a left-view frame and a right-view
frame that constitute the composite frame.” Kim ¶ 256. Even assuming, as
Appellant argues, that Kim’s video ultimately scales the entire stream of
frames, we find Kim still teaches scaling a subset of frames upon an initial
scaling of the first pair of frames in the series and, again, when each
subsequent pair of frames in the series is scaled. That is, each time Kim
reduces a pair of frames in a video stream to half-size data by halving a
vertical resolution, Kim teaches scaling a first subset of the pairs, as claimed,
where each pair of scaled frames in Kim represents a subset of frames in the
series of pairs making up the entire video stream. Appellant’s argument that
Kim does not teach scaling a subset because Kim’s scaling of left and right
Appeal 2020-000263
Application 15/000,660

6
view frames is of the entire video stream is not commensurate with the claim
scope, because claim 1, by reciting “scal[ing] a first subset of the pairs,”
does not preclude eventually scaling an entire series of frames in succession.
Claim 1 further recites “transmit the set of pairs of sub-scaled images
and a second subset of the pairs of the full-frame images over the output
communication interface.” Appeal Br. 18. The Examiner finds, and we
agree, that Kim “discloses transmitting a full size base-view video and half
size additional view video at the same time during broadcasting.” Ans. 11–
12 (citing Kim ¶¶ 241, 253–256, Fig. 12); Final Act. 6.
Appellant argues:
As explained above, Kim either reduces both left and right
view frames of the entire video stream to half size of the original
frame or keeps both the right and the left view frames of the
entire video stream at full size. Therefore, it also does not teach
or suggest transmitting scaled and unscaled subsets of images.
Appeal Br. 12.
This argument relies on Appellant’s argument that “Kim nowhere
teaches or suggests scaling of any ‘subset’ of the full-frame images.” Id. at
10. Because we find that argument unpersuasive, as discussed above, we
find Appellant’s additional argument unpersuasive for similar reasons.
Accordingly, Appellant does not persuade us of error in the
Examiner’s obviousness rejection of independent claim 1. We, therefore,
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of that claim, as well as the rejection of
claims 4, 5, 8, 9, 11, 14, 15, 18, and 20, which Appellant does not argue
separately with particularity. Appeal Br. 13–17.
Appeal 2020-000263
Application 15/000,660

7
Obviousness Rejection of Claims 2 and 12
The Examiner finds the combination of Fu and Kim teaches or
suggests the “image streaming processor is further configured to store at
least the second subset of the pairs of the full-frame images in the memory
prior to transmitting the set of pairs of sub-scaled images and the second
subset of the pairs of the full-frame images over the output communication
interface,” as recited in claim 2. Final Act. 7–8 (citing Fu, page 1, left
column; Kim ¶¶ 241, 253–256, Fig. 12).
Appellant argues that:
The Office action refers to the left column on page 1 of [Fu] in
rejecting claim 2. Office action page 7. However, it is submitted
that [neither] the highlighted portion, nor any portion of [Fu],
fairly discloses storing at least the second subset of the pairs of
the full-frame images in the memory prior to transmitting both
the set of pairs of sub-scaled images and the second subset of the
pairs of the full-frame images.
Appeal Br. 13 (emphasis omitted).
The Examiner responds that “Fu is relie[d on] to teach a need for
storage in the camera before images transmission. The two subset of images
is disclosed and rebutted as above.” See Ans. 12 (referring to the
Examiner’s reliance on Kim to teach transmitting the subsets of pairs of
images).
Appellant’s argument based on Fu is unpersuasive because the
Examiner relies on the combined teachings of Fu and Kim, rather than Fu
alone, to teach the limitation at issue. Accordingly, Appellant’s argument
regarding claims 2 and 12 is not responsive to the Examiner’s findings.
Appeal 2020-000263
Application 15/000,660

8
Obviousness Rejection of Claims 3 and 13
The Examiner finds the combination of Fu and Kim teaches or
suggests “an image converter configured to convert the set of pairs of sub-
scaled images and the second subset of the pairs of the full-frame images to
an output data format prior to transmitting the . . . images over the output
communication interface,” as recited in claim 3. Final Act. 7 (citing Fu,
page 1, left column; Kim ¶ 150, Fig. 8).
Appellant argues:
As neither Kim nor [Fu] discloses or suggests transmitting
the set of pairs of sub-scaled images and the second subset of the
pairs of the full-frame images, neither cited reference can
disclose converting the set of pairs of sub-scaled images and the
second subset of the pairs of the full-frame images to an output
data format prior to said transmission.
Appeal Br. 14.
The Examiner responds that Kim’s paragraph 150 teaches a “channel
encoder [to] convert the image signal into channel signal for transmission,”
and that Kim further teaches transmitting the two subsets of images, as
discussed with respect to claim 1. Ans. 13.
Appellant’s argument as to this limitation relies on Appellant’s
argument that Kim fails to teach transmitting the images, in claim 1, which
in turn relies on Appellant’s first claim 1 argument that “Kim nowhere
teaches or suggests scaling of any ‘subset’ of the full-frame images.”
Appeal Br. 10. Because we find both of those claim 1 arguments
unpersuasive, as discussed above at pages 5–6, we find Appellant’s
additional argument regarding claims 3 and 13 unpersuasive for similar
reasons.
Appeal 2020-000263
Application 15/000,660

9
Obviousness Rejection of Claims 6 and 16
The Examiner finds the combination of Fu and Kim teaches or
suggests the “image streaming processor is further configured to scale the
first subset of the pairs of the full-frame images to produce the set of pairs of
sub-scaled images by one or more of reducing a size and reducing a
resolution of the first subset of the pairs of the full-frame images,” as recited
in claim 6. Final Act. 8 (citing Fu; Kim ¶ 254).
Appellant argues that:
neither Kim nor [Fu] discloses or suggests scaling the first subset
of the pairs of the full-frame images to produce the set of pairs
of sub-scaled images and therefore neither cited reference can
disclose or suggest scaling the first subset by one or more of
reducing a size and reducing a resolution of the first subset.
Appeal Br. 15.
This argument relies on Appellant’s argument that “Kim nowhere
teaches or suggests scaling of any ‘subset’ of the full-frame images.” Id. at
10–11. Because we find that argument unpersuasive, as discussed above at
pages 5–6, we find Appellant’s additional argument regarding claims 6 and
16 unpersuasive for similar reasons.
Obviousness Rejection of Claims 7 and 17
The Examiner finds the combination of Fu and Kim teaches or
suggests the “image streaming processor is further configured to transmit the
set of pairs of sub-scaled images and the second subset of the pairs of the
full-frame images over the output communication interface by interleaving
the pairs of sub-scaled images and the second subset of the pairs of the full-
Appeal 2020-000263
Application 15/000,660

10
frame images,” as recited in claim 7. Final Act. 8 (citing Fu; Kim ¶ 258,
Table 10).
Appellant argues that neither Kim nor Fu teaches an image streaming
processor interleaving images as recited in claim 7, because in the claimed
interleaving “images of one of either the pairs of sub-scaled images or the
second subset of the pairs of the full-frame images are transmitted, followed
by images of the other one of the pairs of sub-scaled images or the second
subset of the pairs of the full-frame images, and so on.” Appeal Br. 15.
The Examiner responds:
What is claimed is “by interleaving the pairs of sub-scaled
images and the second subset of the pairs of the full-frame
images.” Instead Applicant argue[s]: “interleaving results in that
images of one of either the pairs of sub-scaled images or the
second subset of the pairs of the full-frame images are
transmitted, followed by images of the other one of the pairs of
sub-scaled images or the second subset of the pairs of the full-
frame images, and so on.”
Ans. 14–15 (citing Kim ¶¶ 261, 258, Table 10).
Appellant’s argument is not commensurate with the scope of claim 7
because, as the Examiner notes (id.), the claim does not specifically recite
interleaving images in a particular order. Limitations not appearing in the
claim cannot be relied upon for patentability. In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344,
1348 (CCPA 1982). Accordingly, this argument is unpersuasive of
reversible Examiner error, and we sustain the obviousness rejection of
dependent claims 7 and 17.
Appeal 2020-000263
Application 15/000,660

11
Obviousness Rejection of Claims 10 and 19
The Examiner finds the combination of Fu and Kim teaches or
suggests “a host device,” as recited in claim 10. Final Act. 9.
Appellant argues:
[Fu] describes a camera system that adaptively concentrates
available bandwidth on certain pixels while sampling the
remainder of the pixels at low speed. However, [Fu] fails to
disclose scaling images of any kind.
[Fu] therefore further cannot disclose rendering at least a
subset of the set of pairs of sub-scaled images at a display device
of the host device and processing the second subset of the pairs
of the full-frame images to determine dimensions of items
represented in the second subset of the pairs of the full-frame
images, as recited in claim 10 and as similarly recited in claim
19.
Appeal Br. 16–17.
The Examiner responds by finding that Fu teaches the claimed host
device with components including a communication interface that receives
the set of pairs of sub-scaled images. Ans. 16 (citing Fu, page 3, left
column, Fig. 1). The Examiner notes that Kim is relied upon to specifically
teach the receiving of scaled of subsets of pairs of images, as set forth in the
rejection of claim 1. Ans. 16.
Appellant’s argument based on Fu is unpersuasive because the
Examiner relies on the combined teachings of Fu and Kim, rather than Fu
alone, to teach the limitation at issue. Final Act. 9; Ans. 16. Accordingly,
Appellant’s argument is not responsive to the Examiner’s findings and we
sustain the obviousness rejection of dependent claims 10 and 19.
Appeal 2020-000263
Application 15/000,660

12
CONCLUSION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–20 under
35 U.S.C. § 103.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–20 103 Fu, Kim 1–20
TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED