Ex Parte 7542035 et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 26, 2016

90012689 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 26, 2016)

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.
GRND-L5 2147
EXAMINER
KE, PENG
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3992
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
90/012,689 09/15/2012 7542035
29106 7590 10/26/2016
Groover & Associates PLLC
P.O. Box 520
Wills Point, TX 75169
10/26/2016 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte GRANDEYE LTD.,
Appellant and Patent Owner.
Appeal 2016-006710
Reexamination Control 90/012,689
Patent 7,542,035 B2
Technology Center 3900
Before STEPHEN C. SIU, JENNIFER L. McKEOWN, and
PATRICK M. BOUCHER, Administrative Patent Judges.
McKEOWN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Grandeye Ltd. (“Patent Owner”) appeals from the decision in the
Examiner’s Final Action, mailed September 25, 2013, rejecting claims 7, 13, 33,
and 441 ofU.S. Patent No. 7,542,035 B2 (the “’035 patent”). App. Br. I.2
1 We note that the Examiner’s Final Action additionally rejected claims 1, 22,
and 53. The Federal Circuit, though, affirmed the Board’s decision, in
IPR2013-00548, finding claims 1, 22, and 53 unpatentable. See Google Inc. v.
Grandeye Ltd, 643 Fed. Appx. 967 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
2 Throughout this opinion, we refer to (1) the Final Action, mailed March 27,
2015 (“Final Act.”); (2) Patent Owner’s Appeal Brief, filed July 24, 2015
(“App. Br.”); (3) the Examiner’s Answer, mailed August 28, 2015 (“Ans.”), and
(4) Patent Owner’s Reply Brief, filed October 28, 2015 (“Reply Br.”).
Appeal 2016-0006710
Reexamination Control 90/012,689
Patent 7,542,035 B2
I. STATEMENT OF CASE
This proceeding arose from an ex parte reexamination request (the
“Request”) of the ’035 patent, issued to Ford Oxaal on June 2, 2009.
We have been informed that the ’035 patent was the subject of district
court proceedings, namely View 360 Solutions LLC v. Google Inc., No. 1:12-
CV-1352 (N.D.N.Y.), Grandeye Limited v. Sentry 360 Security, Inc., No. 1:11-
cv-02188 (ND. 111.), and Grandeye Limited v. Immervision, No. 1:1 l-cv-251,
(W.D.Tex.). See App. Br. 9. The ’035 patent was also the subject of IPR2013-
00548. See also Google Inc. v. Grandeye Ltd, 643 Fed. Appx. 967 (Fed. Cir.
2016).
An oral hearing was conducted on September 21, 2016. The transcript of
the oral hearing will be made of record.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. §§ 134(b) and 315 (pre-AIA).
We reverse.
II. THE ’035 PATENT
The ’035 patent “relates generally to a method and corresponding
apparatus for viewing images. More specifically, the present invention relates
to a method and corresponding apparatus for viewing full-surround, e.g.,
spherical, image data.” ’035 patent, col. 1,11. 49-53. The ’035 patent discloses
that the invention uses a conventional 3-D graphics system to create a virtual
pictosphere. Id. at col. 6,11. 21—22. For example, “the inventive method and
apparatus texture map the visible world onto a sphere.” Id. at col. 6,11. 23—24.
In particular, the ’035 patent describes
It will be appreciated that in a standard computer graphics
system by texture mapping full-surround image data onto a p-
2
Appeal 2016-0006710
Reexamination Control 90/012,689
Patent 7,542,035 B2
surface [(a computer graphics representation of any polyhedron with
at least one point x inside)] such that the resultant texture map is
effectively equivalent to projecting the full-surround imagery onto
the p-surface from a some point Q contained in the region X of the
p-surface, a representation of the visible world is achieved.
’035 patent, col. 8,11. 13—18.
The ’035 patent further describes, in one embodiment, that a triangulation
approximating a hemisphere is built using the function create hemisphere().
Then, image data, texl, is texture mapped onto the triangulation approximating
a hemisphere and image data, tex2, is texture mapped to the same hemisphere
after rotating it 180 degrees to collectively comprise a pictosphere. Id. at col. 8,
11. 52—65; see also col. 9,11. 3—6 (“It will be appreciated that the user now has
an instance of a p-sphere in [the graphics library] made by mapping two fisheye
images, e.g., photographs, to two adjoining hemispheres to thereby generate
full-surround, e.g., spherical, image data.”).
Claim 7 is illustrative and reads as follows:
7. A method of modeling a hemispheric view, said method
comprising:
capturing a first texture p-surface data set approximating a
first hemisphere portion derived from a distorted view captured
from a first wide-angle lens, said first texture p-surface data set
comprising at least a portion of full-surround data, wherein the full-
surround data includes a partial hemisphere;
selecting a view point within the p-surface;
selecting a direction of view within the p-surface;
texture mapping the full-surround data to a triangulation
approximating the first hemisphere onto the p-surface substantially
equivalent to projecting the full surround data onto the p-surface
from said view point;
generating a texture mapped p-surface corresponding to the
selected view; and
displaying the selected view of the texture mapped p-surface.
3
Appeal 2016-0006710
Reexamination Control 90/012,689
Patent 7,542,035 B2
App. Br., Claims App’x.
III. REJECTIONS
A. Evidence Relied Upon
The Examiner relies on the following as evidence of unpatentability:
Gullichsen
Chiang
Greene
Haeberli
QuickTime
US 5,796,426 Aug. 18, 1998
US 6,028,584 Feb. 22, 2000
Application of World Projections (Proceedings of Graphics
Interface ’86, pages 108-114, May 1986)
Texture Mapping As A Fundamental Drawing Primitive
(Proc. Fourth Eurographics Workshop on Rendering, 259-
266, June, 1993).
QuickTime® VR — An Image-Based Approach to Virtual
Environment Navigation (1995).
Patent Owner relies on the Declaration of James Oliver, Ph.D., dated
April 15, 2015 (“Oliver Decl.”) and the Declaration of Ford Oxaal, dated April
15,2015 (“Oxaal Decl.”).
B. The Adopted Rejections
The Examiner maintains the following rejections:
1. Claims 7, 13, 33, and 44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Gullichsen and Haeberli.
2. Claims 7, 13, 33, and 44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Gullichsen and Greene.
3. Claims 7, 13, 33, and 44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Chiang, Gullichsen, and Greene.
4
Appeal 2016-0006710
Reexamination Control 90/012,689
Patent 7,542,035 B2
IV. ANALYSIS
Based on the record before us, we are persuaded that the Examiner erred
in construing triangulation, as recited in claims 7, 13, 33, and 44, and, as such,
erred in rejecting claims 7, 13, 33, and 44 as unpatentable over the cited
combinations of prior art.
The Examiner, relying solely on Merriam-Webster’s online dictionary,
interprets triangulation as “a method of finding a distance or location by
measuring the distance between two point whose exact location is known and
then measuring the angles between each point and a third unknown point.”
Ans. 13. In other words, according to the Examiner, the recited triangulation
merely requires using this mathematical method of calculating a distance or
location.
On the other hand, Patent Owner points out that “triangulation” “is
disclosed in the specification as creating triangles of a 3D p-surface onto which
2D data is texture-mapped. ...” Reply Br. 7, fn 14. Patent Owner also asserts
that the recited triangulation refers to “a p-surface composed of triangles.” PO
Response, dated April 15; see also App. Br. 38 (“‘Triangulation’ is defined as
‘a p-surface composed of triangles.’ In 3D graphics, this is the resolution of a
virtual surface into triangles and the mapping of image data onto the vertices of
the triangles.”). The Oliver Declaration further explains that the ’035 system
generates triangle strips and that “[t]he function glTexCoord2f(tx,tz), followed
by gl Vertex3f(x,y,z) [of the invention] defines a hemisphere vertex and its
corresponding texture coordinate as part of the triangle strip hemisphere
geometry.” Oliver Decl. 129 (emphasis added).
5
Appeal 2016-0006710
Reexamination Control 90/012,689
Patent 7,542,035 B2
We are persuaded that the Examiner erred in construing triangulation
merely as the mathematical method discussed above. First, the claim language
is consistent with Patent Owner’s interpretation. For example, claim 7 recites
“texture mapping the full-surround data to a triangulation approximating the
first hemisphere onto the p-surface. . . ” and claim 13 recites “texture mapping
image data from the wide-angle lens onto a triangulation of at least a portion of
a first hemisphere of full-surround data onto a p-surface. . .” App. Br., Claims
App’x (emphasis added); see also App. Br., Claims App’x (reciting similar
language for claims 33 and 44). This claim language at least suggests that
triangulation is a geometric shape or structure (approximating the first
hemisphere) onto which the data is texture mapped, not only a particular type of
mathematical calculation as asserted by the Examiner.
Second, the Specification also supports Patent Owner’s construction of
triangulation. Namely, the Specification discloses that “[i]t should be noted that
the triangulation approximating the hemisphere was built in the function
createhemisphere(), the full listing of which is found in the file entitled FIGS.
10AB.txt and not the file entitled FIGS. 9AG.txt.” Spec. Col. 8 11. 62—65
(emphasis added). As such, the Specification at least suggests that the
triangulation approximating the hemisphere is the triangulation structure that
was built, not merely using a triangulation mathematical method.
Finally, while the Merriam-Webster online dictionary provides some
extrinsic evidence to support the Examiner’s interpretation of triangulation,
additional evidence supports Patent Owner’s interpretation. For example, as
discussed above, the Oliver Declaration explains that a skilled artisan would
6
Appeal 2016-0006710
Reexamination Control 90/012,689
Patent 7,542,035 B2
understand the ’035 patent to draw triangle strips to create the “triangle strip
hemisphere geometry.” Oliver Decl. 129.
Moreover, triangulation is also be defined as
a. A surveying technique in which a region is divided into a series
of triangular elements based on a line of known length so that
accurate measurements of distances and directions may be made by
the application of trigonometry.
b. The network of triangles so laid out.
The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Ed. (2016),
available at http s://www. ahdictionary. com/word/search.html?q =triangulation
(last visited October 25, 2016); see also Webster’s New World College
Dictionary, 2016, available at http://www.yourdictionary.com/triangulation (last
visited October 25, 2016)(“1. the process of determining the distance between
points on the earth's surface, or the relative positions of points, by dividing up a
large area into a series of connected triangles, measuring a base line between
two points, and then locating a third point by computing both the size of the
angles made by lines from this point to each end of the base line and the lengths
of these lines” and “2. the triangles thus marked out”). In other words,
dictionary definitions additionally support the interpretation of triangulation as
a series or network of triangles. Therefore, based on the claims, specification,
and extrinsic evidence, we are persuaded that the Examiner erred in construing
triangulation, as recited in claims 7, 13, 33, and 44, as merely requiring finding
a distance or location by measuring the distance between two points whose
7
Appeal 2016-0006710
Reexamination Control 90/012,689
Patent 7,542,035 B2
exact location is known and then measuring the angles between each point and
a third unknown point.3
Because the Examiner relies on this flawed interpretation of
triangulation, the Examiner does not find that any of the cited prior art
references teach or suggest texture mapping data to a network of triangles
approximating the first hemisphere or a portion of the first hemisphere onto a p-
surface. See, e.g., Ans. 13, 18; Final Act. 8—9, 18, 32—33. As such, we are
persuaded that the Examiner fails to sufficiently show that any of Gullichsen,
Haeberli, Chiang, or Greene teach or suggest texture mapping the full-surround
data to a triangulation approximating the first hemisphere onto the p-surface or
texture mapping image data from the wide-angle lens onto a triangulation of at
least a portion of a first hemisphere of full-surround data onto the p-surface, as
required by claims 7, 13,33, and 44.
Accordingly, for the reasons discussed above, we do not sustain the
rejections of claims 7, 13, 33, and 44.
VI. CONCLUSION
We reverse the Examiner’s decisions to reject claims 7, 13, 33, and 44.
3 Patent Owner asserts that because the ’035 patent will soon expire, the Board
should interpret the claims under the standard set forth by Phillips v. A WII
Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2005), rather than the broadest
reasonable interpretation standard. See Patent Owner’s Supplemental Appeal
Brief, filed September 8, 2016 (citing In re CSB-System International, Inc., No.
15-1832 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 8, 2016)). We note, though, that the ’035 patent has
not yet expired and, as such, at this point the broadest reasonable interpretation
standard has been applied. Moreover, we determine that the interpretation of
triangulation would not differ under the Phillips standard.
8
Appeal 2016-0006710
Reexamination Control 90/012,689
Patent 7,542,035 B2
REVERSED
9
Appeal 2016-0006710
Reexamination Control 90/012,689
Patent 7,542,035 B2
PATENT OWNER:
STEPHEN Y. CHOW
HSUANYEH CHANG
BURNS & LEVINSON LLP
SCHOW@BURNSLEV.COM
HCHANG@BURNSLEV.COM
SETH A. HORWITZ
GLAST, PHILLIPS & MURRAY, P.C.
SHORWITZ6576@GMAIL.COM
ROBERT O. GROOVER III
GROOVER & ASSOCIATES PLLC
THIRD PARTY REQUESTERS:
Pasky IP Law LLC
321 N. Clark St., Suite 500
Chicago, IL 60654
GROOVER@TECHNOPATENTS.COM
10