Ex Parte Belimpasakis

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 13, 2017

13025121 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 13, 2017)

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.
13/025,121 02/10/2011 Petros Belimpasakis P4979US00 2063
11764 7590
Ditthavong & Steiner, P.C.
44 Canal Center Plaza
Suite 322
Alexandria, VA 22314
EXAMINER
RUIZ, ANGELICA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2158
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/17/2017 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):
docket@dcpatent.com
Nokia. IPR @ nokia. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte PETROS BELIMPASAKIS
Appeal 2016-008722
Application 13/025,1211
Technology Center 2100
Before JEAN R. HOMERE, BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, and
JEREMY J. CURCURI, Administrative Patent Judges.
Opinion for the Board filed by Administrative Patent Judge HOMERE.
Opinion Concurring-In-Part filed by Administrative Patent Judge
BAUMEISTER.
HOMERE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
1 Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Nokia Corporation. App.
Br. 1.
Appeal 2016-008722
Application 13/025,121
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1—20, and 49. App. Br. 4. Claims 21—
48 have been canceled. Claims App’x. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Appellant’s Invention
Appellant invented a method and system for providing location based
information to the user of a mobile device (101). Spec. 127, Fig. 1. In
particular, upon detecting the location of the mobile device (101), the
detected location is augmented with associated web content and real world
view (e.g. augmented reality (AR)), thereby facilitating presenting on the
user device (101) multiple layers of the location information. Id. Tffl 27—30.
Illustrative Claim
Independent claim 1 is illustrative, and reads as follows:
1. A method comprising facilitating a processing of and/or
processing, by a processor, (1) data and/or (2) information
and/or (3) at least one signal, the (1) data and/or (2) information
and/or (3) at least one signal based, at least in part, on the
following:
at least one association of location information with web
content; and at least one presentation of the web content and the
associated location information over a presentation of a real-
world view of a location according to a predetermined format,
wherein the location information is associated with
augmented reality information and the predetermined format
facilitates, at least in part, discovery of multiple layers of the
location information.
2
Appeal 2016-008722
Application 13/025,121
Prior Art Relied Upon
Hamynen
Poirier
US 20100161658A1
US 2011/0314049 A1
June 24, 2010
Dec. 22, 2011
Rejection on Appeal
Claims 1—20 and 49 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Hamynen and Poirier. Final Act. 5—
10.
ANALYSIS
We consider Appellant’s arguments seriatim as they are presented in
the Appeal Brief, pages 11—16, and the Reply Brief, pages 2—7.2 We have
reviewed the Examiner’s rejection in light of Appellant’s arguments. We
are unpersuaded by Appellant’s contentions. Except as otherwise indicated
hereinbelow, we adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth in the
Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellant’s Appeal Brief. Ans. 2—5,
Final Act. 5—10. However, we highlight and address specific arguments and
findings for emphasis as follows.
Regarding the rejection of claim 1, Appellant argues that the
combination of Hamynen and Poirier does not teach or suggest location
information associated with augmented reality and such that the
2 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellant and the Examiner, we
refer to the Appeal Brief (filed December 10, 2015), the Reply Brief (filed
September 21, 2016), and the Answer (mailed July 21, 2016) for their
respective details. We have considered in this Decision only those
arguments Appellant actually raised in the Brief. Any other arguments
Appellant could have made but chose not to make in the Brief are deemed to
be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2013).
3
Appeal 2016-008722
Application 13/025,121
presentation of the real world view of the location according to a
predetermined format facilitates the discovery of multiple layers of the
location information. App. Br. 5—6. According to Appellant, although
Poirier discloses augmenting a captured image location with a plurality of
layers (background/foreground), those layers are not layers of the image
location. Id. at 6—8 (citing Poirier || 69, 76, 77). Rather, the foreground
and background layers are merely overlaid on the image location, as
opposed to being a part thereof. Id. at 7. Appellant further asserts that
“Poirier relates to . . . geo-tagging of an image ...” whereas ‘“location
information’ must be ‘associated with augmented reality information’ and
not simply the image,” as required by the claim. “At best, Poirier describes
‘multiple layers of images’ and not ‘multiple layers of location information’
which would then require different location information for each layer.” Id.
7—8. These arguments are not persuasive.
We note at the outset that the claim does not require a plurality of
layers, each containing different location information. Instead, the disputed
claim limitation merely requires that the location information be associated
with augmented reality information and a predetermined format that
facilitates the discovery of multiple layers of the location information.
Poirier discloses, upon a user capturing an image of a landmark
(e.g. Eiffel tower), the signature and metadata associated with the captured
image are used to track GPS information associated therewith, as well as to
identify similar pictures in a database. Poirier || 69, 72—74. The user can
combine the captured picture of the landmark with scenes (foreground,
background) extracted from the retrieved pictures thereby augmenting the
captured location information with associated augmented reality views. Id.
4
Appeal 2016-008722
Application 13/025,121
1175—77. Alternatively, the captured image can be depicted on a map. Id.
172.
We agree with the Examiner that Poirier’s disclosure of a captured
image of the Eiffel tower augmented with foreground/background scenes
from similar pictures teaches location information augmented with the real
world view of the location such that the resulting composite image includes
a plurality of layers. Ans. 2—3. We are not persuaded by the distinction that
Appellant seeks to delineate between layers of the image and layers of the
location information. That is, because location information is taught by a
captured image (e.g., the Eiffel tower), any layer of that image is also a layer
of the location information.
Second, Appellant argues that Hamynen is not analogous art, and
there is insufficient motivation for its combination with Poirier. App. Br. 8.
These arguments are not persuasive. We agree with the Examiner that
Hamynen is analogous art because it relates to the same field of endeavor as
Appellant’s invention (geo locating objects/places captured by a mobile
device). Ans. 4. We further agree with the Examiner that because Poirier
and Hamynen disclose known elements that perform their ordinary functions
to predictably result in a system that augments a geo-located image of an
object a real world image, the combination is proper. Id. at 4—5.
For these reasons, we are not persuaded of error in the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 1 as being unpatentable over the combination of Poirier
and Hamynen. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
rejection of independent claim 1, as well as the rejection of independent
claim 11, which Appellant argues is patentable for similar reasons. App.
Br. 9. Because Appellant does not make separate arguments for the
5
Appeal 2016-008722
Application 13/025,121
patentability of dependent claims 2—20 and 49, we sustain the 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) rejection of those claims as well. See id.', 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
DECISION
For the above reasons, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims
1-20, and 49.
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
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte PETROS BELIMPASAKIS
Appeal 2016-008722
Application 13/025,121
Technology Center 2100
Before JEAN R. HOMERE, BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, and
JEREMY J. CURCURI, Administrative Patent Judges.
BAUMEISTER, Administrative Patent Judge, Concurring-In-Part.
I agree with the Majority’s findings and conclusions to the extent that
they apply to apparatus claims 11—20. I cannot agree, though, that the
rejection is reasonable with respect to method claims 1—10 and 49.
Independent method claim 1 arguably sets forth no affirmative
method steps. As such, any review of independent claim 1 would require
undue speculation as to the intended metes and bounds of claim protection
being sought. See In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 862 (CCPA 1962) (holding
that the Examiner and the Board were wrong in relying on what, at best,
were speculative assumptions as to the meaning of the claims and in basing a
rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 thereon). None of claims 2—10 or 49 cures
this unreasonable ambiguity that exists in relation to claim 1.
Appeal 2016-008722
Application 13/025,121
Even under the most generous interpretation, the reasonableness of
which need not be reached, the claim only could be interpreted as setting
forth a single affirmative step: facilitating processing of a processor, a
signal, or of information. The gerund “facilitating,” however, is merely a
generic term that describes no specific act. It merely serves as a nonce word
tantamount to being synonymous with “step for.” Cf. Williamson v. Citrix
Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339, 1350-51 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“Generic terms such
as ‘mechanism,’ ‘element,’ ‘device,’ and other nonce words that reflect
nothing more than verbal constructs may be used in a claim in a manner that
is tantamount to using the word ‘means’ . . . .”). Restated, even if claim 1
were to be interpreted as setting forth an affirmative method step, a question
still would exist as to whether claim 1 constitutes an improper single-means
claim. See In re Hyatt, 708 F.2d 712, 714—15 (Fed Circ. 1983).
Accordingly, I would reverse the rejection of claims 1—10 and 49.
2