Ex Parte Campbell et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 13, 2016

12697076 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 13, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/697,076 01129/2010
131265 7590 10/13/2016
Alleman Hall McCoy Russell & Tuttle LLP/SLA
806 SW Broadway
Suite 600
Portland, OR 97205
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Richard John Campbell
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.
SLA2562 1245
EXAMINER
STITT, ERIK V
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2145
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
10/13/2016 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 RICHARD JOHN CAMPBELL,
MICHAEL JAMES HEILMANN, and
JOHN E. DOLAN
Appeal2015-006917
Application 12/697,076
Technology Center 2100
Before JOHNNY A. KUMAR, KIMBERLY McGRAW, and
CARLL. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
McGRAW, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal2015-006917
Application 12/697,076
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1-24. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
Introduction
According to Appellants, the invention relates to methods and systems
for sharing information on a collaborative writing surfaces, such as a
whiteboard, that are being used by multiple parties at different locations.
Spec. i-fi-1 2-3. The Specification states the invention allows information on
the writing surfaces to be "shared seamlessly and naturally between non-co-
located parties." Id. at ,-r 25.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Exemplary Claim
Claims 1 and 13 are the only independent claims on appeal. Claim 1
is representative and is reproduced below:
1. A computer-implemented method for forming an image of
a collaborative writing surface, said method comprising:
performing occlusion detection, associated with a collaborative
writing surface, wherein said performing occlusion detection
comprises:
receiving a current luminance image associated
with said collaborative writing surface;
receiving a reference luminance image associated
with said collaborative writing surface;
2
Appeal2015-006917
Application 12/697,076
identifying a plurality of contiguous likely-
occluder blocks in an image formed using said current
luminance image and said reference luminance image;
eliminating, from said plurality of contiguous
likely-occluder blocks, any contiguous likely-occluder
block that does not abut a frame boundary and any
contiguous likely-occluder block that does not meet a size
condition; and
declaring an occlusion event when at least one
contiguous likely-occluder block from said plurality of
contiguous likely-occluder blocks remains after said
eliminating;
performing dis-occlusion detection in response to said
occlusion event; and when said dis-occlusion detection
detects a dis-occlusion event:
capturing an image of said collaborative writing
surface corresponding to said dis-occlusion event;
forming an image based on said captured image of
said collaborative writing surface; and
displaying said image.
Br. 11-12 (Claims App'x).
REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 4-14, and 17-24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by US 2010/0245563 Al, published Sept. 30, 2010
("Golovchinsky"). Final Act. (Ans. 4-11).
Claims 2, 3, 15, and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Golovchinsky and US 7 ,260,278 B2, issued Aug.
21, 2007 ("Zhang").
3
Appeal2015-006917
Application 12/697,076
ANALYSIS
We have only considered those arguments Appellants actually raised
in the Brief. Arguments Appellants could have made but chose not to make
in the Brief have not been considered and are deemed to be waived. See
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(vii)(2011).
Rejection of claims 1, 4-14, and 17-24 under 35 U.S. C § 102(b)
Appellants first argue that because Golovchinsky does not disclose an
"occlusion event," the Examiner erred in finding that Golovchinsky
discloses the limitations of claim 1 requiring (1) "performing occlusion
detection, associated with a collaborative writing surface," and (2)
"performing disocclusion detection in response to said occlusion event." Br.
5-7.
Specifically, Appellants state that an "occlusion event occurs when
the board is occluded." Id. at 6. Appellants argue that Golovchinsky merely
discloses detecting or sensing activity in "the general vicinity of the board"
and that detecting one or more users at or near the vicinity of the board does
not teach performing occlusion detection and that detecting lack of activity
does not teach dis-occlusion. Id. at 6.
This argument is not persuasive because the Examiner also finds, and
Appellants do not rebut, that Golovchinsky discloses that a user makes
contact with the whiteboard. Ans. 3 (citing Golovchinsky i-f 71 ). The
Examiner explains that when a user makes contact with the whiteboard, the
user occludes the whiteboard. Id. The Examiner further explains when the
user stops contacting the whiteboard, a disocclusion event occurs because
4
Appeal2015-006917
Application 12/697,076
the user removes the occluding contact. Id. Appellants do not provide any
evidence or argument to dispute the Examiner's findings.
Appellants also argue that Golovchinsky does not disclose
"eliminating, from said plurality of contiguous likely-occluder blocks, any
contiguous likely-occluder block that does not abut a frame boundary" as
required by independent claim 1. Br. 7. 1 Specifically, Appellants state:
Br. 7.
The Examiner argues, on Page 3 of the Office action, that
"images within the user interface as shown in figure 5d do not
'abut' to a frame boundary in terms of the frame boundary
being the boundary of the user interface." However, the
Examiner makes no argument regarding eliminating any
contiguous likely-occluder block that does not abut a frame
boundary, which is the element of claim 1. Additionally, figure
5d shows an exemplary view of captured images shown to a
particular user, according to aspects of Golovchinsky's present
invention, see paragraph [0043] and paragraph [0105], which is
not related to elimination of a candidate block based on relative
position to a frame boundary. Golovchinsky does not teach this
element of claim 1. Golovchinsky does not disclose any form of
occlusion detection. Furthermore, Golovchinsky does not
process changed regions, or any regions, of an image based on
their location.
1 Although Appellants state additional elements of claim 1 are not
anticipated by Golovchinsky, Appellants do not provide any arguments
regarding these additional elements. See Br. 7 (stating "wherein said
performing occlusion detection comprises: ... identifying a plurality of
contiguous likely-occluder blocks in an image formed using said current
luminance image and said reference luminance image" not anticipated by
Golovchinsky); In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ("[W]e
hold that the Board reasonably interpreted Rule 41.37 to require more
substantive arguments in an appeal brief than a mere recitation of the claim
elements and a naked assertion that the corresponding elements were not
found in the prior art.").
5
Appeal2015-006917
Application 12/697,076
This argument is not persuasive because the Examiner found, and
Appellants do not rebut, that Golovchinsky teaches "eliminating, from said
plurality of contiguous likely-occluder blocks, any contiguous likely-
occluder block that does not abut a frame boundary" when the frame
boundary encloses a single block. Ans. 4. Specifically, the Examiner finds
Golovchinsky discloses segmenting the whiteboard into sub-region squares
(i.e., "blocks") and then compares a saved frame to a captured frame, using
the square "blocks" as boundaries to determine if a change occurred within
one. Id. at 4--5 (citing Golovchinsky i-f 115). The Examiner finds these
blocks are "likely-occluder blocks" because Golovchinsky makes a
comparison per each block to see if there has been a change (i.e., an
occlusion detected or not). Id. at 5. The Examiner finds that
Golovchinsky' s changed blocks "abut the frame boundary" when the frame
boundary only encloses a single block. Id. at 6. The Examiner finds that
when the frame boundary encloses a single block, the claim covers
eliminating non-changed blocks, as taught by Golovchinsky. Id. Appellants
do not provide any evidence or argument to dispute these findings.
As such, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding
Golovchinsky teaches the disputed limitations of claim 1 and we therefore
sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1 as anticipated by Golovchinsky.
We also sustain the rejection of dependent claims 4--12, which were not
argued separately. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
Appellants argue claim 13 is patentable for the same reasons argued
with respect to claim 1. Br. 8. This argument is not persuasive for the
6
Appeal2015-006917
Application 12/697,076
reasons stated above and we therefore sustain the Examiner's rejection of
claim 13, as well as claims 14 and 17-24, which were not argued separately.
Rejection of claims 2, 3, 15, and 16 under 35 U.S.C § 103(a)
Appellants do not provide any additional arguments as to the
patentability of dependent claims 2, 3, 15, and 16. See Br. 9. We therefore
sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 2, 3, 15, and 16 as unpatentab le
over Golovchinsky and Zhang.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection of 1, 4--14, and 17-24 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Golovchinsky is affirmed.
The Examiner's rejection of claims 2, 3, 15, and 16 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Golovchinsky and Zhang is affirmed.
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
7