Ex Parte Geng

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jan 7, 2009

09821648 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 7, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte ZHENG J. GENG
____________

Appeal 2008-1153
Application 09/821,6481
Technology Center 2600
____________

Decided: January 7, 2009
____________

Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, ROBERT E. NAPPI, and
SCOTT R. BOALICK, Administrative Patent Judges.

BOALICK, Administrative Patent Judge.

1 Application filed March 29, 2001. Application 09/821,648 is a
continuation-in-part of 09/098,322 filed June 16, 1998. The real party in
interest is Genex Technologies, Inc.
Appeal 2008-1153
Application 09/821,648

2
DECISION ON REQUEST FOR REHEARING
Appellant requests rehearing under 37 C.F.R. § 41.52 of our Decision
on Appeal entered August 11, 2008 ("Decision") wherein we affirmed the
Examiner's final rejection of claims 1-14 and 16-44.
The request for rehearing is denied.

DISCUSSION
Appellant argues that our Decision, at page 13, erred by
concluding:
that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the
art at the time of the invention to have used a look-up table, as
taught by Glatt, in the method taught by Nayar. (Ans. 4, 20-
22.) This is no more than the combination of familiar elements
according to known methods, with no unpredictable results.
See KSR, 127 S. Ct. at 1739.

(Req. for Reh'g 2-3.) Appellant admits that "Glatt teaches mapping using a
look-up table" (Req. for Reh'g 3), but contends that "Glatt only teaches how
to map an image obtained from a fish-eye lens" (id.) and "[t]here is no
teaching or suggestion in the prior art of mapping portions of an
omnidirectional image from a reflective mirror to a perspective viewing
window" (id.). Appellant further argues that "the Decision rests on the
unstated assumption that the same formula and technique taught in Glatt
with respect to a fish-eye lens can be used with respect to an omnidirectional
image from a reflective mirror, as claimed" (Req. for Reh'g 3) and that the
record does not show "how one of skill in the art would have modified the
techniques and formula of Glatt to account for an image coming, not from a
fisheye lens, but from a reflective mirror" (id.). In addition, Appellant
Appeal 2008-1153
Application 09/821,648

3
argues that the instant "specification describes at length the formula and
techniques that would be employed to map pixels from the omnidirectional
image of a reflective mirror to a perspective viewing window" (Req. for
Reh'g 4) and that "[t]he Examiner has failed to demonstrate how or where
this subject matter is found in the prior art and would be within the purview
of one of ordinary skill in the art" (id.).
Appellant's arguments are not persuasive. Claim 1 broadly recites
"mapping each pixel in the perspective window with a corresponding pixel
value in the omnidirectional image on the image plane using a look-up table
based on the configuration parameters."2 The Specification does not impart
any special meaning to the phrase "using a look-up table."3 Indeed, the
Specification does not use the term "look-up table." Instead, the
Specification refers to a "mapping matrix" (Spec. paragraph [0031]) and "a
simple table look-up function" (Spec. paragraph [0040]). The relevant plain
meaning of "using" is "[t]o put into service or apply for a purpose; employ."
The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (4th ed. 2000),
available at http://www.bartleby.com/61/57/U0155700.html (last visited
December 11, 2008). Claim 1 does not further define how the look-up table
is to be used to perform the mapping. Thus, claim 1 merely requires a look-
up table somehow to be put into service or applied for the purpose of
mapping each pixel in the perspective window with a corresponding pixel

2 The phrase "a look-up table based on" was added to claim 1 by
amendment in the Request for Continued Examination (RCE) filed
December 13, 2004 based upon the previously submitted amendment in the
Second After-Final Response Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.116 filed November 12,
2004.
3 Appellant does not present any arguments with respect to the phrase
"based on the configuration parameters" recited in claim 1.
Appeal 2008-1153
Application 09/821,648

4
value in the omnidirectional image on the image plane. Claim 1 does not
require the use of any particular formulas or techniques, and we decline
Appellant's invitation to import such limitations from the Specification.
Appellant does not contest the Examiner's findings that Nayar teaches
generating a selectable perspective view of a portion of a hemispherical
image scene using a reflective mirror and an image sensor (Ans. 3-4;
Decision, Findings of Fact 1-2) and that the system of Nayar acquires an
omnidirectional image on an image plane using a reflective mirror that
satisfies a single viewpoint constraint, defines a perspective viewing window
based on configuration parameters, and maps each pixel in the perspective
viewing window with a corresponding pixel value in the omnidirectional
image on the image plane (Ans. 3-4; Decision, Findings of Fact 1-6). (Req.
for Reh'g passim.)
Nayar teaches that "there is a one-to-one correspondence between the
x-y coordinate of the point of intersection with the reflector 135 of the
orthographically projected ray, and the x-y coordinate of the point at which
that orthographically projected ray intersects the planar light-sensitive
surface of the image sensor 110" (col. 10, ll. 14-19) and that "mapping of the
image into a Cartesian-coordinate system is a simple task for persons skilled
in the art" (col. 10, ll. 29-30) (emphasis added). (Decision, Finding of
Fact 3.) Thus, Nayar teaches that one of ordinary skill in the art would have
known how to map a pixel in the perspective window with a corresponding
pixel value in the omnidirectional image on the image plane.
As noted above, Appellant admits that "Glatt teaches mapping using a
look-up table" (Req. for Reh'g 3; see also Ans. 4, Decision, Finding of
Fact 7). In particular, Glatt teaches that coordinates are calculated and
Appeal 2008-1153
Application 09/821,648

5
stored in the look-up table. (Decision, Finding of Fact 7.) Glatt teaches that
all coordinates for the hemispherical image coming from the fish-eye lens
could be pre-calculated or, alternatively, only the coordinates for a particular
area could be calculated as the area is selected and, in either case, stored in
the look-up table. (Id.)
The Examiner articulated a reason with rational underpinnings for
combining the disclosures of Nayar and Glatt. The Examiner found that "it
would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to pre-calculate
the coordinates of Nayar and store them in a look-up table as taught by Glatt
in order to prevent the need to continuously perform complex calculations
when converting a hemispherical image into a normal camera image."
(Ans. 21-22.) As explained by the Examiner, "Glatt is used [in the rejection]
only to teach the use of a look-up table in order to simplify the
transformation of a hemispherical image to a normal camera image."
(Ans. 21.) The Examiner also made clear that the rejection is not meant "to
suggest that the look-up table of Glatt can be imported into the system of
Nayar." (Id.) Rather, the Examiner's rejection used "a look-up table (as
taught by Glatt) with the system of Nayar in order to provide a means to
translate the hemispherical image into a normal camera image without
continuously having to perform complex calculations." (Id.)
Thus, the combination of Nayar and Glatt does not rest on any
assumption, stated or unstated, that the formulas and techniques with respect
to the fish-eye lens of Glatt can be used with respect to an omnidirectional
image from a reflective mirror. In addition, there is no need for one of
ordinary skill in the art to modify the formulas of Glatt to account for an
image coming from a reflective mirror rather than a fish-eye lens because, as
Appeal 2008-1153
Application 09/821,648

6
discussed supra, Nayar teaches that one of ordinary skill in the art would
have known how to account for such an image.
Therefore, we discern no error in our conclusion that it would have
been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to
have used a look-up table, as taught by Glatt, in the method taught by Nayar.
No error has been shown in our conclusion that the claimed subject matter is
no more than the combination of familiar elements according to known
methods, with no unpredictable results. Accordingly, we decline to modify
our Decision.

CONCLUSION
The request for rehearing is denied.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

REHEARING DENIED

ack

cc:

STEVEN L. NICHOLS
RADER, FISHMAN & GRAUER PLLC
10653 S. RIVER FRONT PARKWAY
SUITE 150
SOUTH JORDAN, UT 84095