Ex Parte GERVAUTZ et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 30, 2018

14021337 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 30, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/021,337 09/09/2013
73859 7590 08/01/2018
Silicon Valley Patent Group LLP
Attn: Client QCM
4010 Moorpark Avenue
Suite 210
San Jose, CA 95117
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Michael GERVAUTZ
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.
Ql30998USvk 3974
EXAMINER
KHAN, USMAN A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2662
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/01/2018 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):
ocpat_uspto@qualcomm.com
qualcomm_P AIR@svpatentgroup.com
BWYMAN@SVPA TENTGROUP.COM
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MICHAEL GERVAUTZ, JIEUN KIM, PER 0. NIELSEN,
ROY LAWRENCE ASH OK INIGO, QI PAN AND
ROMAIN TALLONNEAU
Appeal2017-002931
Application 14/021,337
Technology Center 2600
Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR, JEFFREYS. SMITH and
JON M. JURGOV AN, Administrative Patent Judges.
WHITEHEAD JR., Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants are appealing the final rejection of claims 1-39 under 35
U.S.C. § 134(a). Appeal Brief 12. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b) (2012).
We affirm.
Introduction
The invention is directed to "apparatus, systems and methods to
facilitate text scanning, detection and/or recognition, and/or tracking."
Specification, paragraph 4.
Appeal2017-002931
Application 14/021,337
Illustrative Claim
1. A processor implemented method for text recognition and
tracking on a mobile station (MS), the method comprising:
obtaining a first reference frame by performing Optical
Character Recognition (OCR) on an image frame captured by a
camera on the MS to locate and recognize a first text block;
selecting a subsequent image frame from a set of subsequent
image frames, based on parameters associated with the selected
subsequent image frame;
obtaining a second reference frame by performing OCR on the
selected subsequent image frame to recognize a second text
block; and
determining a geometric relationship between the first text
block and the second text block, wherein the geometric relationship is
determined based, at least in part, on:
a position of the first text block in the second reference frame,
and a camera pose associated with the second reference frame.
Rejections on Appeal
Claims 1-5, 12, 13, 18-21, 28-33 and 37-39 stand rejected under pre-
AIA 35 U.S.C. § I02(a)(l) as being anticipated by Kurzweil (US Patent
Application Publication 2005/0286743 Al; issued December 29, 2005).
Final Action 6-17.
Claims 6 and 22 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
being unpatentable over Kurzweil and Kuoch (US Patent Application
Publication 2011/0001615 Al; published January 6, 2011). Final Action
17-19.
2
Appeal2017-002931
Application 14/021,337
Claims 7 and 23 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
being unpatentable over Kurzweil, Kuoch and Wagner ("Multiple Target
Detection and Tracking with Guaranteed Framerates on Mobile Phones,"
published October 19, 2009). Final Action 19--21.
Claims 8, 9, 11, 24, 25, 27, 34, and 36 stand rejected under pre-AIA
35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being unpatentable over Kurzweil, and Fragoso
("TranslatAR: A Mobile Augmented Reality Translator," published January
5, 2011). Final Action 21-26.
Claims 10, 26 and 35 stand rejected underpre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § I03(a)
as being unpatentable over Kurzweil, Fragoso and Wagner. Final Action
27-29.
Claim 14 stands rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over Kurzweil and Beardsley (US Patent Application
Publication 2009/0297020 Al; published December 3, 2009). Final Action
30.
Claims 15-17 stands rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
being unpatentable over Kursweil and Good (US Patent Application
Publication 2011/0090253; published April 21, 2011). Final Action 31-33.
ANALYSIS
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner,
we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed August 8, 2016), the Reply Brief (filed
December 19, 2016, the Answer (mailed October 21, 2016), and the Final
Action (mailed March 16, 2016) for the respective details.
3
Appeal2017-002931
Application 14/021,337
35 U.S.C. § 102 Rejection
Appellants argue, "the cited element 363 in Fig. 15 in Kurzweil
merely recites 'Detect and combine common text between two of the images,
363."' Appeal Brief 15 (citing Kurzweil, Figure 15, element 363).
Appellants contend, "in reference to element 363 in Fig. 15, Kurzweil recites
' [ t ]ext stitching is performed on two or more images ... [where] the portable
reading machine 10 detects and combines ('stitches') 363 common text
between the individual images.' Id. at ,r 0139 (emphasis added)." Appeal
Brief 16. Appellants argue, "in contrast to independent Claim 1, where 'a
geometric relationship [is determined] between the first and second text
blocks, the cited section in Kurzweil uses 'common text' to perform
'stitching 363.' Id." Appeal Brief 16. Appellants contend:
In sum, the Figs. 15-16 and i-f0135-i-f0141 [] in Kurzweil, which
use "common text" or other lexical or grammatical techniques
for "text stitching," do not support the Examiner's argument.
Indeed, the Examiner's argument that "if the reference teaches
combining two different groups of text then the claimed
limitation is taught ... [a]lso, the camera pose is taken into
account," (Office Action at 3) plainly ignores claim limitations
and contravenes the standard for anticipation[.]
Appeal Brief 1 7.
The Examiner finds the claimed "geometric relationship is a mere
location of character on a location of the image" and further finds "Kurzweil
clearly teaches determining a geometric relationship between the first and
second text blocks. Kurzweil teaches geometric relationship is determined
in at least figure 15 and figure 16, where geometric relationship of the text
data is taken into consider [sic] whereby the images are combined." Answer
3. The Examiner further finds, "Also, the camera pose is taken into account
as discussed in paragraphs 0115---0128 and 0135---0141; camera position/tilt
4
Appeal2017-002931
Application 14/021,337
and in figure 12A. Figure 15 teaches that at least two images are captured at
step 3 61, the OCR is performed at 3 62. At step 3 63 common text is detected
and combined between the two images." Answer 3.
Appellants contend:
However, even if arguendo the Examiner's above interpretation
of "geometric relationship" is accepted, the Examiner has failed
to specify how such a "geometric relationship" is disclosed in
Kurzweil. Indeed, the Examiner appears to concede otherwise,
noting that "[a]t step 363 common text is detected and combined
between the two images. Detecting and combining is done
depending on overlapping text as disclosed in Kurzwell (sic)."
Id. at 3 (citing to Kurzweil, Fig. 15, Step 363). Thus, even
according to the Examiner, Kurzweil uses "common text" or
"overlapping text" - not a geometric relationship - to combine
images.
Reply Brief 6-7.
Appellants contend support for the claimed geometric relationship is
found in Figure 2, elements 210-1 and 210-2. Appeal Brief7-8. Figure 2 is
reproduced below:
I
I
230-l
Cmncrn
Po»ilfon 1
!
I
I
\
\
230-2
Position 2
2XO
5
Appeal2017-002931
Application 14/021,337
"Fig. 2 shows positions of camera 110 relative to words on a
medium and coordinate systems that may be used to track and/ or
maintain the position of text blocks. For example, camera 110
may capture an initial image frame including Text Block-I 210-
1 from camera position 230-1. The field of view of camera 110
at camera position 230-1 is the region within dashed lines 250."
Specification, paragraph 4 7.
paragraph 48:
The Specification further discloses in
In some embodiments, image frame captured at camera position
230-1 may be processed by using OCR to identify one or more
characters or words in Text Block 210-1 and to determine an
initial pose 260 of Text Block 210-1, relative to frame of
reference 2 7 5. In some embodiments, frame of reference 2 7 5 at
camera position 230-1 may comprise a set of orthogonal axes,
where one or more of the axes may be aligned with the body of
MS [mobile station] 100 and/or the plane of camera 110. For
example, in one embodiment, an image frame captured at camera
position 230-1 may be stored and used as a reference image
frame.
The Specification, however, does not provide a limiting definition or a non-
limiting example of the claimed geometric relationship of the first and
second text boxes.
Appellants further contend that support for the claimed camera pose is
found in the Specification in paragraphs 5, 54 and 88, Figure 2, element 230-
2 and Figure 5, element 540. Appeal Brief 8. Paragraph 54 discloses, "The
pose 270 of text block 210-2, relative to frame of reference 280 may be
determined based on the known pose 265 of Text Block 1 210-1 and based
on the relative motion and orientation of camera 110 between positions 230-
1 and 230-2 as determined by ESM or another image alignment technique."
Paragraph 54 further discloses, "the computed relative motion and
orientation of camera 110 between positions 230-1 and 230-2 may also be
used to determine the pose of text block 210-2 in terms of frame of reference
6
Appeal2017-002931
Application 14/021,337
285. Thus, the position of the camera relative to the second text block may
be used to determine a geometric relationship between the first and second
text blocks." Paragraph 88 discloses, "a geometric relationship between the
first and second text blocks may be determined based, at least in part, on a
position of the first text block in the second reference frame and a camera
pose associated with the second reference frame."
Element 230-2 of Figure 2 is the "Camera Position 2." Element 265 is
the known pose of Text Box 210-1 and element 270 is the pose of Text Box
210-2. See Specification, paragraph 48. It is not clear from the
Specification which pose is associated with the camera. See Appeal Brief 8.
It is also not clear from the cited paragraphs how the claimed geometric
relationship between the first and second text blocks are determined based at
least in part on "a camera pose associated with the second reference frame"
as recited in claim 1. Accordingly, we find the Examiner's interpretation of
claim 1 reasonable and agree with the Examiner's findings that Kurzweil
teaches the claimed camera pose associated with the second reference frame.
See Final Action 8 (citing Kurzweil, paragraphs 115-128 and 135-141). We
sustain the Examiner's anticipation rejection of independent claim 1, as well
as, independent claims 18, 30 and 39 argued together. See Appeal Brief 21.
We also sustain the Examiner's anticipation rejection of dependent claims 2-
5, 12, 13, 19-21, 28, 29, 31-33, 37 and 38 not argued separate from the
independent claims. See Appeal Brief 21-22.
35 U.S.C. § 103 Rejection
Appellants argue that the Examiner failed to provide articulated
reasoning with some rational underpinning to indicate why a person of
ordinary skill in the art would combine the cited references to render
7
Appeal2017-002931
Application 14/021,337
dependent claims 6-11, 14--17, 22-27 and 34--36 obvious in the multiple 35
U.S.C. § 103 rejections. Appeal Brief 22-31. Appellants also contend that
the Examiner failed to outline how the references, when combined, would
produce the improvements the Examiner alleged. Appeal Brief 22-31.
Appellants' arguments are conclusory and fail to specifically point out
the error of the Examiner's findings (See Final Action 17-33). See, e.g., In
re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (attorney arguments or
conclusory statements are insufficient to rebut a prima facie case). Further,
to justify combining reference teachings in support of a rejection it is not
necessary that a device shown in one reference can be physically inserted
into the device shown in the other. In re Griver, 53 CCP A 815, 354 F .2d
377 (1966); In re Billingsley, 47 CCPA 1108, 279 F.2d 689 (1960). "The
test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may
be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it
that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of
the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the
references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art" In re
Keller, 642 F.2d413, 425 (CCPA 1981).
Accordingly, we do not find Appellants' argument persuasive of
Examiner error. We sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejections of
dependent claims 6-11, 14--17, 22-27 and 34--36.
8
Appeal2017-002931
Application 14/021,337
DECISION
The Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 102 rejection of claims 1-5, 12, 13, 18-
21, 28-33 and 37-39 is affirmed.
The Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections of claims 6-11, 14--17,
22-27 and 34--36 are 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 ). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l )(v).
AFFIRMED
9