Ex Parte Krig et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 28, 2018

13968076 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 28, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/968,076 08/15/2013
104333 7590 10/02/2018
International IP Law Group, P.L.L.C.
13231 Champion Forest Drive
Suite 410
Houston, TX 77069
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Scott Krig
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.
P56267 6126
EXAMINER
HAIEM, SEAN N
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2422
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/02/2018 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):
eofficeaction@appcoll.com
Intel_Docketing@iiplg.com
inteldocs _ docketing@cpaglobal.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SCOTT KRIG and GREGORY JOHNSON 1
Appeal2018-003855
Application 13/968,076
Technology Center 2400
Before: CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., MICHAEL M. BARRY, and
JOHN R. KENNY, Administrative Patent Judges.
KENNY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1-23, which constitute all pending claims. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
1 Appellants identify Intel Corp. as their real party in interest. App. Br. 2.
Appeal2018-003855
Application 13/968,076
SPECIFICATION
The Specification relates generally to depth sensing. Spec. ,r 1. In
particular, the Specification relates to a hybrid depth sensing pipeline for
tunable accuracy, performance, resolution, and power. Id.
CLAIMED INVENTION
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. An apparatus for hybrid tracking and mapping, comprising:
logic to determine a plurality of depth sensing techniques;
logic to vary the plurality of depth sensing techniques based on
a sensor configuration, wherein in response to a plurality of
sensors the depth sensing techniques comprise at least
stereoscopic imaging, otherwise the depth sensing techniques
comprise at least virtual stereoscopic reconstruction;
logic to vary the plurality of depth sensing techniques based on
a compute unit configuration, wherein in response to an
accelerometer in the compute unit configuration the
accelerometer is to guide a depth algorithm selection; and
logic to generate a hybrid tracking and mapping pipeline based
on the depth sensing techniques, sensor configuration, and the
compute unit configuration.
El-Hakim
Boross
Volach
Bartos
Liu
REFERENCES
us 6,009,359
US 2012/0050482 Al
US 2013/0304831 Al
US 2013/0329012 Al
US 2016/0098863 Al
2
Dec. 28, 1999
Mar. 1, 2012
Nov. 14, 2013
Dec. 12, 2013
Apr. 7, 2016
Appeal2018-003855
Application 13/968,076
REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 2, 4--13, 15-17, and 19-23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as unpatentable over Boross, El-Hakim, and Liu. Final Act. 6.
Claims 3 and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Boross, El-Hakim, Liu, and Volach. Final Act. 14.
Claim 14 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Boross, El-Hakim, Liu, Volach, and Bartos. Final Act. 14.
ANALYSIS
Claim 1
Appellants argue that the cited prior art does not teach or suggest the
limitation of "determin[ing] a plurality of depth sensing techniques." App.
Br. 12; Reply Br. 1-3. The Examiner relies on paragraph 53 ofBoross for
teaching a plurality of depth sensing techniques. Final Act. 6. Appellants
argue, however, that paragraph 53 teaches only one technique for depth
sensing. App. Br. 12; Reply Br. 1-3. The last two sentences of paragraph
53 read: "In an embodiment of the invention, distance may be determined
based on time-of-flight of infrared waves transmitted by the emitter 220 and
reflected back to the color sensor 224. In an embodiment of the invention,
depth may be determined based on distortion of a captured grid." Boross
,r 53. Appellants argue that both sentences describe the same depth sensing
technique. App. Br. 12; Reply Br. 1-3. We, however, are not persuaded by
this argument. Paragraph 53 itself indicates that the described techniques
are different, and Appellants provide no evidence to support a contrary
finding. Boross ,r 53; App. Br. 12; Reply Br. 1-3.
Appellants further argue that, even if the depth sensing techniques
described by Boross are different, both techniques utilize infrared rays,
3
Appeal2018-003855
Application 13/968,076
claim 1 is not limited to the use of infrared rays, so Boross would not teach
or suggest the depth sensing techniques of claim 1. App. Br. 12. We are not
persuaded by that argument, however, because the prior art need not teach or
suggest every embodiment within the scope of a claim to render a claim
unpatentable. Claim 1 encompasses a plurality of depth sensing techniques
that utilize infrared rays. Therefore, claim 1 can be rendered unpatentable
by such teachings.
Appellants argue the cited prior art does not teach or suggest "logic to
vary the plurality of depth sensing techniques based on a sensor
configuration, wherein in response to a plurality of sensors the depth sensing
techniques comprise at least stereoscopic imaging, otherwise the depth
sensing techniques comprise at least virtual stereoscopic reconstruction."
App. Br. 12-13; Reply Br. 3--4. The Examiner relies on Boross and El-
Hakim for this limitation. Final Act. 6-7. The Examiner finds Boross
teaches logic to vary the plurality of depth sensing techniques based on a
sensor configuration, wherein in response to the plurality of sensors the
depth sensing technique comprises virtual stereoscopic imaging. Id. at 6-7.
Further, the Examiner finds that El-Hakim teaches depth sensing techniques
comprising stereoscopic imaging. Id. at 7. According to the Examiner, this
combination of these teachings teaches or suggests the disputed limitation.
Id. at 6-8.
Appellants advance several arguments disputing the Examiner's
finding that Boross and El-Hakim teach or suggest this limitation. First,
Appellants argue that Boross does not teach virtual stereoscopic
reconstruction using images from a monoscopic camera. App. Br. 13. We
are not persuaded by this argument because paragraph 35 of Boross
describes scaling 3D images using a monoscopic camera. Although
4
Appeal2018-003855
Application 13/968,076
Appellants argue that Boross's 3D images would not necessarily be
stereoscopic images, this argument is not persuasive because it rests solely
on attorney argument. App. Br. 13. In addition, the rejection at issue is for
obviousness, which does not require that Boross inherently disclose the
limitation, but rather that it teach or suggest it.
Appellants argue that Boross does not vary its depth sensing
techniques because Boross discloses only one depth sensing technique.
App. Br. 13. We are not persuaded by this argument because, as discussed
above, we are not persuaded that Boross discloses only one depth sensing
technique.
Appellants further argue that Boross does not disclose any sensor
configuration. App. Br. 13. We are not persuaded by this argument. The
Examiner cites paragraph 35 and Figures 1 and 2A of Boross for the sensor
configuration, and Appellants have not explained why those disclosures do
not teach a sensor configuration. Final Act. 6; App. Br. 13.
Appellants argue the cited prior art does not teach or suggest
stereoscopic imaging. App. Br. 14. In particular, Appellants argue that El-
Hakim does not teach or suggest a stereoscopic camera. Id. The Examiner
responds that Boross teaches a stereoscopic camera (100) and that El-Hakim
provides a reason for using that camera in conjunction with Boross's other
teachings. Ans. 5. Appellants reply that an ordinarily skilled artisan would
not combine El-Hakim's camera with Boross's monoscopic camera. Reply
Br. 4. That argument, however, is not responsive to the Examiner's
rejection, which proposed combining Boross's stereoscopic camera with
Boross' s monoscopic camera. Ans. 5.
Appellants also argue that Boross and El-Hakim teach away from
their combination because Boross's object is to scale operations via a
5
Appeal2018-003855
Application 13/968,076
monoscopic video camera. App. Br. 15; Reply Br. 4. Appellants assert that
adding the option of a dual-image capture means to Boross would change
Boross's principle of operation. App. Br. 15; Reply Br. 4. We are not
persuaded. Appellants have not set forth any persuasive arguments why the
Examiner's proposed combination, which would provide for both
stereoscopic imaging and monoscopic imaging would undermine Boross' s
objective: the monoscopic imaging option disclosed by Boross could still be
utilized. Leapfrog Enters. Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162
(Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418-19
(2007)).
Appellants argue that the cited prior art does not teach or suggest the
limitation of "logic to vary the plurality of depth sensing techniques based
on a compute unit configuration, wherein in response to an accelerometer in
the compute unit configuration the accelerometer is to guide a depth
algorithm selection." App. Br. 15-16; Reply Br. 3--4. The Examiner finds
that the combination of Boross and Liu teach or suggest this limitation.
Final Act. 5, 8. Appellants disagree, arguing that Liu does not teach using
its accelerometer to guide the selection of a depth algorithm. App. Br. 16.
The Examiner responds that Appellants are attacking Liu individually when
the Examiner is relying on both Boross and Liu for this limitation, and, in
particular, the Examiner is relying on Boross for the depth algorithm
selection. Final Act. 5. We agree. Appellants' argument with respect to
this limitation addresses only Liu and, therefore, this argument is not
responsive to the Examiner's rejection. App. Br. 15-16; In re Merck & Co.
Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 1.
6
Appeal2018-003855
Application 13/968,076
Claims 4-6, 8, 9, 11-13, 15, 16, and 19-23
Appellants argue that claims 4---6, 8, 9, 11-13, 15, 16, and 19-23 are
patentable for same reasons as claim 1. App. Br. 10-18. Because we
sustain the rejection of claim 1, we also sustain the rejections of claims 4--6,
8, 9, 11-13, 15, 16, and 19-23.
Claims 2, 10, and 17
Claim 2 recites "The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the depth sensing
techniques include disparity estimation from stereoscopic image left/right
pairs, virtual stereoscopic frames, and multi-view stereoscopic (MVS)
reconstruction from image sequences, and structured light scanning." The
Examiner relies on Boross for this limitation, finding that Boross discloses
disparity estimation from stereoscopic image left/right pairs and virtual
stereoscopic frames. Final Act. 9. The Examiner further finds that multi-
view stereoscopic (MVS) reconstruction from image sequences and
structured light scanning were well known. Id. Appellants argue that the
Examiner's rejection of claim 2 should be reversed because the Examiner
took improper notice that multi-view stereoscopic (MVS) reconstruction
from image sequences and structured light scanning were well known. App.
Br. 17. We disagree.
Claim 2 does not recite that the plurality of depth sensing techniques
of claim 1 include each of the four recited techniques. Claim 2 merely
recites that the depth sensing techniques referenced in claim 1 include those
four techniques. This means that the disclosure of two of the four recited
techniques would satisfy the claim (i.e., they would be the plurality of depth
sensing techniques from the group of depth sensing techniques of the four
recited techniques). Therefore, the disparity estimation from stereoscopic
7
Appeal2018-003855
Application 13/968,076
image left/right pairs and virtual stereoscopic frames that the Examiner finds
are taught by Boross would satisfy claim 2. Final Act. 9.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 2. Appellants present
the same arguments for claims 10 and 17. App. Br. 16-17. Accordingly, we
sustain the rejection of claims 10 and 17.
Claim 7
Claim 7 recites "The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the hybrid tracking
and mapping pipeline is used to produce a variable resolution depth
representation." The Examiner finds that paragraph 5 6 of Boross discloses
variable depth resolution. Final Act 11, citing Boross ,r 56. Appellants
dispute that finding, arguing that Boross discloses only "variable resolution
tiles," and not "variable resolution depth." App. Br. 17.
Appellants' argument is persuasive. Paragraph 56 of Boross refers to
"variable resolution tiles" and not "variable resolution depth." Boross ,r 56.
And the Examiner does not explain how paragraph 56 or any other portion
of Boross, nevertheless, discloses "variable resolution depth." Ans. 3---6.
The Examiner does not respond to this argument by Appellants. Id.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 7.
Claim 14
Appellants argue claim 14 is patentable for the same reasons as claim
1. App. Br. 19--20. Appellants note that the Examiner relies on an
additional reference to reject claim 14, Boross, which is not used to reject
claim 1. Id. Appellants argue, however, that the Examiner does not rely on
Boross for any of the limitations recited by claim 1 or the counterparts
recited by claim 9, from which claim 14 depends. Id. Regardless, for the
same reasons we sustain the rejection of claim 1, we also sustain the
rejection of claim 14.
8
Appeal2018-003855
Application 13/968,076
DECISION
We affirm the rejections of claims 1-6 and 8-23.
We reverse the rejection of claim 7.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
9