Ex Parte Kuoch et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 8, 2017

13814992 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 8, 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.
13/814,992 03/08/2013 Siav Kuong Kuoch 17275/043001 2062
22511 7590 09/12/2017
O SH ATT ANfi T I P
EXAMINER
TWO HOUSTON CENTER SCHWARTZ, RAPHAEL M
909 FANNIN, SUITE 3500
HOUSTON, TX 77010 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2665
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/12/2017 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):
docketing@oshaliang.com
hathaway@oshaliang.com
escobedo @ oshaliang. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SIAV KUONG KUOCH and PATRICK BONHOURE
Appeal 2017-005033
Application 13/814,992
Technology Center 2600
Before DENISE M. POTHIER, CATHERINE SHIANG, and MATTHEW J.
McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges.
POTHIER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1—7 and 9—11. Claim 8 has been canceled. Br. 16—18
(Claims App’x).1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.
1 Throughout this opinion, we refer to (1) the Final Action (Final Act.)
mailed February 2, 2016, (2) the Appeal Brief (Br.) filed June 27, 2016, and
(3) the Examiner’s Answer (Ans.) mailed November 16, 2016.
Appeal 2017-005033
Application 13/814,992
The Invention
Appellants’ invention concerns a portable communication device that
may include a camera, such as a mobile phone or personal digital assistant.
See Spec. 1:3—6, 3:5—8, Fig. 3. The communication device assists a driver in
operating various devices (e.g., buttons, knobs, displays) in a motor vehicle.
Id. at 1:10—13, 2:8—11. For example, the communication device can display
guidance or provide information aurally to the user. Id. at 3:18—26., Fig. 3.
Additionally, the communication device uses a current absolute position of a
recognized device in the vehicle to locate devices outside the area captured
by a camera, to provide information related to these devices, and to display
information three-dimensionally. Id. at 5:12—26, 10:31—12:5, Figs. 4, 6.
Claim 1 is reproduced below with emphasis:
1. A method for supporting a user of a motor vehicle by means
of a portable communication device in operating an input
and/or output device, of the vehicle, comprising:
capturing an image of a captured area of the vehicle by
means of an imaging device of the portable communication
device, wherein the image is received by a control unit of the
portable communication device;
applying a feature recognition to the image by the control
unit regarding a plurality of features stored in the portable
communication device and recognizing at least one device of
the vehicle in the image on the basis of the stored features as
well as associating a user guide information with the recognized
device; and
outputting the associated user guide information by the
portable communication device,
wherein an absolute position of the at least one
recognized device within a vehicle coordinate system is stored
in the portable communication device, wherein a current
absolute position or an orientation of the portable
communication device is calculated by the control unit in
dependency on:
2
Appeal 2017-005033
Application 13/814,992
the absolute position of the at least one recognized
device; and
a scale factor that varies depending on a distance
between the portable communication device and the captured
area of the vehicle.
Br. 16 (Claims App’x).
The Examiner relies on the following as evidence of unpatentability:
Wolberg US 2008/0310757 A1 Dec. 18, 2008
Mike Hanlon, Augmented Reality Enables Computer-Enhanced Work,
gizmag (Nov. 4, 2005), available at
https://web.archive.org/web/20051104151900/http://gizmag.com/go/2726/
(“Hanlon”).
Iryna Skrypnyk & David G. Lowe, Scene Modelling, Recognition and
Tracking With Invariant Image Features, 3rd IEEE Int’l Sym. on Mixed and
Augmented Reality (ISMAR) 110—19 (Nov. 2—5, 2004) (“Skrypnyk”).
Marcus Tonnis and Gudrun Klinker, Effective Control of a Car Driver’s
Attention for Visual and Acoustic Guidance Towards the Direction of
Imminent Dangers, 5th IEEE Int’l Sym. on Mixed and Augmented Reality
(ISMAR) 13-22 (Oct. 22-25, 2006) (“Tonnis”).
Gabriel Takacs et al., Outdoors Augmented Reality on Mobile Phone Using
Loxel-Based Visual Feature Organization, 2008 ACM SIGMM Int’l Conf.
on Multimedia Info. Retrieval 427—34 (Oct. 30-31, 2008) (“Takacs”).
The Rejections
Claims 1,2, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Hanlon, Skrypnyk, and Wolberg. Final Act. 4—7.
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Hanlon, Skrypnyk, Wolberg, and Takacs. Id. at 8—9.
3
Appeal 2017-005033
Application 13/814,992
Claims 5—7, 9, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Hanlon, Skrypnyk, Wolberg, Takacs, and Tonnis. Id. at
9-11.
OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OVER HANLON, SKRYPNYK,
AND WOLBERG
Concerning representative claim l,2 the Examiner finds Hanlon and
Skrypnyk collectively teach the claim’s limitation (see Final Act. 4—6),
except for “expressly disclosing] that a scale factor is used is [sic] in
computing current absolute position or an orientation of the portable
communication device” (id. at 6). The Examiner indicates Skrypnyk and
Wolberg address this feature and further indicates Wolberg teaches the scale
factor “varies depending on a distance between the portable communication
device and the captured area of the vehicle” as recited. Final Act. 6—7
(citing Skrypnyk 4 (right column, equation (2)) and Wolberg | 63).
Appellants assert Wolberg teaches a constant scale factor rather than
the recited variable scale factor. Br. 8 (citing Wolberg 170). Appellants
also contend claims 1 and 11 “exhibit superior results and advantages” over
the cited prior art. Id. at 9 (citing Spec. 5, 11).
ISSUE
Under § 103, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 by finding
that Hanlon, Skrypnyk, and Wolberg collectively would have taught or
2 Appellants argue claims 1, 2, and 11 as a group. App. Br. 6—10. We select
independent claim 1 as representative. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
4
Appeal 2017-005033
Application 13/814,992
suggested a current absolute position or an orientation of the portable
communication device is calculated by the control unit in dependency on “a
scale factor that varies depending on a distance between the portable
communication device and the captured area of the vehicle”?
ANALYSIS
Based on the record before us, we find no error in the Examiner’s
rejection. The Examiner relies on Hanlon and Skrypnyk to teach the
absolute positon of a recognized device within a vehicle coordinate system is
stored in the portable device and the current absolute position or orientation
of the portable communication device is calculated by the control in
dependency on the absolute position of the recognized device. Final Act.
4—6 (citing Hanlon || 1, 3, 6 and Skrypnyk 1 (left column, 12), 2 (right
column , 11), 6 (steps 2 and 3)). Moreover, the Examiner indicates
Skrypnyk discusses matching new image features to world model features
involves a scale factor. Id. at 6 (citing Skrypnyk 4 (right column, equation
(2)). These findings and determinations are not disputed by Appellants. Br.
6—10. We thus focus our discussion on Wolberg.
Appellants assert Wolberg teaches a constant scale factor rather than
the recited variable scale factor. Br. 8 (citing Wolberg 170). This argument
is not availing. Appellants discuss a part of Wolberg’s paragraph 70 without
considering this paragraph in its entirety as well as its surrounding, related
paragraphs. See Ans. 10-11. Paragraph 70 in Wolberg addresses
refinement and optimization of the alignment process. See Wolberg 170
(stating “Section 5. Correspondence Refinement and Optimization” above
paragraph 70). This section discusses the candidate match set L contains
5
Appeal 2017-005033
Application 13/814,992
outliers and addresses how to remove outliers through a verification process
involving a difference in scale. Id. 170; see also Ans. 11. Wolberg
discusses two plausible matched 3-D points from two models (e.g., Mrange
and Msfm) and states the scale factor between the two models should be the
same if these were correct correspondences. See Wolberg 170; see also
Ans. 11. Wolberg uses this desired relationship to obtain a “robust set of
correspondences.” Wolberg 170; see also Ans. 11.
However, as the Examiner states, Wolberg further teaches computing
a scale factor. See Ans. 10—11. In particular, Wolberg discloses using an
unknown scale factor to determine the distance between two points in a
given model (e.g., Msfm) and to align two models (e.g., Mra„ge and Msfm).
Wolberg | 63. Thus, Wolberg suggests computing the unknown scale factor
to perform the above operations. See id. Wolberg also discusses candidate
scale factors and how each scale factor is computed based on different
variable values. See id. ]Hf 71—74. Wolberg shows equations where the scale
factor, s, varies depending on various elements (id. || 71, 73); Wolberg
discusses scale factors computed from each match set (id. 172); Wolberg
also discusses extracting the scale factor, s, from sR by knowing the
determinant of R is 1 (id. 173). These additional paragraphs illustrate the
scale factor varies and is not constant as asserted.
As to whether the scale factor varies based “on a distance between the
portable communication device and the captured area of the vehicle” as
recited, we adopt the Examiner’s findings and determinations as our own.
Final Act. 6—7; see also Ans. 10-11 (citing Wolberg || 63, 70, 73—74). We
therefore agree with the Examiner that Wolberg suggests computing a
variable scale factor.
6
Appeal 2017-005033
Application 13/814,992
Appellants also contend claims 1 and 11 “exhibit superior results and
advantages” over the cited prior art. Id. at 9 (citing Spec. 5, 11). Appellants
contend a control unit can calculate a current absolute position or a portable
communication device orientation based on the absolute position of at least
one recognized device and a scale factor that varies. Br. 9. Once the
absolute position or portable communication device is calculated, Appellants
assert “the position of other vehicle devices located outside the captured area
relative to the portable communication device may be determined by the
control unit.” Id.
Although not stated by Appellants, we presume these arguments relate
to evidence of secondary considerations. See id. Yet, the discussed superior
and advantageous feature of determining positions of other devices outside
the captured area is not claimed. Also, concerning the pages of the
Specification cited by Appellants {id. (citing Spec. 5, 11)), the disclosure
indicates “the control unit can output information in [sic] respect of these
devices” (Spec. 5:19) and “[t]he user guide information is displayed in a
three-dimensional way” {id. at 12:3 4) based on the calculated current
absolute position or orientation of the portable communication device. See
also id. at 11:15—22, Figs. 5—6. Yet, neither outputting information with
respect to devices outside the captured image nor displaying information in a
three-dimensional manner are claimed.
As such, the superiority and advantages asserted by Appellants {see
Br. 9) are not reasonably commensurate with the scope of the claims and do
not demonstrate the requisite nexus. See In re Kao, 639 F.3d 1057, 1068
(Fed. Cir. 2011). Moreover, as discussed above, the prior art demonstrates
that the claimed invention was known in the art. There can be no nexus
7
Appeal 2017-005033
Application 13/814,992
when the evidence of secondary considerations stems from what was known
in the prior art. See Tokai Corp. v. Easton Enters., Inc., 632 F.3d 1358,
1369 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“If [secondary considerations are] due to an element
in the prior art, no nexus exists.”).
Lastly, even if a nexus has been demonstrated, we determine that the
case of obviousness is strong and outweighs the case of nonobviousness.
That is, we have weighed the presented evidence of secondary
considerations but determine the evidence has insufficient probative value to
overcome the case of obviousness.
For the foregoing reasons, Appellants have not persuaded us of error
in the rejection of independent claim 1 and claims 2 and 11 not separately
argued.
THE REMAINING REJECTIONS
Appellants present arguments for the remaining rejections. See
generally Br. 10—14. The arguments repeat those presented for independent
claim 1. Compare id. with id. at 6—10. We refer above for details.
Additionally, we need not address whether Takacs or Tonnis cure any
alleged deficiency {id. at 10—12) because Hanlon, Skrypnyk, and Wolberg
teach the limitations in dispute as previously noted.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejections of claims 3—7, 9, and 10 for
reasons previously discussed.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1—7 and 9—11 under
§103.
8
Appeal 2017-005033
Application 13/814,992
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
9