Ex Parte Mate et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 31, 2016

13345162 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 31, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/345, 162 01/06/2012
10949 7590 09/02/2016
Nokia Corporation and Alston & Bird LLP
c/o Alston & Bird LLP
Bank of America Plaza, 101 South Tryon Street
Suite 4000
Charlotte, NC 28280-4000
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Sujeet Shyamsundar Mate
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.
042933/413495 9675
EXAMINER
WANG, XI
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2661
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/02/2016 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):
usptomail@alston.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Exparte SUJEET SHYAMSUNDARMATE,
IGOR DANILO DIEGO CURCIO,
and KOSTADIN NIKOLAEV DABOV
Appeal2015-001106
Application 13/345, 162
Technology Center 2600
Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., and
ADAM J. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2015-001106
Application 13/345, 162
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's final
rejection of claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm.
THE INVENTION
Appellants' claimed invention is directed to "performing image
registration based on sensor data" in which the "sensor data may be utilized
to determine horizontal and vertical orientation differences between at least
two consecutive images of successive images" (Abstract).
Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the
subject matter on appeal:
1. A method comprising:
capturing a plurality of successive images corresponding
to a given scene, the images captured during respective
exposure time intervals;
detecting sensor data during the exposure time intervals,
the sensor data being utilized in part to determine a horizontal
orientation difference between at least two consecutive images
of the successive images and a vertical orientation difference
between the two consecutive images; and
performing registration, via a processor, to align pixels of
the two consecutive images by shifting pixels of a first image of
the two consecutive images to align with pixels of a second
image of the two consecutive images based in part on the
determined horizontal orientation difference and the determined
vertical orientation difference.
2
Appeal 2015-001106
Application 13/345, 162
REFERENCES and REJECTIONS
Claims 1---6, 9-14, and 17-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)
as being anticipated by Rapaport (US 2011/0211732 Al; Sept. 1, 2011).
Final Act. 4.
Claims 7, 8, 15, and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Rapaport, in view of Kelly (US 2011/0066262 Al;
Mar. 17, 2011). Final Act. 9.
ISSUE
The pivotal issue is whether the Examiner erred in finding that
Rapaport discloses the claimed "capturing," "detecting," and "performing"
limitations as recited in claim 1.
ANALYSIS
Appellants first argue the Examiner erred in finding Rapaport teaches
or suggests,
to align pixels of the two consecutive images by shifting pixels of a
first image of the two consecutive images to align with pixels of a
second image of the two consecutive images based in part on the
determined horizontal orientation difference and the determined
vertical orientation difference,
as recited in claim 1 (see App. Br. 7). Particularly, Appellants contend
Rapaport at most discloses that "an image pixel representing a
particular position on the edge or within the body of an object
appearing in a first series image is mixed with its counterpart located
at the same position on the edge or within the body of the same object
appearing in a second series image"
3
Appeal 2015-001106
Application 13/345, 162
(App. Br. 8-9 (emphasis added), quoting Rapaport il 72; see also Reply Br.
9 describing Rapaport's "mixing technique").
We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments. The Examiner finds,
and we agree, that Rapaport' s image registration processor 210 "align[ s]
pixels of the two consecutive images by shifting pixels" (Final Act. 5, citing
Rapaport i-f 72) which is "due to camera movement" (Final Act. 6, quoting
Rapaport i-f 72). In Rapaport, "[i]mage registration is executed before image
mixing in order to pixel to pixel align all series images" (Rapaport i-f 72), and
during image registration motion vectors are first derived and then a
transformation (x', y') = f(x, y) is derived where (x', y') is the new location
of point (x, y) (Rapaport i-fi-174--75). The motion vectors, which are
"computed between successive series images" (Rapaport i-f 74), are then used
to determine horizontal orientation and vertical orientation differences
between the images, with shifting of the pixels determined by the
transformation function f(x, y).
Appellants' argument that Rapaport' s registration is distinct from the
claimed registration because Rapaport states that "the location of a pixel in
an image is with respect to the object in which it is part of, not to the fixed
coordinate system of the defined by the vertical and horizontal outer edges
of the image" (App. Br. 7-8, citing Rapaport i-f 72; see also Reply Br. 7) is
unpersuasive, because the motion vectors are made with respect to a
difference in pixel locations, and thus have horizontal and vertical
components. See Ans. 12 ("Rapaport discloses pixel alignment due to
camera movement. Since the camera moved, the motion direction can be
either horizontal or vertical. There must be orientation difference involved in
the capture of the series of images").
4
Appeal 2015-001106
Application 13/345, 162
Appellants additionally argue that Rapaport lacks "any mention,
teaching or suggestion whatsoever relating to any sensor data detected
during exposure time intervals being used in part to determine any
horizontal orientation difference between at least two consecutive images of
successive images and a vertical orientation difference between the two
consecutive images" (App. Br. 14, emphases in original).
We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments. The Examiner
broadly and reasonably finds that "'sensor data' is considered as pixel signal
data which is acquired during the exposure intervals and used for detecting
difference between successive frames" (Final Act. 4; compare Rapaport
i-f 74). Appellants' argument regarding Rapaport's failure to mention both a
"horizontal orientation difference" and a "vertical orientation difference" is
unpersuasive, because as discussed above, Rapaport's "motion vectors"
determine these orientation differences. We further note that there is no
ipsissimis verbis test for determining whether a reference discloses a claim
element, i.e., identity of terminology is not required. In re Bond, 910 F.2d
831, 832 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent
claim 1, and independent claims 9 and 1 7 commensurate in scope, as well as
dependent claims 2-8, 10-16, and 18-20 not separately argued with
particularity. See App. Br. 18-19.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in finding that Rapaport teaches or suggests
the limitations as recited in claim 1.
5
Appeal 2015-001106
Application 13/345, 162
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-20 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
6