Ex Parte Merifield et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 18, 2016

12297039 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 18, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/297,039 05/12/2009
10291 7590 10/20/2016
FISHMAN STEW ART PLLC
39533 WOODWARD A VENUE
SUITE 140
BLOOMFIELD HILLS, MI 48304-0610
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Michael J. Merifield
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.
66102-0016 3704
EXAMINER
FAULK, DEVONA E
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2616
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/20/2016 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):
patentmail@fishstewip.com
bhrec@fishstewip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITEn STATES PATENT ANn TRA.nEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MICHAEL J. MERIFIELD and MICHAEL JOHN
WALTER BROWN
Appeal2015-005251
Application 12/297,039
Technology Center 2600
Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., ADAM J. PYONIN, and
MICHAEL M. BARRY, Administrative Patent Judges.
PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final
rejection of claims 1-22, which are all pending claims. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
Appeal2015-005251
Application 12/297,039
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellants' disclosure is directed to "the depiction of images of an
advertising or promotional nature at sporting events, which may be viewed
through an image capturing and/or transmitting device, such as a television
camera." Specification 1:8-10. Claim 1, the sole independent claim, is
reproduced below for reference:
1. A method of depicting an image at a predetermined image
position on a surface to be at least one of imaged by a camera
and directly viewed by a person, the method comprising the steps
of:
transforming, by way of a computing device, an original
image using an image transformation process, the image
transformation process being adapted to transform the original
image according to a fixed positional relationship between the
predetermined image position and a predetermined viewing
position at which the at least one of the camera and person is
located, thereby creating a transformed image for placement on
the image surface to be at least one of imaged and viewed at said
predetermined image position;
wherein the step of transforming the original image
includes the steps of: determining one or more surface
characteristics of the surface to be at least one of imaged and
directly viewed; and
adapting the image transformation process according to
the one or more surface characteristics of the surface to be at least
one of imaged and directly viewed.
References and Rejections
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Rosser us 5,264,933 Nov. 23, 1993
2
Appeal2015-005251
Application 12/297,039
Co dos
Kauth
Dengler
Beckstrom
Tigges
US 2002/0044188 Al
US 2004/0123477 Al
US 2005/0001852 Al
US 2006/0116971 Al
US 7,312,806 B2
Apr. 18, 2002
July 1, 2004
Jan. 6,2005
June 1, 2006
Dec. 25, 2007
Claims 1, 4--14, and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Dengler and Rosser. Final Act. 3-10.
Claims 2 and 3 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Dengler, Rosser, and Tigges. Final Act. 10-11.
Claims 15-17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Dengler, Rosser, and Codos. Final Act. 11-13.
Claims 18 and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Dengler, Rosser, and Beckstrom. Final Act. 13-15.
Claims 20 and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Dengler, Rosser, Beckstrom, and Kauth. Final Act. 15-
16.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants'
arguments. We disagree with Appellants contention that the Examiner
erred, and we adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth by the
Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken and the Examiner's
Answer. We highlight and address specific findings and arguments for
emphasis as follows.
3
Appeal2015-005251
Application 12/297,039
Appellants argue the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claim 1,
because "Dengler is concerned with electronic images which are merely
inserted into a video stream. In contrast, the Appellants claimed subject
matter is concerned with a physical image which is physically located on a
physical surface (for example painted on the playing surface of a sporting
event)." Appeal Brief 10. Further, Appellants contend that "any
interpretation of the claim terms 'predetermined viewing position',
'predetermined image position' and 'fixed positional relationship' as
referring to non-real world locations is inconsistent with Appellants'
disclosure." Reply Brief 2.
We find Appellants' arguments unpersuasive for not being
commensurate with the scope of the claims. Although the claims are
interpreted in light of the Specification, limitations from the Specification
are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184
(Fed. Cir. 1993).
Here, claim 1 is a method of transforming an image, and is silent
regarding the argued terms such as "physical," "real," or "non-real" world
locations. The Specification, furthermore, provides no narrowing definition
of the claims terms at issue that would preclude the image transformations as
taught by Dengler and Rosser. For example, Appellants' reference to the
Specification's description of painting a playing surface (see Appeal Brief
10) as an example of a "real" world surface is unpersuasive because such
painting relates to an application step, as opposed to the recited
transformation steps. See, e.g., Specification 19:6-8 ("the transformed
image may be applied to the surface by means of chalk, paint or a similar
like marking material"). Thus, we find the recited transformation steps
4
Appeal2015-005251
Application 12/297,039
encompass computer transformations based on locations and surfaces input
to the computer. See Specification 19: 15-17 ("the creation of the
transformed image from the original image can readily be done by means of
a computer."). Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner that "the claim
language does not limit the image transformation to real world space
locations." Answer 17.
We also agree with the Examiner that the combination of Dengler and
Rosser teaches a process adapted to transform an image according to a fixed
positional relationship between the predetermined image position and a
predetermined viewing position as claimed, because Dengler teaches using
transforming and blending functions which result in the "insertion of the
content into the image sequence such that the content appears at a target
location as if it had been part of the original scene displayed by the image
sequence." Answer 16 (citing Dengler i-f 43) (emphasis added). Although
Appellants contend "[t]he theme of real world space independence is central
to and appears throughout Dengler" (Appeal Brief 12, referring to Dengler
i-f 45), we agree with the Examiner that Dengler teaches or suggests the
transformation is based on the fixed positional relationship (i.e., the view of
the displayed scene) of the predetermined image position (i.e., the target
location) and the predetermined viewing position (i.e., the camera position)
as claimed. See Final Action 3--4, Ans. 16-18 (both citing Dengler Fig. 7,
i-fi-1 43, 120, 121 ); see also Dengler i-fi-163, 74, 75. Rosser, similarly, teaches
transforming an image to be depicted on a surface, such as a tennis court,
that is imaged from a camera at a fixed positional relationship with the
surface. See Rosser Figure 1; see also Final Action 5.
5
Appeal2015-005251
Application 12/297,039
Further, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding the
combination of references teaches "depicting an image at a predetermined
image position on a surface to be at least one of imaged by a camera and
directly viewed by a person," and "determining one or more surface
characteristics of the surface to be at least one of imaged and directly
viewed" (emphases added) as claimed, because both references determine
surface characteristics of the surface to be imaged by a camera: ( 1) Dengler
determines the position and orientation of the hood of an imaged car; and (2)
Rosser determines characteristics of objects such as a fence and tennis court.
See Answer 18 (citing Dengler Figure 7; Rosser Figure 1 ); see also Dengler
i-fi-1 62, 121; Rosser 5: 66-6 :2 ("the logo will appear in exact conformity with
the perspective view of the court so that it will appear as if the logo were
permanently imprinted on the actual court being televised"); compare
Specification 2 :22-24 ("the surface characteristics of the predetermined
image position have some form of flaw, such as being irregular (i.e. not flat)
or non-horizontal with respect to the predetermined viewing position.")
(emphasis added); see also Specification 10:28-32.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding the
combination of Dengler and Rosser teaches or suggests the limitations of
claim 1. For the same reasons, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in
finding Dengler and Rosser teach or suggest the limitations recited by
dependent claims 5-8. See Appeal Brief 20-25; see also Final Action 6-7.
Therefore, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of these claims, and the
remaining dependent claims which are not separately argued with
particularity. See Appeal Brief 24 and 26.
6
Appeal2015-005251
Application 12/297,039
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection of claims 1-22 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
7