Ex Parte Morioka

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 21, 2018

13503763 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 21, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/503,763 04/24/2012
52123 7590 12/26/2018
GREENBLUM & BERNSTEIN, P.L.C.
1950 ROLAND CLARKE PLACE
RESTON, VA 20191
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Mikio Morioka
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.
P41905 6722
EXAMINER
DOBBS, KRISTIN SENSMEIER
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2486
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/26/2018 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):
gbpatent@gbpatent.com
greenblum.bernsteinplc@gmail.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MIKIO MORIOKA
Appeal2018-003840 1
Application 13/503,763
Technology Center 2400
Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, NORMAN H. BEAMER, and
ADAM J. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1-16. Final Act. 3. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We REVERSE.
1 Panasonic Intellectual Property Management Co., Ltd. is identified as the
real party in interest. App. Br. 3.
Appeal2018-003840
Application 13/503,763
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant's disclosure relates to a "method that switches between
display images picked up using a plurality of cameras such as wearable
cameras." Abstract. Claims 1, 12, and 13 are independent, and claim 1 is
reproduced below for reference (with emphasis added):
1. A display image switching apparatus comprising:
a processor;
a memory including instructions that, when executed by
the processor, cause the processor to perform operations
including:
displaying a first image picked up by a first camera of a
plurality of cameras;
selecting an object in the displayed first image;
extracting a second camera from the plurality of cameras
that picks up the object selected from the displayed first image,
and not extracting a third camera from the plurality of cameras
that does not pick up the object selected from the displayed first
image, based on a position of the selected object in a real space
and positions and optical axis directions of the plurality of
cameras in the real space;
calculating a position of the second camera on the
displayed first image picked up by the first camera, based on a
position of the first camera in the real space and a position of
the second camera in the real space; and
displaying a selectable image, indicating the extracted
second camera, on the displayed first image picked up by the
first camera, at the position of the second camera on the
displayed first image, and not displaying a selectable image
indicating the third camera that is not extracted by the
processor, wherein:
when the selectable image which indicates the second
camera and is displayed on the displayed first image is selected,
the display displays a second image picked up by the second
2
Appeal2018-003840
Application 13/503,763
camera, the second image displaying the selected object which
is displayed in the first image.
The Examiner's Rejection
Claims 1-16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over Park (US 2009/0262206 Al; Oct. 22, 2009). Final Act. 3.
ANALYSIS
Appellant argues Park does not "display a selectable image, indicating
a second camera, on a displayed first image picked up by a first camera" as
claimed (App. Br. 21) and "the Examiner has failed to appropriately explain
why one of ordinary skill in the art would modify the joined video 512 of
FIG. 5A of PARK to include the camera icons of the GUI view of FIG. 5B
of PARK." App. Br. 22. Appellant further contends that
claims 1-16 of the present application are fundamentally distinct
and distinguished from PARK in that the claims relate to
switching amongst camera views while PARK relates to stitching
(i.e., joining or blending) video from a plurality of cameras.
App. Br. 12.
We are persuaded by Appellant's arguments. The Examiner's
findings rely on Park's display of cameras and their views, as illustrated in
Figures 5A and 6C of Park. See Final Act. 5. The Examiner reasons Park's
configuration:
would allow for Camera 1 to be able to view Camera 2, for
example, and Camera 2 would be like any other object in the
images taken by Camera 1 and such an object could be tracked
by the system taught in Park (paragraph [0072]) and the position
of Camera 2 could be determined.
3
Appeal2018-003840
Application 13/503,763
Ans. 26 ( emphases added). That is, the Examiner determines that Park's
cameras, which are used to assemble "an expanded display environment"
(Park ,r 27), are themselves treated as tracked objects whose camera
positions "could be determined." Ans. 26. We note the Examiner provides
insufficient rationale to explain why one skilled in the art would consider
this modification. See Final Act. 21-23. Rather, the cited portion of Park
teaches using cameras for tracking a "detected object" which is "an object
detected and determined to be of interest" (Park ,r 72); Park therefore
suggests the cameras themselves are not tracked. See Reply Br. 14--15; see
also KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,418 (2007) ("[A] patent
composed of several elements is not proved obvious merely by
demonstrating that each of its elements was, independently, known in the
prior art," thus "rejections on obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by
mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated
reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of
obviousness.").
We are persuaded the Examiner's rejection is in error. Accordingly,
we are constrained by the record to reverse the rejection of independent
claim 1, independent claims 12 and 13 commensurate in scope, and the
claims that depend therefrom.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
is reversed.
REVERSED
4