Ex Parte Ofstad

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 18, 2017

13658794 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 18, 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.
13/658,794 10/23/2012 Andrew Ofstad 31730/15293-00 3005
12716 7590 04/20/2017
Marshall, Gerstein & Borun LLP (Google)
233 South Wacker Drive
6300 Willis Tower
Chicago, IL 60606-6357
EXAMINER
GOOD JOHNSON, MOTILEWA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2616
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/20/2017 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):
mgbdocket@marshallip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ANDREW OF ST AD
Appeal 2016-006994
Application 13/65 8,7941
Technology Center 2600
Before KRISTEN L. DROESCH, JOYCE CRAIG, and
STEVEN M. AMUNDSON, Administrative Patent Judges.
CRAIG, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals 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.
1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Google Inc. App. Br.
4.
Appeal 2016-006994
Application 13/658,794
INVENTION
Appellant’s application relates to displaying textual information
related to geolocated images. Abstract. Claiml is illustrative of the
appealed subject matter and reads as follows:
1. A method in a computing device for providing information
about geographic locations, the method comprising:
providing, using one or more processors, an interactive
three-dimensional (3D) display of geolocated imagery for a
geographic area via a user interface of the computing device,
including generating a view of the geolocated imagery from a
perspective of a notional camera having a particular camera pose,
wherein the camera pose is associated with at least position and
orientation;
receiving, via the user interface, a selection of a location
within the interactive display;
automatically identifying a symbolic location
corresponding to the selected location, wherein at least textual
information is available for the symbolic location;
automatically and without further input via the user
interface, (i) moving the notional camera so as to directly face
the selected location, and (ii) providing overlaid textual
description of the symbolic location that includes a link to
additional information related to the symbolic location.
REJECTION2
Claims 1—20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over the combination of Meier et al. (US 2011/0276556 Al; published Nov.
10, 2011) (“Meier”), Douris et al. (US 2009/0289955 Al; published Nov.
2 Claims 1—20 were also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
The Examiner withdrew the rejection in the Answer. Ans. 2.
2
Appeal 2016-006994
Application 13/658,794
26, 2009) (“Douris”), Chen et al., Automatic Detection and Recognition of
Signs From Natural Scenes, IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, Vol.
13, No. 1, January 2004, pages 87—99 (“Chen”), and Kohli et al. (US
2012/0257814 Al; published Oct. 11, 2012) (“Kohli”).
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection in light of Appellant’s
contentions that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellant’s
contentions. Except as noted below, we adopt as our own: (1) the findings
and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is
taken and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s
Answer in response to Appellant’s Appeal Brief. We concur with the
conclusions reached by the Examiner. We highlight the following additional
points.
In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner found that Meier teaches or
suggests all of the recited limitations, except “identifying a symbolic
location corresponding to the selected location, wherein at least textual
information is available for the symbolic location,” for which the Examiner
relied on Douris, and “automatically and without further input via the user
interface, (i) moving the notational camera so as to directly face the selected
location” and “(ii) providing overlaid textual description of the symbolic
location that includes a link to additional information related to the symbolic
location,” for which the Examiner relied on Chen and Kohli. Final Act.
3-6.
3
Appeal 2016-006994
Application 13/658,794
Appellant contends the cited portions of Chen and Kohli do not teach
the limitation “automatically and without further input via the user interface,
(i) moving the notional camera so as to directly face the selected location,”
recited in claim 1. App. Br. 15. Appellant argues that Chen does not teach
the recited “notional camera” or a location selected within an interactive
display. Id. at 15—16. Appellant further argues that “Kohli at most describes
warping the surfaces in an image rather than automatically moving a camera
itself, much less moving a notional camera ‘so as to directly face the
selected location.Id. at 17.
Appellant’s arguments do not persuade us of Examiner error.
Appellant attacks the prior art references individually even though the
Examiner relied on the combination of Meier, Douris, Chen, and Kohli as
teaching or suggesting the disputed features. Final Act. 3—6. In re Mouttet,
686 F.3d 1322, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (citing In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425
(CCPA 1981)) (“The test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of
the references would have suggested to those having ordinary skill in the
art.”). Moreover, the Examiner relied on Kohli, not Chen, as teaching the
recited “notional camera.” Final Act. 6 (citing Kohli || 32—33); Ans. 5. The
Examiner relied on Chen for moving Kohli’s notional camera to directly
face the selected location. Ans. 5—6. In addition, the Examiner found that
rotation of an image, as taught by Kohli, “is a well-known movement in the
art and there[fore] Kohli discloses movement by rotating the image.” Id. at
6.
Appellant does not persuasively rebut the Examiner’s findings. In the
Reply Brief, Appellant argues “Kohli does not disclose moving the location
of the camera.” Reply Br. 2. The plain language of claim 1, however, does
4
Appeal 2016-006994
Application 13/658,794
not require “moving the location of the camera,” as Appellant contends, but
rather “moving the notional camera so as to directly face the selected
location.” See App. Br. 23. Appellant presents insufficient objective
evidence or persuasive argument to rebut the Examiner’s findings based on
the combined teachings of Chen and Kohli or the Examiner’s finding that
rotating is a well-known movement in the art and that, therefore, Kohli
discloses movement by rotating the image. See Ans. 6.
Appellant next contends the Examiner erred in combining Meier and
Douris because the combination “would require a change in the principle of
operation of the Douris software.” App. Br. 18. In particular, Appellant
argues that, by modifying Douris to automatically move the camera so as to
directly face the selected location, “the modification impedes the user’s
vision and impinges on the user’s ability to drive or walk, defeating the
purpose of placing virtual signs in empty spaces in the user’s field of
vision.” Id. at 19.
Appellant’s argument is not persuasive because, as the Examiner
explained (Ans. 2), the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a
secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the
primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly
suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the
combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of
ordinary skill in the art. See Keller, 642 F.2d at 425.
Appellant further contends neither Meier nor Douris, alone or in
combination, “discloses automatically identifying a symbolic location that
corresponds to a location selected within the interactive display.” App. Br.
20. Appellant argues that the physical locations and buildings in Douris
5
Appeal 2016-006994
Application 13/658,794
correspond to locations “viewed by a user’s left and right eyes” which are
“physical surroundings” rather than locations selected within an interactive
display. Id.
We are not persuaded the Examiner erred. The Examiner found that
Douris teaches the recited symbolic location identification because, in
Douris, entities such as businesses, other buildings, or physical landmarks
may be identified using pattern recognition software, RFID and/or GPS
location. Ans. 4 (citing Douris 36—39). The Examiner concluded it
would have been obvious to an artisan of ordinary skill to modify the
overlaid search windows for location information taught by Meier with the
symbolic location identification taught by Douris to provide overlay
information for locations as well as recognized entities. Id. at 4—5. In the
Reply Brief, rather than rebut the Examiner’s factual findings and
conclusion of obviousness, Appellant states only that arguments made in the
Appeal Brief “remain unaddressed.” Reply Br. 3.
For these reasons, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in
finding that the combination of Meier, Douris, Chen, and Kohli teaches or
suggests the limitations of claim 1.
Accordingly, we sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of
independent claim 1, as well as the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of
independent claims 8 and 14, which Appellant argues are patentable for
similar reasons. App. Br. 15. We also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
dependent claims 2—7, 9-13, and 15—20, for which Appellant makes no
additional arguments. Id. at 21.
6
Appeal 2016-006994
Application 13/658,794
DECISION
We affirm the decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 1—20.
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