13832428 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 22, 2018)

Ex Parte Seeley et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardJan 22, 2018

13832428 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 22, 2018)

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. 13/832,428 03/15/2013 Michael S. Seeley SUB-02925-A-US-CIP 2141 173 7590 01/24/2018 WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION - MD 3601 2000 NORTH M63 BENTON HARBOR, MI 49022 EXAMINER BADER, ROBERT N. ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2614 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/24/2018 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): whirlpool_patents_co@whirlpool.com mike_lafrenz @ whirlpool .com deborah_tomaszewski@whirlpool.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte MICHAEL S. SEELEY and KIRK W. GOODWIN Appeal 2017-006659 Application 13/832,428 Technology Center 2600 Before JAMES R. HUGHES, JOHNNY A. KUMAR, and JOHN P. PINKERTON, Administrative Patent Judges. KUMAR, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON REQUEST FOR REHEARING Appeal 2017-006659 Application 13/832,428 Appellants filed a Request for Rehearing under 37 C.F.R. § 41.52(a)(1) (“Request”)1 on Nov. 21, 2017, for reconsideration of our Decision mailed Sept. 26, 2017 (“Decision” or “Dec.”).2 The Decision affirmed the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1—9 and 11. We reconsider our decision in light of Appellants’ Request for Rehearing, but we decline to change the decision. We find Appellants’ arguments unpersuasive for the reasons given in our prior Decision. We highlight the following for emphasis. Independent claim 1 recites, inter alia “wherein the image stored in the image database is less than a full image of a wine bottle, and when the image is to be displayed by the display device, a rendering of a full image of the bottle is shown by the display device by filling in the less than the full image of the bottle with a virtual rendering” (hereinafter “disputed limitation”). Appellants contend: See page 13 of the Answer where the Examiner does not give weight to the claim limitations of “filling in the less than full image of the bottle with a virtual rendering”, because the Examiner does not consider the claim to be supported by the specification and states, “As discussed above, Appellant’s disclosure does not describe combining the partial image with ‘one or more images, real and/or virtual, showing the missing portion’, or otherwise describe the ‘filing in’ process with any details to distinguish from Bier’s texture mapping.” Req. Reh’g 4—5. 1 We note that the Request for Rehearing does not include page numbers. For reference convenience, we designate the cover page of the Request as page 1 and number the pages consecutively therefrom. 2 “The request for rehearing must state with particularity the points believed to have been misapprehended or overlooked by the Board.” 37 C.F.R. § 41.52(a)(1). 2 Appeal 2017-006659 Application 13/832,428 In particular, Appellants contend: Bier does not disclose filling in missing portions of an image The point of Bier is to map 2D images onto 3D objects, e.g., the eyes of Figure 2A onto the teapot of Figure 2B, so that the 2D image looks correct on the 3D surface. Bier does not disclose taking a less than full image of an object and rendering a full image of the object by filling in the less than full image with a virtual rendering, as required by claim 1. The image of Figure 2 A is not a partial image of the teapot of Figure 2B. Bier takes an image, modifies it and applies it to an object. Bier does not take a partial image of an object and create a full image of the object. Reply Br. 4. Our Decision is based upon the factual findings made by the Examiner in the Final Office Action filed Apr. 7, 2016, and the Answer mailed Jan. 20, 2017. We disagree with Appellants’ contentions because they misstate the facts of record. We also disagree with Appellants’ argument that the Examiner did not give weight to the disputed limitation. We see no error in the Examiner’s findings (Final Act. 6—17; Ans. 7—14) that the combination of Kjallstrom and Bier explicitly teaches the disputed limitation (see Dec. 6). Appellants further contend: The Decision on Appeal does not discuss the Appellant’s argument but purports to affirm the rejection of claims 1-9 and 11 for the same reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Answer. See the last paragraph on page 5 of the Decision. However, the Examiner overlooked some of Appellant’s arguments set forth in the Appeal Brief and could not have addressed the Appellant’s arguments set forth in the Reply Brief which explain how the Examiner overlooked the Appellant’s arguments. 3 Appeal 2017-006659 Application 13/832,428 Req. Reh’g 4. In particular, Appellants contend: [T]he Examiner’s rejection does not address all the claim limitations because it overlooks the fact that claim 1 is supported by the specification. The Reply Brief explained other errors in the Examiner’s position. The Board never discusses this portion of the Reply Brief, and adopting the Examiner’s reasoning overlooks this reasoning, since the Examiner’s Answer was drafted before the Reply Brief was filed. Req. Reh’g 5—6. As to Appellants’ above contentions, this panel did consider all of Appellants’ arguments in its deliberations and reviewed the particular findings contested anew. See Dec. 5—6. This panel did not err in not discussing individually each of Appellants’ arguments in its ultimate decision. There is no requirement that this Board catalog and discuss every argument that Appellants make to support their contention of error in the rejection. Appellants have failed to show any matter that was misapprehended or overlooked by the Board in rendering our Decision. We decline to change our prior Decision. 4 Appeal 2017-006659 Application 13/832,428 CONCLUSION In view of the foregoing discussion, we grant Appellants’ Request for Rehearing to the extent of reconsidering our Decision, but we deny Appellants’ request with respect to making any change thereto. 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). REHEARING DENIED 5