Ex Parte Sugimoto

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 31, 2015

11089225 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 31, 2015)

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.
11/089,225 03/25/2005 Masahiko Sugimoto 5-170US-FF 9898
21254 7590 03/31/2015
MCGINN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW GROUP, PLLC
8321 OLD COURTHOUSE ROAD
SUITE 200
VIENNA, VA 22182-3817
EXAMINER
TSAI, TSUNG YIN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2668
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/31/2015 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte MASAHIKO SUGIMOTO
____________________

Appeal 2013-002104
Application 11/089,225
Technology Center 2600
____________________

Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, DEBRA K. STEPHENS, and
LINZY T. McCARTNEY, Administrative Patent Judges.

STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a final rejection of
claims 1, 4–6, 9, and 16–21. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
Claims 2, 3, 7, 8, 10–15, and 22 have been cancelled.

We REVERSE.
INVENTION
According to Appellant, the claims are directed to an image display
control apparatus and method, and program for controlling image display
Appeal 2013-002104
Application 11/089,225

2
control apparatus. Spec. ¶ 1, Abstract. Claim 1, reproduced below with
disputed limitations italicized, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. An image display control apparatus comprising:

an in-area-image rotating device that scans a search area
with a prescribed size on respective ones of a plurality of
images of interest with different sizes, each of the
plurality of images of interest with different sizes being
obtained in such a manner that the size of an image of
interest becomes gradually smaller and the image of
interest diminishes to a prescribed minimum image size,
and that rotates an in-area-image, which is located within
the search area scanned on images of interest, contained
in each image of interest, through a specified angle in
prescribed angular increments;

an evaluation-value calculating device that calculates an
evaluation value, which represents facial likeliness of the
in-area-image within .the search area at each angle for
each image of interest through which the in-area-image
has been rotated in the prescribed angular increments by
said in-area-image rotating device, using detection data
for detecting a face image;

a rotation correction angle deciding device that decides a
rotation correction angle for displaying the detected face
image in a rectangle display window in upright, based
upon an angle that affords a maximum value of the
evaluation value representing facial likeliness at each
angle for each image of interest by said evaluation-value
calculating device; and

a display control device that controls a display unit, in
such a manner that each image of interest is rotated and
displayed in the rectangle display window, using the
rotation correction angle decided by said rotation
correction angle deciding device, thereby each image of
interest in which the image of a person has been
Appeal 2013-002104
Application 11/089,225

3
rendered upright is displayed on the rectangle display
window.

REFERENCE
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Black US 5,774,591 June 30, 1998

REJECTION
Claims 1, 4–6, 9, and 16–21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by Black.
We have only considered those arguments that Appellant actually
raised in the Briefs. Arguments Appellant could have made but chose not to
make in the Briefs have not been considered and are deemed to be waived.
See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).

ISSUE
35 U.S.C. § 102(b): Claims 1, 4–6, 9, and 16–21
Appellant argues their invention is not anticipated by Black. App. Br.
9–11. The issue presented by these arguments is:

Issue: Has the Examiner erred in finding Black discloses a display
control device such that “each image of interest is rotated and displayed in
the rectangle display window, using the rotation correction angle decided by
said rotation correction angle deciding device, thereby each image of interest
in which the image of a person has been rendered upright is displayed on the
rectangle display window,” as recited in claim 1?

Appeal 2013-002104
Application 11/089,225

4
ANALYSIS
Appellant argues Black tracks “facial motion through sequences of
images while recognizing facial gestures and expressions.” App. Br. 9.
However, according to Appellant, Black does not relate to an image display
control apparatus or a method of controlling an image display. Id. Nor,
Appellant argues, does Black teach or suggest displaying an image of a
person which has been rendered upright on a video monitor. Id. at 10.
Further, Appellant asserts Black’s application driver does not control the
image display, but instead operates devices/software on a computer for a
facial recognition system that observes a user’s facial expressions and
movements to determine a user’s emotional state and alter the computer’s
interaction with the user based thereon. Id.
We agree with Appellant that Black does not anticipate the invention
as recited in claim 1. Specifically, the rejection fails to demonstrate Black
discloses a display control device that rotates and displays an image. We
agree with the Examiner that Black discloses rotation of the facial region;
however, the portion of Black relied upon as describing the display of the
rotated image, describes acquiring the image on which to perform the image
segmentation, etc., of the system. Ans. 8–10; Black, 7:62–64. We are not
persuaded Black describes displaying the rotated image.
Accordingly, we are persuaded Black does not disclose the disputed
limitation, as recited in independent claim 1 and commensurately recited in
independent claims 6, 9, and 19. Dependent claims 4, 5, 16–18, 20, and 21,
not separately argued, stand with their respective independent claims.
Therefore, we reverse the rejection of claims 1, 4–6, 9, and 16–21 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Black.
Appeal 2013-002104
Application 11/089,225

5
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 4–6, 9, and 16–21 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Black is reversed.

REVERSED