Ex Parte Weller et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 31, 2018

13487513 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 31, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/487,513 06/04/2012
25231 7590 11/02/2018
Marsh Fischmann & Breyfogle LLP
8055 East Tufts A venue, Suite 450
Denver, CO 80237
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Errin T. Weller
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.
50622-00007 1039
EXAMINER
GOOD JOHNSON, MOTILEWA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2616
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/02/2018 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):
ptomail@mfblaw.com
ptomail@mfblaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ERRIN T. WELLER and JEFFREY B. FRANKLIN
Appeal2018-004587
Application 13/487,513
Technology Center 2600
Before DENISE M. POTHIER, LINZY T. McCARTNEY, and
NATHAN A. ENGELS, Administrative Patent Judges.
PERCURIAM.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants seek review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner's
rejections of claims 1--4, 6-9, 12-18, and 20-30. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm-in-part.
Appeal2018-004587
Application 13/487,513
BACKGROUND
Procedural History
This is the second time the Board has considered the Examiner's
rejections of claims in this patent application. In 2016, a different Board
panel affirmed the Examiner's obviousness rejection of claims 1--4, 6-8, and
14--25 over Maassel 1 and Tapley2 and reversed the Examiner's obviousness
rejection of claims 9-13 over these references. Decision on Appeal 9,
mailed July 27, 2016. The panel also entered a new obviousness rejection
for claim 9. Id. We now consider the Examiner's obviousness rejection of
claims 1--4, 6-9, 12-18, and 20-30 over a different set of prior art references
and rejection of claim 14 for lacking antecedent basis.
Claimed Subject Matter
This patent application concerns using markers to increase the
geographic accuracy of augmented reality ("AR") systems. Specification
,r 2, filed June 4, 2012 ("Spec."). Claims 1, 9, and 15 are independent.
Claim 15 reflects the claimed subject matter:
15. An augmented reality (AR) method comprising:
operating a camera of the user device to acquire an input
image of a physical environment, wherein a digitally encoded
marker (DEM) is positioned at a marker location within the
physical environment;
with a processor, processing the input image to identify the
DEM in the input image;
decoding data from the identified DEM including at least
one of geographic coordinate data and relative coordinate data
defining the marker location in the physical environment,
wherein the decoding is performed without calculating
coordinates of the DEM in the physical environment;
1 Maassel et al. (US 2010/0171758 Al; July 8, 2010).
2 Tapley et al. (US 2011/0148924 Al; June 23, 2011).
2
Appeal2018-004587
Application 13/487,513
from memory of the user device, retrieving digital data of
a virtual object, wherein the virtual object is a 3D digital model;
and
displaying an augmented reality image comprising at least
a portion of the input image and an overlay image, corresponding
to the retrieved digital data, positioned within the augmented
reality image based on the decoded data from the DEM and the
marker location, as defined by the at least one of the geographic
coordinate data and the relative coordinate data, in the physical
environment associated with the input image,
wherein the overlay image is positioned within the
augmented reality image using the at least one of the geographic
coordinate data and the relative coordinate data.
Appeal Brief 24, filed January 18, 2018 ("App. Br.").
14
1--4,6-9, 12-18,20-
303
REJECTIONS
§ 112
§ 103
DISCUSSION
Persson, 4 Chow, 5
Kotake 6
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections and Appellants'
arguments, and we disagree with Appellants that the Examiner erred. As
consistent with the discussion below, we adopt the Examiner's reasoning,
findings, and conclusions for the rejections in the Non-Final Office Action
mailed December 26, 2017 ("Non-Final Act.") and the Answer mailed
March 28, 2018 ("Ans.").
3 Although the Examiner's summary of the§ 103 rejection does not mention
claims 29 and 30, the Examiner's§ 103 rejection addresses these claims.
See Non-Final Office Action 2, 14, mailed December 26, 2017.
4 Persson et al. (US 9,058,764 Bl; June 16, 2015).
5 Chow (US 2010/0057586 Al; Mar. 4, 2010).
6 Kotake et al. (US 7,529,387 B2; May 5, 2009).
3
Appeal2018-004587
Application 13/487,513
For each rejection, we address Appellants' arguments (if any) in tum.
Appellants have waived arguments Appellants failed to timely raise or
adequately present. See 37 C.F.R. §§ 4I.37(c)(l)(iv), 4I.41(b)(2).
Section 112 Rejection
The Examiner rejected claim 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 112 because the
claim lacks antecedent basis for "wherein the registering." See Non-Final
Act. 2. Appellants have not contested this rejection. See App. Br. 8-21.
We therefore summarily sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 14 under
35 U.S.C. § 112.
Section 103 Rejection
Claim 15
Claim 15 recites decoding data from the identified digitally encoded
marker (DEM), the "DEM including at least one of geographic coordinate
data and relative coordinate data defining the marker location in the physical
environment" and "wherein the decoding is performed without calculating
coordinates of the DEM in the physical environment." App. Br. 24
( emphases added). Claim 15 also recites positioning an image in the
displayed augmented image "based on the decoded data from the DEM and
the marker location, as defined by the at least one of the geographic
coordinate data and the relative coordinate data." Id. (emphasis added).
Appellants contend the Examiner failed to show the cited art teaches
or suggests these limitations for at least four reasons. First, Appellants
assert the Examiner found Chow teaches the recited digitally encoded
marker and argue Chow's marker includes data about a vendor's location,
not the marker's location as required by claim 15. See App. Br. 13-15;
Reply Brief 2--4, filed March 28, 2018 ("Reply Br."). Second, Appellants
4
Appeal2018-004587
Application 13/487,513
contend Chow's location data does not include "coordinates accurate enough
to place an AR object in a displayed image of a physical environment."
App. Br. 16; see also Reply Br. 2--4. Third, Appellants contend the
Examiner's combination of Chow and Persson would not lead to the claimed
invention because the resulting method "would still be missing the decoding
data from the DEM step as the Chow data does not include coordinate data
'defining the marker location."' App. Br. 18; see also Reply Br. 4--5.
Fourth, Appellants argue Kotake does not remedy these deficiencies because
Kotake not only "fails to show a DEM encoded with its own coordinate
data" but also "specifically teaches a lookup step," which claim 15 prohibits.
App. Br. 18; see also Reply Br. 5.
We find these arguments unpersuasive. As to Appellants' first
argument, the Examiner did not find Chow alone teaches or suggests a
digitally encoded marker that includes data defining the marker's location.
The Examiner found ( 1) Persson discloses directly decoding data from a
digitally encoded image and displaying a virtual object in an AR image
based on the decoded data; (2) Chow discloses a digitally encoded marker
that includes location information, as well as decoding this information from
the marker without calculating the marker's position; and (3) Kotake
discloses a marker file that includes marker position and orientation data.
See Non-Final Act. 3-5, 7-9. 7 The Examiner concluded that it would have
been obvious to combine these teachings to arrive at the disputed limitations.
See, e.g., Non-Final Act. 3-5, 7-9. Appellants' argument against Chow
individually has not established the Examiner erred because "one cannot
7 Because the Examiner relies on the rejection of claims 1 and 9 for the
rejection of claim 15, see Non-Final Act. 10, our discussion of claim 15
refers to the rejection of claims 1 and 9.
5
Appeal2018-004587
Application 13/487,513
show non-obviousness by attacking references individually where, as here,
the rejections are based on combinations of references," In re Keller, 642
F.2d 413,426 (CCPA 1981).
Appellants' second argument fares no better. Although Appellants
contend Chow's location data is not accurate enough to place an AR object
in a displayed image, Appellants' written description shows this is not the
case. Appellants' written description discloses encoding markers with
latitude and longitude coordinates or world geographic coordinate data and
then decoding this information for use in an AR system. See, e.g., Spec.
,r,r 37--47, Figs. 2, 3. Chow discloses using similar latitude and longitude
information and geographical coordinate data. See, e.g., Chow ,r 419. We
thus find this argument unpersuasive.
As for Appellants' third and fourth arguments, these arguments fail
because the arguments do not adequately address the Examiner's rejection.
Appellants' arguments address supposed flaws in Kotake alone and in the
combination of Persson and Chow. But as discussed above, the Examiner
concluded the disputed limitations would have been obvious over a
combination of Persson's, Chow's, and Kotake's teachings. See Non-Final
Act. 3-5, 7-9. Neither Appellants' arguments about Kotake alone nor
Appellants' arguments about the combination of Persson and Chow have
persuaded us the Examiner erred in this respect. See Keller, 642 F.2d at 426.
For at least these reasons, we find Appellants' arguments for claim 15
unpersuasive and thus sustain the Examiner's rejection of this claim.
Claim 21
Claim 21 depends from claim 15 and recites "wherein the displaying
further comprises registering the at least one of the geographic coordinate
data and the relative coordinate data, decoded from the DEM, to relative
6
Appeal2018-004587
Application 13/487,513
coordinates in the augmented reality image." App. Br. 25. Appellants argue
that neither Chow nor Kotake "shows registering the decoded geographic
coordinate data and/or relative coordinate data to relative coordinates in an
AR image." Id. at 19. As relevant here, Appellants argue that Kotake
discusses specifying a coordinate system for an augmented reality image, not
performing the recited "registering" step. Id.
We find Appellants' argument persuasive. The Examiner found
Kotake teaches this limitation because Kotake discloses (1) specifying the
origin, scale, and orientation of a reference coordinate system by
photographing markers with known positions and orientations and (2)
calculating the position and orientation of an image device based on the
correlation between a marker's image coordinates and the marker's position
in a reference coordinate system. See Non-Final Act. 11 (citing Kotake
14:24--28); Ans. 19 (citing Kotake 2:43--48). But the Examiner has not
adequately explained why either of these disclosures teaches or suggests
registering geographic or relative coordinate data to relative coordinates in
an augmented reality image to display the augmented reality image. On
their face, neither Kotake' s process of specifying a reference coordinate
system nor Kotake' s process of calculating the position and orientation of an
image device appears to fairly teach or suggest the recited "registering" to
display an augmented reality image. We therefore do not sustain the
Examiner's rejection of claim 21.
Claim 1
Claim 1 recites "directly decoding data from the DEM by processing
the input image." App. Br. 22 (emphasis added). Appellants argue "Chow
is silent as to being able to decode coordinate data directly from any marker
7
Appeal2018-004587
Application 13/487,513
so as to define the location of the marker in a physical environment." Id. at
19.
We find Appellants' argument unpersuasive. To begin with, the
Examiner found Persson teaches or suggests the "directly decoding" aspect
of claim 1, not Chow as argued by Appellants. See Non-Final Act. 3 ( citing
Persson 5:21-26). Appellants have not persuasively addressed this finding.
For this reason alone, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1.
Even if the Examiner had relied on Chow for this element, we would
not agree the Examiner erred. Appellants' written description does not
explicitly define "directly decoding data." But the figure and paragraphs of
the written description Appellants assert "correspond" with this limitation
describe a method that captures an image that includes a marker, identifies a
marker in the image, generates a textual representation of the marker, and
reads coordinate data from the textual representation. See Spec. ,r,r 43--47,
Fig. 3; see also App. Br. 2 (stating that the "directly decoding" language
"may correspond with at least steps 355 and 360 of the method 300 of
[Appellants'] Figure 3, which is discussed in paras. [0046] and [0047]").
The portions of Chow cited by the Examiner describe a similar
process. The process captures an image that includes a "code pattern" (e.g.,
a barcode ), extracts the code pattern from the image, "analyz[ es] the code
pattern to arrive at said code information" that includes location data, and
sends the code information to a user terminal. Chow ,r 419; see also id. Fig.
36 (showing a process of generating and "consuming" a "location-ready
barcode such as the QR code shown in Fig. 35"). Given the similarities
between the disclosed process that Appellants assert corresponds to the
disputed limitation and the process described in Chow, Appellants' cursory
8
Appeal2018-004587
Application 13/487,513
assertion that Chow is "silent" about this limitation has not persuaded us the
Examiner erred.
For at least these reasons, we find Appellants' arguments for claim 1
unpersuasive and thus sustain the Examiner's rejection of this claim.
Claim 9
Claim 9 recites "a video camera operating to capture an input image
including an image of a single marker," "a utility extracting the data directly
from the marker image without a lookup to an additional database and
mapping the digital model to the input image based on the extracted data,"
and "an AR image generator generating an AR image comprising the input
image and an image of the object defined by the digital model positioned
and oriented based on the mapping." App. Br. 23 (emphases added).
Appellants present three arguments for claim 9. First, Appellants
argue that claim 9 recites processing an image of a single marker, but
Persson teaches processing multiple markers. App. Br. 20. Second,
Appellants contend "[i]t would be ineffective or even impossible to map a
digital model to an input image including the Chow label/QR code based on
the vendor/seller location information or to use such mapping to generate an
AR image 'positioned and oriented based on the mapping."' Id. Third,
Appellants argue that although "claim 9 calls for the data to be extracted
'directly from the marker image without a lookup to an additional
database,"' Kotake teaches looking up a marker file. Id.
We find these arguments unpersuasive. First, although Persson
describes processing images containing several markers, Persson also
discloses processing an image with a single marker. See, e.g., Persson 2:64--
3 :5 ("When an image of any of these markers is captured by a mobile device
camera individually in the marker's environment, a display on a mobile
9
Appeal2018-004587
Application 13/487,513
device may depict the corresponding virtual image on the image of the
marker's environment. However, when images of multiple markers are
captured simultaneously .... " ( emphases added)); id. at 5: 8-22 ( explaining
that "when the mobile device is located such that the camera only captures
an image of the first marker" the disclosed method displays a virtual image
associated with the first marker ( emphasis added) (reference numbers
omitted)).
Second, the Examiner concluded a combination of Chow's, Persson's,
and Ko take' s teachings would have suggested the disputed limitations, not
Chow alone. See Non-Final Act. 7-9. Of note, the Examiner did not find
Chow's data includes the coordinates of the marker; as discussed above, the
Examiner found Kotake teaches a marker file that includes marker position
and orientation data. Non-Final Act. 9. Appellants' argument addresses
Chow alone and is thus unpersuasive. See Keller, 642 F.2d at 426.
Third, the Examiner found Persson teaches directly extracting data
and Chow teaches decoding location data without a look up to an additional
database, not Kotake as argued by Appellants. Non-Final Act. 8-9.
Appellants' argument thus does not persuasively address the Examiner's
rejection.
For at least these reasons, we find Appellants' arguments for claim 9
unpersuasive and so sustain the Examiner's rejection of this claim.
Remaining Claims
Appellants have not separately argued claims 2--4, 6-8, 12-14, 16-18,
20, and 22-30. We therefore sustain the Examiner's rejections of these
claims.
10
Appeal2018-004587
Application 13/487,513
14
1--4, 6-9,
12-18, 20-
30
Summary
§ 112
§ 103
CONCLUSION
Persson, Chow,
Kotake
14
1--4, 6-9,
12-18, 20,
22-30
1--4, 6-9,
12-18, 20,
22-30
21
21
No period for taking any action in connection with this appeal may be
extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
11