Ex Parte Wexler et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 12, 2018

14137522 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 12, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
14/137,522 12/20/2013 Yonatan Wexler
22852 7590 12/14/2018
FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER
LLP
901 NEW YORK A VENUE, NW
WASHINGTON, DC 20001-4413
UNITED ST A TES OF AMERICA
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.
12234.0014-00000 2143
EXAMINER
HOLDER, ANNER N
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2483
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/14/2018 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):
regional-desk@finnegan.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte YONATAN WEXLER and AMNON SHASHUA
Appeal2018-005262
Application 14/137,522 1
Technology Center 2400
Before DEBRA K. STEPHENS, DANIEL J. GALLIGAN, and
DAVID J. CUTITTA II, Administrative Patent Judges.
GALLIGAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Introduction
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a non-final rejection
of claims 1-5 and 7-29, which are all of the claims pending in the
application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). Claim 6 has been
cancelled.
We REVERSE. 2
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is ORCAM
TECHNOLOGIES LTD. App. Br. 1.
2 Our Decision refers to Appellants' Appeal Brief filed November 2, 2017
("App. Br."); Appellants' Reply Brief filed April 24, 2018 ("Reply Br.");
Examiner's Answer mailed February 28, 2018 ("Ans."); and Non-Final
Office Action mailed May 24, 2017 ("Non-Final Act.").
Appeal2018-005262
Application 14/137,522
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Claims on Appeal
Claims 1, 15, 23, and 25 are independent claims. Claim 1 is
reproduced below:
1. An apparatus for providing feedback to a user, the
apparatus comprising:
an image sensor configured to be positioned for movement
with a head of the user as the head moves, and to capture real
time images from an environment of the user; and
at least one processor device for determining contextual
information based on the real time images, the processor device
being configured to:
monitor a plurality of the real time images captured
by the image sensor to determine that relative motion
occurs between a first portion of a scene captured in the
plurality of real time images and other portions of the
scene captured in the plurality of real time images;
determine that an object appears to be stationary in
the first portion of the scene across the monitored real time
images while the other portions of the scene appear to be
moving across the monitored real time images;
determine, based on the stationary appearance of the
object in the first portion of the scene across the monitored
real time images while the other portions of the scene
appear to be moving across the monitored real time
images, that the head of the user is tracking the object
included in the first portion of the scene;
obtain contextual information associated with the
object that the head of the user is tracking; and
provide the feedback to the user based on at least
part of the contextual information.
2
Appeal2018-005262
Application 14/137,522
Altherr
Sako et al.
Yuille et al.
Bobbitt et al.
Blom et al.
Wang et al.
References
US 2008/0107307 Al
US 2009/0278766 Al
US 2011/0091098 Al
US 2012/0045090 Al
US 2013/0253980 Al
US 8,630,454 Bl
Examiner's Rejections
May 8, 2008
Nov. 12, 2009
Apr. 21, 2011
Feb.23,2012
Sept. 26, 2013
Jan. 14,2014
Claims 1, 2, 7, 9--16, and 18-29 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Sako, Wang, and Altherr. Non-Final Act. 3-8.
Claims 3 and 4 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Sako, Wang, Altherr, and Bobbitt. Id. at 8-9.
Claims 5 and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Sako, Wang, Altherr, Bobbitt, and Blom. Id. at 9--10.
Claim 8 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Sako, Wang, Altherr, and Yuille. Id. at 10-11.
ANALYSIS
Appellants contend the Examiner erred in finding Altherr teaches
determin[ing] that an object appears to be stationary in the first
portion of the scene across the monitored real time images while
the other portions of the scene appear to be moving across the
monitored real time images;
determin[ing], based on the stationary appearance of the object
in the first portion of the scene across the monitored real time
images while the other portions of the scene appear to be moving
across the monitored real time images, that the head of the user
is tracking the object included in the first portion of the scene,
as recited in claim 1 and similarly recited in claims 15, 23, and 25. App.
Br. 13-15; Reply Br. 9-10. Specifically, Appellants argue Altherr's
3
Appeal2018-005262
Application 14/137,522
disclosure of "producing a histogram of motion vectors, detecting a peak
from the histogram, classifying tracked feature points, and calculating
motion according to motion vectors" and its disclosures of "a feature point
selection process" and "a background peak likelihood" do not teach the
claimed limitations. App. Br. 14--15 ( citations omitted); Reply Br. 9-10.
We are persuaded. The Examiner relies on the Abstract and
paragraphs 11, 12, 78, 79, 131, and 132 of Altherr to teach
determin[ing] that an object appears to be stationary in the first
portion of the scene across the monitored real time images while
the other portions of the scene appear to be moving across the
monitored real time images;
determin[ing], based on the stationary appearance of the object
in the first portion of the scene across the monitored real time
images while the other portions of the scene appear to be moving
across the monitored real time images.
See Non-Final Act. 4; see Ans. 11. The entirety of the Examiner's
discussion of those cited portions states that "Altherr discloses motion vector
analysis in that a low threshold determination gives an appearance that the
object is stationary." Ans. 11. The Examiner does not identify which
features of Altherr describe a low threshold and a stationary object, but, in a
cited portion, Altherr describes that a coefficient K "takes a value of O when
the number of motion vector Ls ... is smaller than the predetermined
threshold" for a "segment of interest" in a scene. Altherr ,r 131. However,
even assuming that a low number of motion vectors is used to determine that
an object is stationary in a scene and, conversely, that a high number of
motion vectors is used to determine that other portions of the scene are
moving (see Altherr ,r 171 ), the Examiner has not pointed out where, or
provided any explanation that, Altherr makes a determination "based on" the
4
Appeal2018-005262
Application 14/137,522
stationary object and the moving portions. At best, the Examiner points out
that Altherr identifies a stationary object in a scene and potentially points out
that Altherr also identifies moving portions in that scene. But the mere
existence of a stationary object and moving portions does not, by itself,
teach making some kind of "determin[ation ], based on the stationary
appearance of the object ... while the other portions of the scene appear to
be moving." Claim 1 ( emphasis added).
Even further, the Examiner does not explain how the combination of
Altherr and Sako teaches "determin[ing] ... that the head of the user is
tracking the object included in the first portion of the scene," based on a
stationary object and moving portions of a scene. Although the Examiner
relies on Sako to teach a head-tracked object (Non-Final Act. 3 (citing Sako
Abstract, ,r,r 5-8, 10, 11, 19-22, 140, 149, 195)), the Examiner does not
explain how the combination of Sako's head-tracked object and Altherr's
stationary objects and moving portions teaches that the determination that a
user's head is tracking an object is based on stationary objects and moving
portions in a scene (see id. at 4; see also Ans. 11 ).
Accordingly, because the Examiner has not provided adequate
explanation and has not made adequate findings and conclusions, we are
constrained by the record to reverse the Examiner's obviousness rejection of
independent claims 1, 15, 23, and 25. Because we agree with at least one of
the arguments advanced by Appellants, we need not reach the merits of
Appellants' other arguments also directed to claims 1, 15, 23, and 25. See
App. Br. 8-13; see also Reply Br. 3-9. Dependent claims 2-5, 7-14, 16-22,
24, and 26-29 stand with their independent claims. Therefore, we cannot
sustain the rejections of claims 1-5 and 7-29 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
5
Appeal2018-005262
Application 14/137,522
We emphasize that our reversal should not be taken as an indication of
allowability or non-obviousness.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1, 2, 7, 9--16, and
18-29 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Sako, Wang, and
Altherr.
We reverse the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 3 and 4 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Sako, Wang, Altherr, and Bobbitt.
We reverse the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 5 and 17 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Sako, Wang, Altherr, Bobbitt,
and Blom.
We reverse the Examiner's decision rejecting claim 8 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Sako, Wang, Altherr, and Yuille.
REVERSED
6