Ex Parte Zhang et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 20, 2018

13843978 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 20, 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.
13/843,978 03/15/2013 Wende Zhang P022742-RD-SDJ 2740
65798 7590
MILLER IP GROUP, PLC
GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION
42690 WOODWARD AVENUE
SUITE 300
BLOOMFIELD HILLS, MI 48304
EXAMINER
ADROVEL, WILLIAM
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2483
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/20/2018 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 WENDE ZHANG, JINSONG WANG,
and BAKHTIAR BRIAN LITKOUHI
Appeal 2017-006888
Application 13/843,978
Technology Center 2400
Before JEAN R. HOMERE, CARLA M. KRIVAK, and
KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, Administrative Patent Judges.
SZPONDOWSKI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 1—3 and 5—20, constituting all claims pending in
the application. App. Br. 4. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
Appeal 2017-006888
Application 13/843,978
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ invention is directed to calibrating and de-warping a wide
field-of-view camera image. Spec. 12. Claim 1, reproduced below, is
representative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method for calibrating and de-warping a camera, said method
comprising:
estimating a focal length of the camera;
estimating an image center of an image plane of the camera,
where estimating the focal length and the image center of the image
plane of the camera includes mounting the camera to a translational
stage and moving the camera along the stage to different locations
along an optical axis of the camera, mounting a checkerboard target to
a target stage positioned relative to the translational stage, defining a
target region on the target around the optical axis of the camera that
includes squares in the checkerboard target and using the pinhole
camera model and positions of comers of the squares in images
acquired at the different locations along the stage to determine the
focal length and the image center;
providing an angular distortion model that defines an angular
relationship between an incident optical ray passing an object point in
an object space and an image point on the image plane that is an
image of the object point on the incident optical ray; and
estimating distortion parameters in the distortion model.
REJECTIONS
Claims 1—3, 5, 9, 12, 13, and 20 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Chen et al. (US
8,368,762 Bl; issued Feb. 5, 2013) (“Chen-1”) and Mack et al. (US
2011/0026014 Al; published Feb. 3, 2011) (“Mack”).
2
Appeal 2017-006888
Application 13/843,978
Claims 6—8 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Chen-1, Mack, and Miksch (US
2011/0228101 Al; published Sept. 22, 2011).
Claims 10, 11, 16, 18, and 19 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Chen-1, Mack, and Chen
et al. (US 2010/0289869 Al; published Nov. 18, 2010) (“Chen-2”).
Claims 14 and 15 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Chen-1, Mack, and Kweon et al. (US
2011/0181689 Al; published July 28, 2011) (“Kweon”).
ANALYSIS
Issue 1: Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Chen-1
and Mack teaches or suggests “mounting the camera to a translational stage
and moving the camera along the stage to different locations along an optical
axis” as recited in independent claim 1 and commensurately recited in
independent claim 20?
Appellants argue “the ‘optional tripod’ described by Chen-1 is in no
way similar to the translational stage disclosed and claimed by Appellant.”
App. Br. 14, emphasis omitted. According to Appellants, the “claims
include mounting the camera to the translational stage and moving the
camera along the stage to different locations along the optical axis,” and
“Chen-1 does not teach changing the camera distance from the checkerboard
target.” App. Br. 14, emphasis omitted; see also Reply Br. 2. Appellants
further argue “where Chen-1 describes using the tripod to aid in taking a
series of images at different focal lengths of a zoom lens, he is teaching
away from Appellants’ claimed method of estimating the focal length (of a
3
Appeal 2017-006888
Application 13/843,978
fixed focal length camera) by using the translational stage.” App. Br. 15,
emphasis omitted.
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument and agree with the
Examiner’s findings. See Final Act. 5—7; Ans. 3—5. Chen-1 teaches that the
user may mount the camera/lens combination on a tripod. Col. 8,11. 57—58,
col. 9,11. 58—60. We agree with the Examiner that “a tripod may be moved
if needed.” Ans. 3; see Chen-1, col. 10,11. 54—56, emphasis added (“When
framing the chart in different areas of the image frame, a combination of
physically moving and tilting the camera to achieve an optimal balance may
be used”). The Examiner relies on Mack, not Chen-1, to teach or suggest
“moving the camera along the stage to different locations along an optical
axis of the camera.” Mack teaches, inter alia, the “distance between the
camera and the optical calibration target can be adjusted automatically by
moving the camera or target back and forth along a motorized rail.” Mack
123. Appellants’ argument do not address the combination of Chen-1 and
Mack as relied upon by the Examiner. It is well established that one cannot
show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the
rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642
F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed.
Cir. 1986).
Moreover, we are unpersuaded by Appellants’ teaching away
argument. A showing of teaching away requires more than just an assertion
of teaching away. See In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004)
(“The prior art's mere disclosure of more than one alternative does not
constitute a teaching away from any of these alternatives because such
disclosure does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution
4
Appeal 2017-006888
Application 13/843,978
claimed . . . In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 553 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (“A
reference may be said to teach away when a person of ordinary skill, upon
reading the reference, would be discouraged from following the path set out
in the reference, or would be led in a direction divergent from the path that
was taken by the applicant.”) Appellants do not provide evidence that Chen-
1 criticizes, discredits, discourages, or would lead away from moving the
camera along a rail, as taught by Mack. In effect, Appellants simply argue
Chen-1 does not teach the limitation, which is not sufficient to show Chen-1
teaches away from the limitation.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred.
Issue 2\ Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Chen-1
and Mack teaches or suggests “using the pinhole camera model and
positions of comers of the squares in images acquired at the different
locations along the stage to determine the focal length and the image center,”
as recited in independent claim 1 and commensurately recited in
independent claim 20?
Appellants argue “Chen-1 clearly does not teach moving the camera
along the optical axis” and “Mack teaches only lens adjustment, not
determining focal length and image center.” App. Br. 15, emphasis omitted.
Appellants further argue “Chen-1 doesn’t teach the translational stage and
Mack doesn’t teach the pinhole camera model with square comer position
calculations.” App. Br. 16; see also Reply Br. 2.
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument and agree with the
Examiner’s findings. See Final Act. 5—7, Ans. 5—7. Appellants again argue
the references individually, but do not address the combination as relied
5
Appeal 2017-006888
Application 13/843,978
upon by the Examiner. As described above, the Examiner does not rely on
Chen-1 to teach the camera moving along the optical axis, but rather, relies
on Mack. The Examiner relies on Chen-1 to teach or suggest the disputed
limitation, specifically the pinhole camera model as claimed. See Final Act.
5—6; Ans. 6. Moreover, contrary to Appellants’ argument, Mack teaches
calculating intrinsic parameters, such as focal length and optical image
center, by moving the camera or the calibration target between image
captures. See Mack || 5, 23, 31, 43, 44, and 49; see Ans. 5.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred. We,
therefore, sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of
independent claims 1 and 20, and for the same reasons, dependent claims 2,
5—11, and 13—15 which were not separately argued. See App. Br. 16—18, 22,
and 24. With respect to Appellants’ argument as to dependent claims 3 and
12, we are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument (App. Br. 17—18) for the
reasons set forth by the Examiner. See Ans. 7—12.
Issue 3: Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Chen-1,
Mack, and Chen-2 teaches or suggests “wherein estimating distortion
parameters includes mounting the camera to a two-axis rotational stage that
rotates the camera in two perpendicular rotational directions and calculating
a combined angle based on the combination of the two rotational angles,” as
recited in independent claim 16?
Appellants present the same arguments as with claim 1 (see App. Br.
20-21), and additionally argue “Chen-2 shows two-axis rotation of the
camera 1, but does not teach calculating a combined angle or using this
6
Appeal 2017-006888
Application 13/843,978
calculation for estimating distortion parameters in the distortion model.”
App. Br. 21, emphasis omitted.
We are not persuaded. The Examiner relies on paragraphs 21 and 22
of Chen-2 to teach or suggest the disputed limitation. Final Act. 13. Chen-2
describes “[t]he rotation angle of the panning angle and the tilting angle are
used as additional parameters of [exterior orientation parameters.]” Chen-2
121. Chen-2 further teaches “Ml 1 to M33 are elements of a matrix of
orientation angles of co, (p and k; cq, (p and k are rotation angles at x axis, y
axis and z axis respectively; and p and t are rotation angles of panning and
tilting respectively.” Chen-2 122. Appellants have not sufficiently
explained why the foregoing disclosure in Chen-2 does not teach or suggest
the disputed limitation, but rather, have simply stated it does not.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred. We,
therefore, sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of
independent claim 16, and for the same reasons, dependent claims 17 and 18
which were not separately argued. See App. Br. 22—24. With respect to
dependent claim 19, we are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument (App.
Br. 23) for the reasons as set forth by the Examiner. See Ans. 10—12.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—3 and 5—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