14429376 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jul. 20, 2020)

ROBERT BOSCH GMBH

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardJul 20, 2020

14429376 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jul. 20, 2020)

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. 14/429,376 03/19/2015 Daniel Gottschlag 022862-2089-US00 5695 34044 7590 07/20/2020 MICHAEL BEST & FRIEDRICH LLP (Bosch) 790 N WATER ST SUITE 2500 MILWAUKEE, WI 53202 EXAMINER HO, RUAY L ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2175 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 07/20/2020 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): mkeipdocket@michaelbest.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte DANIEL GOTTSCHLAG and STEPHAN HEIGL ____________ Appeal 2019-002641 Application 14/429,376 Technology Center 2100 ____________ Before KALYAN K. DESHPANDE, CHARLES J. BOUDREAU, and SHARON FENICK, Administrative Patent Judges. BOUDREAU, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1 and 3–21, which are all of the pending claims. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b)(1). We REVERSE and enter a NEW GROUND OF REJECTION in accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b). 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies Robert Bosch GMBH as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2019-002641 Application 14/429,376 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Appellant’s invention relates to displaying images, e.g., from a video recording acquired by a monitoring camera, on a screen. Spec. ¶ 2. A user may “select and . . . view not only the total size of the image sequence, but equally subareas” or desired sections of the images. Id. ¶ 9. Claims 1, 9, 11, and 12 are independent. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal (emphases added): 1. A client device comprising: a screen configured to display an image sequence including a plurality of different images acquired by a monitoring camera, a control device electrically connected to the screen and configured to control displaying a first image display on the screen, the first image display showing an actual image section in an actual selection area from an image coordinate system, wherein the actual image section includes a subarea of an acquired image and the actual selection area defines the actual image section, a selection device configured to select a desired selection area from the image coordinate system, and a network communication device electrically connected to the control device and configured to request and receive a desired image section of the desired selection area from a server, wherein the desired selection area defines the desired image section, the control device configured to display a second image display on the screen, the second image display showing a subsection of the actual image section in a desired position and at a desired size in the desired selection area, and display a third image display on the screen, the third image display showing the desired image section in the desired position and at the desired size in the desired selection area, Appeal 2019-002641 Application 14/429,376 3 wherein the actual image section and the desired image section originate from different images of the image sequence, wherein the subsection of the actual image section forms at least one section of an overlapping area of the actual image section and the desired image section, wherein the control device is configured to display an intermediate image section at least partially in the desired position and at the desired size in the desired selection area in at least one intermediate image display prior to the third image display. Appeal Br. 17–18 (Claims App.). REJECTIONS Claims 1 and 6–21 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Kim.2 Final Act. 3–9; Ans. 3–8. Claims 3–5 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kim and Cho.3 Final Act. 9–11; Ans. 8–9. OPINION Claims 1, 3–5, and 7–20 Introduction In rejecting independent claim 1, the Examiner maps Kim’s miniaturized image 40 to the claimed “first image display showing an actual image section in an actual selection area”; Kim’s “[PREVIEW STATE]” (middle) portion of Figure 12A and element 41 to the claimed “second image display showing a subsection of the actual image section in a desired 2 Kim et al., US 2010/0173678 A1 (pub. July 8, 2010). 3 Cho, US 2008/0123897 A1 (pub. May 29, 2008). Appeal 2019-002641 Application 14/429,376 4 position and at a desired size in the desired selection area”; and Kim’s bottom portion of Figure 12A and element 44 to the claimed “third image display showing the desired image section in the desired position and at the desired size in the desired selection area.” Final Act. 4–5 (citing Kim Fig. 12A); see Final Act. 5 (“40, 41, and 44 are different images as the first, second, and third images respectively”). Appellant argues that Kim fails to teach or suggest “display[ing] a second image display on the screen, the second image display showing a subsection of the actual image section in a desired position and at a desired size in the desired selection area” as recited in claim 1. Appeal Br. 13. Specifically, Appellant argues that Kim’s zoom guide 41 is not an image display, but rather “a reference or graphic symbol placed on another image (i.e., the miniature preview image 40).” Id. at 12 (citing Kim ¶ 104). Appellant further argues that “Kim makes no mention of the zoom guide 41 ‘showing a subsection of the actual image section in a desired position and at a desired size in the desired selection area,’ as recited in Claim 1.” Id. Likewise, Appellant argues that Kim’s center location 44 is “not an image display” but “merely a location within an image,” and that “Kim makes no mention of the center location 44 ‘showing the desired image section in the desired position and at the desired size in the desired selection area,’ as recited in Claim 1 with respect to the third image display.” Id. at 13 (citing Kim ¶ 108). Appellant further argues that “Kim’s detailed examples seem to focus on adjusting the ‘zoom setting’ in a single still image—not a sequence of images” and that Kim thus fails to teach or suggest that “the actual image section and the desired image section originate from different images of the Appeal 2019-002641 Application 14/429,376 5 image sequence,” as recited in claim 1. Reply Br. 3; see Appeal Br. 10–11 (citing Fig. 4 of application), 13. In the Answer, the Examiner responds that the claims merely recite “[a]n acquired image, i.e., an actual image, displayed through different arrangements or zooming or selections into a desired image . . . similar to a commonly known feature, i.e., image cropping.” Ans. 10. According to the Examiner, Figure 4 of the instant application shows “the same image simply shift[ed] from the upper right hand corner of the display to the lower left hand corner” and does not support Appellant’s interpretation of the “different images of the image sequence” limitation. Id. Appellant replies that the Specification clearly states that, in Figure 4, “the ACTUAL image section 9 and the DESIRED image section 12 originat[e] from different images in the image sequence.” Reply Br. 4 (quoting Spec. ¶ 40). For the reasons explained below, we agree with Appellant that the Examiner fails to establish that Kim teaches the “second image display” recited in each of independent claims 1, 9, 11, and 12. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s § 102 rejection of claims 1 and 6–21 as being anticipated by Kim. For the same reason, we do not sustain the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of dependent claims 3–5 as being unpatentable over Kim and Cho. For reasons further explained below, however, we find that Kim nonetheless anticipates independent claim 1 and, for substantially the same reasons, independent claims 9, 11, and 12, under different reasoning than that of the Examiner. Accordingly, we enter a new ground of rejection with respect to those claims and certain claims dependent from them. Appeal 2019-002641 Application 14/429,376 6 Analysis As an initial matter, we understand the Examiner to be mapping the image framed by zoom guide 41 in the top portion of Figure 12A and appearing on the device’s larger display in the middle portion of Figure 12A (i.e., including five out of the seven total people shown in the full image, with the woman in the center), not merely the graphic symbol of zoom guide 41 as argued by Appellant, to the claimed “second image display.” Similarly, we understand the Examiner’s citation of Kim’s element 44, in context, to refer to the larger display of the device shown in the bottom portion of Figure 12A, rather than to the “central position of the zoomed image” stated by Kim to be identified by reference numeral 44, as argued by Appellant. See Kim ¶ 108; Appeal Br. 13. Nevertheless, we agree with Appellant that the Examiner’s mapping with respect to the claimed “second image display” is problematic. The image the Examiner relies on for the “second image display”—the zoomed image of five out of seven total people, with the woman in the center—does not show a subsection of miniaturized image 40 (which the Examiner maps to the “actual image section” (see Final Act. 4)) “in a desired position . . . in the desired selection area” as claimed. Rather, that image is the current zoomed image before the user shifts zoom guide 41 (via a touch or drag action) to the desired position and desired selection area, resulting in a desired zoomed image of four people as shown in the lower portion of Figure 12A. See Kim ¶¶ 113–114, 116. For this reason, we conclude that the Examiner’s mapping fails to satisfy “the second image display showing a subsection of the actual image section in a desired position and at a desired size in the desired selection area” as claimed, and we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection. Appeal 2019-002641 Application 14/429,376 7 We find, however, that Kim teaches the recited “second image display” when mapped differently. We annotate Figure 12A of Kim to show our mapping of Kim’s teachings to the relevant claim limitations: Fig. 12A of Kim as annotated to show our mapping of Kim’s teachings to the relevant claim limitations. Appeal 2019-002641 Application 14/429,376 8 We find Kim’s initial miniaturized image (40a) showing the initial zoomed image (41a) discloses the claimed “first image display showing an actual image section in an actual selection area.” As the user drags zoom guide 41 to the desired position and desired selection area, the miniaturized image (40b) is a “second image display showing a subsection of the actual image section in a desired position and at a desired size in the desired selection area” as claimed. We note that the actual image section (41a) and the desired image section defined by the desired selection area (41b) have overlapping subsections. Finally, once the user has moved zoom guide 41 to the desired position, the miniaturized image (40c) showing the zoomed image section (41c) corresponds to the “third image display showing the desired image section in the desired position and at the desired size in the desired selection area.” Further, in contrast with Appellant’s argument that “Kim makes no mention of the zoom guide 41 ‘showing a subsection of the actual image section in a desired position and at a desired size in the desired selection area” (Appeal Br. 12), we find that Kim not only discloses the user moving the position of zoom guide 41, as discussed above, but also that zoom guide 41 (and, hence, the image section defined by its boundaries) may be adjusted in size to “capture the intended target.” See Kim ¶ 105 (“[T]he user has zoomed in on five particular people out of seven total people that the user would like to capture in an image.”); see also id. ¶ 104, Fig. 7. Thus, we find that Kim teaches “the second image display showing a subsection of the Appeal 2019-002641 Application 14/429,376 9 actual image section in a desired position and at a desired size in the desired selection area” as claimed.4 Still further, although we agree with Appellant that the Specification supports Appellant’s interpretation of the “different images of the image sequence” limitation and that the Examiner’s interpretation of claim 1 as mere “image cropping” is incorrect (see Appeal Br. 10–11; Reply Br. 4), we find, nonetheless, that Kim teaches that limitation in disclosing that zooming may be performed on “a captured or a preview image.” Kim, Abstr. Specifically, Kim discloses: [W]hen the user enters a camera mode through key manipulation or a touch input (S20), the controller 180 displays a camera image (e.g., a full image) the camera is detecting via an image sensor as a preview image on a main display region and also displays a miniaturized version of the full image in an auxiliary display region (S21). The displayed full image can be a preview image showing the user a preview of the image he or she is about to capture or an image the user has previously captured. Kim ¶ 111 (emphasis added). Figure 12A of Kim illustrates shifting a zoomed image of a preview image, i.e., a preview of the image the user is about to capture. See id. at Fig. 12A (“[PREVIEW STATE]”), ¶ 27. A moving subject (e.g., movement of the people in Figure 12A) inherently results in the camera detecting, and the screen displaying, a sequence of different preview images as the user shifts the zoomed image. Thus, Kim 4 Appellant argues for the first time in the Reply Brief that “claim 1 explicitly requires that image data from a first acquire[d] image is used in the first image display and in the second image display.” Reply Br. 2. To the extent that Appellant is arguing the images shown in the first image display and the second image display must originate from the same image of the image sequence, we disagree that that is affirmatively required by claim 1. Appeal 2019-002641 Application 14/429,376 10 teaches “the actual image section and the desired image section originate from different images of the image sequence” as claimed. Conclusion Because the Examiner fails to establish that Kim teaches all the limitations of independent claim 1 as well as independent claims 9, 11, and 12, which recite similar limitations, we do not sustain the Examiner’s § 102 rejection of claims 1 and 6–21 as being anticipated by Kim. For the same reason, we do not sustain the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of dependent claims 3–5 as being unpatentable over Kim and Cho. We, nonetheless, find that Kim anticipates independent claim 1 and, for substantially the same reasons, independent claims 9, 11, and 12, under different reasoning than that of the Examiner. Accordingly, we designate our findings and conclusion with respect to claims 1, 9, 11, and 12 as a new ground of rejection. We otherwise adopt the Examiner’s remaining findings and reject dependent claims 7, 8, 10, and 13–20, which Appellant does not argue separately, as being anticipated by Kim, and dependent claims 3–5, also not argued separately, as being unpatentable over Kim and Cho. Claim 6 Dependent claim 6 recites, inter alia, “the selection device is configured to reposition the selection of the desired selection area by an interactive shift of two selected pixels of the actual image selection.” The Examiner construes claim 6 to mean “the actual image is shifted in scale to a desired image section” (Ans. 11–12) and cites Kim’s disclosure of “an operation of shifting the central position 44 of the zoom screen to make a corresponding face recognition region appear when the user touches the notification information,” and that “the shift degree (amount the zoomed Appeal 2019-002641 Application 14/429,376 11 image is shifted) can be previously set to be a certain interval” (Final Act. 6 (quoting Kim ¶ 139)). Appellant argues that “Kim in no way discloses that an actual image section is scaled as a function of a position of two selected pixels in order to display the actual image section at least partially in a desired image section.” Appeal Br. 14. As previously stated, for the reasons discussed above with respect to independent claim 1 from which claim 6 depends, we do not sustain the Examiner’s § 102 rejection of claim 6 as anticipated by Kim. Additionally, we agree with Appellant that the Examiner has not shown where the recited “interactive shift of two selected pixels of the actual image selection” limitation is disclosed by Kim, and we find no reason for the Examiner to have disregarded that limitation when interpreting claim 6. Accordingly, we do not adopt the Examiner’s reasoning with respect to claim 6 as the basis for a new ground of rejection. Claim 21 Dependent claim 21 recites that “the actual image section, the desired image section, and the intermediate image section are respectively assigned to one of the plurality of different images of the image sequence.” Appellant argues that “[t]here is no suggestion in Kim that an actual image section, the desired image section, and the intermediate image section are respectively assigned to one of the plurality of different images of the image sequence.” Appeal Br. 16. As discussed above with respect to independent claim 1, we find that Kim inherently discloses the camera detecting, and the screen displaying, a sequence of different preview images as the user shifts the zoomed image. Appeal 2019-002641 Application 14/429,376 12 See Kim Abstr., ¶ 111. We further find that Kim’s miniaturized image 40 is an “intermediate image display” displaying an “intermediate image section” in zoom guide 41 as the user drags zoom guide 41 into the desired position and desired selection area. Thus, we find that Kim teaches that “the actual image section, the desired image section, and the intermediate image section are respectively assigned to one of the plurality of different images of the image sequence” as claimed. Thus, although we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 21, we nevertheless find that Kim teaches claim 21 under different reasoning than that of the Examiner and, accordingly, designate our findings and conclusion with respect to claim 21 as a new ground of rejection. CONCLUSION We reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 and 6–21 under pre- AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Kim. We reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 3–5 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kim and Cho. We enter a new ground of rejection of claims 1 and 7–21 under pre- AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Kim. We enter a new ground of rejection of claims 3–5 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kim and Cho. Appeal 2019-002641 Application 14/429,376 13 DECISION SUMMARY In summary: TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE This decision contains a new ground of rejection pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b). Section 41.50(b) provides that “[a] new ground of rejection pursuant to this paragraph shall not be considered final for judicial review.” Section 41.50(b) also provides that the Appellant, WITHIN TWO MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF THE DECISION, must exercise one of the following two options with respect to the new ground of rejection to avoid termination of the appeal as to the rejected claims: (1) Reopen prosecution. Submit an appropriate amendment of the claims so rejected or new Evidence relating to the claims so rejected, or both, and have the matter reconsidered by the examiner, in which event the prosecution will be remanded to the examiner. The new ground of rejection is binding upon the examiner unless an amendment or new Evidence not previously of Record is made which, in the opinion of the examiner, overcomes the new ground of rejection designated in the decision. Should the examiner reject the claims, [Appellant] may again appeal to the Board pursuant to this subpart. (2) Request rehearing. Request that the proceeding be reheard under § 41.52 by the Board upon the same Record. . . . Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § References/ Basis Affirmed Reversed New Ground 1, 6–21 102(b) Kim 1, 6–21 1, 7–21 3–5 103(a) Kim, Cho 3–5 3–5 Overall Outcome 1, 3–21 1, 3–5, 7–21 Appeal 2019-002641 Application 14/429,376 14 Further guidance on responding to a new ground of rejection can be found in MPEP § 1214.01. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). REVERSED; 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b)