Sony Corporation et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Nov 16, 2020

15477369 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Nov. 16, 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.
15/477,369 04/03/2017 Peter Shintani SYP323398US01 9901
36738 7590 11/16/2020
ROGITZ & ASSOCIATES
4420 Hotel Circle Court
SUITE 230
SAN DIEGO, CA 92108
EXAMINER
BOYLAN, JAMES T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2486
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/16/2020 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):
John@rogitz.com
Noelle@rogitz.com
eofficeaction@appcoll.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte PETER SHINTANI, JOSE OMAR GONZALEZ HERNANDEZ,
WILLIAM CLAY, PABLO ANTONIO ESPINOSA, FRED ANSFIELD,
BIBHUDENDU MOHAPATRA, KEITH RESCH, and MORIO USAMI
Appeal 2019-004738
Application 15/477,369
Technology Center 2400
Before ADAM J. PYONIN, JOHN R. KENNY, and MICHAEL J. ENGLE,
Administrative Patent Judges.
PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s rejection. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM IN PART.

1 Herein, “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Sony Corp.
Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2019-004738
Application 15/477,369

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
The Application is directed to
a system of multiple independent computer devices [in] which
. . . . [e]ach device may include a laser emitter and a camera for
detecting reflections of laser light emitted by the device, so that
plural of the devices can generate their own depth maps showing
images within the field of view of their cameras.
Spec. ¶ 2. Claims 1–20 are pending; claims 1, 8, and 15 are independent.
Appeal Br. 16–20. Claim 1 is reproduced below for reference (emphases
added):
1. A device comprising:
at least one computer medium that is not a transitory signal
and that comprises instructions executable by at least one
processor to:
generate, using a first device, at least a first current image
of at least a second device in a field of view of a camera;
the first image being a first 3D depth map;
access a data structure of stored images;
responsive to identifying a match between the first image
and a first stored image in the data structure, combine the first
image and the first stored image to render a modified depth map;
aggregate the modified depth map with a modified depth
map generated using images taken by the second device to render
an aggregated depth map for a reference location that is distanced
from a location of the first device at least in part by altering
images in the aggregated depth map based at least in part on an
angle and distance of the first and second devices from the
reference location.
Appeal Br. 16 (Claims App.).
Appeal 2019-004738
Application 15/477,369

3
References and Rejections
The Examiner relies on the following prior art:
Name Reference Date
Shimoyama US 2012/0069009 A1 Mar. 22, 2012
Georgis US 2013/0278604 A1 Oct. 24, 2013
Nagai US 2014/0092221 A1 Apr. 3, 2014
Holz US 2014/0253691 A1 Sept. 11, 2014
Wang US 2016/0173869 A1 June 16, 2016
Murali US 2017/0372527 A1 Dec. 28, 2017
Kamal US 2018/0124371 A1 May 3, 2018

Claims 1 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Kamal in view of Shimoyama. Final Act. 4.
Claims 2 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Kamal and Shimoyama in further view of Murali. Final
Act. 9.
Claims 3, 4, 10, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Kamal, Shimoyama, and Murali in further view of Holz.
Final Act. 10.
Claims 5, 6, 12, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Kamal, Shimoyama, and Nagai in further view of Georgis.
Final Act. 12.
Claims 7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Kamal and Shimoyama in further view of Georgis. Final
Act. 16.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Kamal in view of Wang. Final Act. 18.
Appeal 2019-004738
Application 15/477,369

4
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Kamal and Wang in further view of Shimoyama. Final Act. 20.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Kamal and Wang in further view of Murali. Final Act. 21.
Claims 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Kamal, Wang, and Murali in further view of Holz. Final
Act. 22.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Kamal, Wang, Shimoyama, Georgis, and Nagai. Final Act. 23.

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s
arguments. Arguments Appellant could have made but chose not to make
are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).

Independent Claim 1
We disagree with Appellant that the Examiner erred in the rejection of
claim 1, and we adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth by the
Examiner, to the extent consistent with our analysis below. Appellant
presents three reasons for reversal with respect to claim 1. See Appeal Br.
4–9. We address each of these reasons, in turn.
First Reason
Appellant first argues the Examiner’s claim 1 rejection is in error,
because “there is no teaching in . . . Kamal to support the erroneous
allegation . . . in the rejection that a depth map is generated of a device using
both an image of the device and an image generated by that same device.”
Appeal 2019-004738
Application 15/477,369

5
Appeal Br. 4, 5. Appellant contends that, in contrast with the claim
requirements, “[t]he imaging devices in Kamal do not image each other.”
Id. at 5.
We are not persuaded the Examiner errs. The Examiner finds Kamal
teaches “the first device and second device . . . image each other” as required
by claim 1, because “Kamal Fig. 3 shows multiple depth cameras (i.e. Nodes
302), where [their fields of view] overlap (i.e. within the imaged area).”
Final Act. 2; see also id. at 5. We find the Examiner’s analysis to be
reasonable because Kamal teaches imaging devices that are within the scope
of capture of other imaging devices. See Kamal, Fig. 3 (depicting each node
within the fields of view of other nodes), ¶ 53 (“each node 302 may be
associated with a unique perspective of object 202” and “all of the respective
areas of nodes 302 may be overlapping with the respective areas of all the
other nodes 302 in an area (e.g., a circular area) designated as real-world
scene 304”); cf. Spec. 14 (“In the example shown, each device is within the
FOV of the other device, and the FOVs of the devices overlap as shown.”).
Appellant argues “imaging nodes 302 are outside the real world scene
304” (Appeal Br. 4); however, we agree with the Examiner that it would
have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that Kamal’s imaging
nodes would be able to capture objects within their respective field of view,
including the other nodes (see Final Act. 2). Appellant further contends
Kamal’s “image of one node [is] taken by another node simply by
happenstance . . . [and] would not be combined with anything to render an
aggregated depth map” (Reply Br. 2); however, Appellant’s argument is not
commensurate with the claim scope, as claim 1 recites the first device’s
image (A) contains “at least a second device,” (B) is combined with a stored
Appeal 2019-004738
Application 15/477,369

6
image, and (C) ultimately is aggregated with images taken by the second
device, without further specifying whether or how the portion of the first
device’s image of the second device must be used (see Appeal Br., Claims
App. 16). Moreover, we note that “[i]f a drawing clearly suggests to one
skilled in the art the way in which the result sought is accomplished by a
later applicant, it is immaterial whether the prior patentee’s showing was
accidental or intentional.” In re Wagner, 63 F.2d 987, 987–88 (CCPA
1933). Thus, we see no error in the Examiner’s reliance on Kamal: one of
ordinary skill, in view of Kamal, would contemplate aggregating depth maps
that include an image of a separate device. See Final Act. 2, 5; Kamal ¶ 19
(“multiple independently-captured depth maps may be converged (e.g.,
merged, combined, etc.) to form converged depth maps”), Fig. 3.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner errs in finding
Kamal teaches or suggests the disputed limitation pursuant to Appellant’s
first reason for reversal.
Second Reason
Appellant argues Kamal “provides no teaching [of] what is claimed,
namely, using an angle and distance from two image capturing devices to a
reference location.” Appeal Br. 7.
We are not persuaded the Examiner errs in finding Kamal teaches or
suggests the claimed “aggregated depth map for a reference location that is
distanced from a location of the first device at least in part by altering
images in the aggregated depth map based at least in part on an angle and
distance of the first and second devices from the reference location.” Final
Act. 5. The Examiner relies on Kamal for teaching that “each depth map
capture subsystem is compared, rotated, and otherwise aligned with data
Appeal 2019-004738
Application 15/477,369

7
captured by other depth map capture subsystems so that depth data points
are correlated with other depth data corresponding to the same physical
point in the world coordinate system (this shows accounting for distance and
viewing angle).” Final Act. 2, 3 (emphasis added); Kamal ¶¶ 121, 122. We
find the Examiner’s analysis to be reasonable. Kamal teaches aggregating
depth maps by comparing each depth map with respect to “a same physical
point (i.e., physical point 212) captured by the other depth map capture
subsystem.” Kamal ¶ 121. Appellant fails to distinguish these teachings
from the claim requirements.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner errs in finding
Kamal teaches or suggests the disputed limitation pursuant to Appellant’s
second reason for reversal.
Third Reason
Appellant argues the Examiner errs because “[t]he proffered reason to
combine Shimoyama’s alleged use of stored images in combination with the
image of the second device, admitted by the examiner to be missing from
Kamal, is legally deficient.” Appeal Br. 8. Appellant contends the
Examiner “fails to explain how the person having ordinary skill in the art
(PHOSITA) implementing Kamal would insert the stored depth maps into its
confidence-based aggregation system,” or “why the PHOSITA
implementing Kamal would believe that the stored images allegedly taught
in Shimoyama would improve the Kamal system in the same way as
Shimoyama purports to improve its system.” Id.
We are not persuaded the Examiner’s rejection is in error. Kamal, as
relied upon, teaches “access[ing] the first and second converged depth maps
(e.g., by receiving the converged depth maps from nodes 302-1 and 302-2)
Appeal 2019-004738
Application 15/477,369

8
and treat[ing] the first and second converged depth maps as antecedent depth
maps for an additional converged depth map.” Kamal ¶ 602; Final Act. 5.
The Examiner finds one of ordinary skill would have combined Kamal’s
accessing of depth maps with Shimoyama’s teaching of combining depth
maps using stored data to “achieve a high contrast depth map.” Final Act. 6;
Shimoyama ¶¶ 95, 113. We find the Examiner’s analysis to be reasonable.
In contrast, Appellant has not shown how using stored data as taught by
Shimoyama, in the depth map aggregation of Kamal, was more than the
predictable use of prior art elements in view of one of ordinary skill. See
KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007) (“a court must ask
whether the improvement is more than the predictable use of prior art
elements according to their established functions”).
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner errs in finding the
limitations of claim 1 to be obvious in view of the combined teachings of
Kamal and Shimoyama, pursuant to Appellant’s third reason for reversal.
We sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1, and the
rejections of claims 5–8 and 12–14 which are not separately argued. See
Appeal Br. 9.

2 Separately, we note one of ordinary skill in using computers would
understand that Kamal will access stored (in a memory) data structures of
stored images in order to access and process the map data. See, e.g., Kamal
¶ 30 (“access a depth map . . . by loading the depth map from a location
where the depth map is stored (e.g., from depth data 108 in storage facility
106) or by otherwise accessing data representative of the depth map after the
depth map has been captured”).
Appeal 2019-004738
Application 15/477,369

9
Dependent Claim 2
Appellant argues the Examiner’s rejection of claim 2 is in error,
because “Murali was filed after the present application,” and although
“Murali claims priority to three provisional applications[,] . . . [n]o mapping
of Murali’s claim elements to the disclosure of any of its underlying
provisional applications appears in the Office Action.” Appeal Br. 10.
We are persuaded the Examiner’s rejection is in error. A reference
“shall be considered to have been effectively filed” as of the filing date of a
parent application, “if the patent or application for patent is entitled to claim
a right of priority” to the parent application. 35 U.S.C. § 102(d). Here, the
Examiner determines Murali is effectively filed as of the filing date of an
earlier provisional application, because the Examiner “has shown support for
the subject matter relied upon in the publication with subject matter relied
upon in the provisional.” Ans. 7 (emphasis added). The Examiner,
however, does not establish that Murali “is entitled” to claim priority to the
parent application. 35 U.S.C. § 102(d)(2); see Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v.
Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“A reference
patent is only entitled to claim the benefit of the filing date of its provisional
application if the disclosure of the provisional application provides support
for the claims in the reference patent.” (emphasis added)). Thus, the
Examiner has not shown that Murali is properly considered prior art to the
instant application.
We do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of dependent claim 2, or
of claims 33, 4, 9–11, and 17–19 which are similarly rejected under Murali.

3 Separately, we note Appellant argues the obviousness rejection of
dependent claim 3 by citing to the “well-understood, routine, and
Appeal 2019-004738
Application 15/477,369

10
Independent Claim 15
Appellant argues the Examiner errs in finding the combination of
Kamal and Wang teaches or suggests the limitations of claim 15, because the
“proffered suggestion to combine fails to explain why the [person of
ordinary skill in the art] would have had a reasonable expectation of success
in using mobile nodes in Kamal.” Appeal Br. 13.
We find the Examiner’s rejection is in error. First, we note claim 15
recites “a first motorized mobile object” and “a second motorized mobile
object.” The Examiner does not find—nor do we see on the record before
us—a teaching of “motorized,” as required by the claim and consistent with
the Specification. See Final Act. 18–20 (presenting no findings with respect
to the motorized limitation); Spec. 10, 11 (“computerized device 12 may
include one or more motors 38, which may be a battery-powered motor, and
one or more actuators 39 coupled to the motor 38 and configured to cause
the device 12 to ambulate”). For at least this reason, we do not sustain the
rejection of claim 15.
Moreover, we agree with Appellant that the Examiner’s reasoning is
insufficient to support the finding of obviousness. See Appeal Br. 13. The
Examiner finds “Kamal does not explicitly disclose” the first or second
motorized mobile objects (Final Act. 19), Wang teaches a portable camera
and mobile phone cameras (Final Act. 20), and one of ordinary skill would
combine these teachings “in order to perform a simple substitution of depth

conventional” analysis in Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1369 (Fed.
Cir. 2018). This analysis in Berkheimer, however, was not directed to an
obviousness rejection, and is thus unpersuasive of error in the present case.
We do not sustain the obviousness rejection of claim 3, however, as we do
not sustain the rejection of parent claim 2.
Appeal 2019-004738
Application 15/477,369

11
cameras to improve upon the low resolution depth camera processing in
mobile devices” (Final Act. 20, citing Wang ¶ 16). The Examiner does not
explain, however, why adding Wang’s mobile objects to Kamal would
improve the processing of mobile objects. See Final Act. 20. As determined
by the Examiner, there are no mobile objects in Kamal to be improved. See
Final Act. 19. Accordingly, we find the Examiner has not provided a
rational underpinning sufficient to support the finding of obviousness.
We do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 15,
or the rejections of the claims dependent thereon.4

DECISION SUMMARY
Claims
Rejected
35
U.S.C. §
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 8 103 Kamal, Shimoyama 1, 8
2, 9 103 Kamal, Shimoyama, Murali 2, 9
3, 4, 10, 11 103 Kamal, Shimoyama, Murali,
Holz
3, 4, 10, 11
5, 6, 12, 13 103 Kamal, Shimoyama, Nagai 5, 6, 12, 13
7, 14 103 Kamal, Shimoyama, Georgis 7, 14
15 103 Kamal, Wang 15
16 103 Kamal, Wang, Shimoyama 16
17 103 Kamal, Wang, Murali 17
18, 19 103 Kamal, Wang, Murali, Holz 18, 19
20 103 Kamal, Wang, Shimoyama,
Georgis, Nagai
20
Overall
Outcome
1, 5–8, 12–
14
2–4, 9–11,
15–20

4 We note claims 17–19 are additionally discussed above with respect to the
rejection of claim 2.
Appeal 2019-004738
Application 15/477,369

12

TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent 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)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED IN PART