Ex Parte Curtis et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 22, 2017

13076354 (P.T.A.B. May. 22, 2017)

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.
13/076,354 03/30/2011 James F. Curtis 037680.00031 3553
44955 7590 05/24/2017
SQUIRE PB (SFR Office)
275 BATTERY STREET, SUITE 2600
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111-3356
EXAMINER
REN, ZHUBING
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2483
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/24/2017 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):
sfripdocket @ squirepb.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JAMES F. CURTIS, SHAWN D. GOODWIN,
CHRISTOPHER M. RIEHL, and RAYMOND D. CONKLING
Appeal 2014-008467
Application 13/076,354
Technology Center 2400
Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, DAVID M. KOHUT, and
CATHERINE SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judges.
SAADAT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection
of claims 1—30, which are all the claims pending in this application. We
have jurisdiction over the pending claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm-in-part.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Teranex Systems, Inc.
(App. Br. 3).
Appeal 2014-008467
Application 13/076,354
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellants’ invention relates to converting 2D media to pseudo-3D
left and right image pairs (Abstract). Claim 1 is illustrative of the invention
and reads as follows.
1. A method of preparing a pseudo-3D image pair from a
2D image located in non-transitory memory accessible to a
transformation processor, the method including:
transforming the 2D image using the transformation
processor to apply complementary taper function to generate a
left and right forced perspective image pair.
The Examiner’s Rejections
Claims 1—8, 10—22, and 24—30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
as being anticipated by Davidson (US 7,573,489 B2, Aug. 11, 2009) (Final
Act. 3-10).
Claims 9 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Davidson and Breslow (US 2004/0136589 Al, July 15,
2004) (Final Act. 10-11).
ANALYSIS
Psuedo-3D Image
Claims 1, 15, 30
With respect to independent claims 1,15, and 30, Appellants argue “a
pseudo-3D image pair” is defined in the Specification as not utilizing depth
mapping information to separate foreground objects from background
objects (App. Br. 10-12; Reply Br. 3—4). Appellants further argue, because
Davidson relies on depth information to distinguish between foreground and
2
Appeal 2014-008467
Application 13/076,354
background pixels, Davidson does not disclose a pseudo-3D image pair as
claimed. We are not persuaded by these arguments.
The passage in the Specification, to which Appellants refer, indicates
that a 3D image is called a pseudo-3D “because no depth mapping
information is used to separate foreground objects from background objects”
(Specification 124). This passage indicates why the 3D image is not a true
3D image, and why Appellants refer to it as pseudo-3D. This passage
however, does not define a pseudo-3D image as an image that is generated
without the use of depth mapping information to separate foreground objects
from background objects.
Moreover, Appellants have not persuaded us of error in the
Examiner’s broadest reasonable interpretation of the term “pseudo” to be
false or deceptive (see Ans. 9—10). Nor have Appellants’ arguments
persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s finding that Davidson’s left and
right images generated by virtual simulation using only the left camera
discloses a pseudo-3D image (Final Act. 3; Ans. 9—10).
Complementary Taper Function
Claims 1, 15, 30
Independent claim 1 recites “transforming the 2D image using the
transformation processor to apply complementary taper function to generate
a left and right forced perspective image pair” (Claim App.). Independent
claims 15 and 30 recite similar limitations (id.).
The Examiner finds Davidson’s conversion of a 2D image to form a
stereoscopic pair of complementary images that may be perceived by a
viewer as a three-dimensional image discloses the claimed left and right
forced perspective image pair (Final Act. 3; Ans. 10—11; Davidson col. 2,11.
3
Appeal 2014-008467
Application 13/076,354
57—67). The Examiner further finds, during generation of a depth map, if a
pixel is occluded, Davidson executes a blurring algorithm to correct any lack
of valid depth information (Ans. 10—11; Davidson col. 6,11. 38—68). The
Examiner additionally finds Davidson’s blurring algorithm may include a
Gaussian filter, which comprises symmetrically tapered weights (Final Act.
3; Ans. 10-11; Davidson col. 6,11. 38—68). Thus, the Examiner finds
Davidson discloses applying a complementary taper function to generate a
left and right forced perspective image pair (Final Act. 3; Ans. 10-11).
Appellants argue the Examiner erred because Davidson discusses
correcting keystone distortion but “Davidson nowhere discloses or suggests
that such distortion is a good thing, or that it should be intentionally
introduced to both right and left images by applying a complementary taper
function” (App. Br. 12—13 (emphasis omitted)). Appellants do not address
the Examiner’s findings. Thus, we are not persuaded by Appellants’
arguments directed to correcting keystone distortion that the Examiner erred
in finding Davidson’s use of a blurring algorithm that includes a Gaussian
filter discloses applying a complementary taper function to generate a left
and right forced perspective image pair (Final Act. 3; Ans. 10—11).
Appellants additionally argue the Examiner erred because “the
function of the Gaussian filter is simply used to blur the offset map. ft is not
used ‘to generate a left and right forced perspective image pair’ as recited in
claim 1, claim 15, or claim 30” (Reply Br. 5). We do not agree.
Contrary to Appellants’ argument, and as found by the Examiner,
Davidson’s 2D-to-3D converter utilizes the Gaussian filter to enlarge
foreground pixels and convert the 2D image to a perceived 3D image (see
Final Act. 3; see also Ans. 10-11; Davidson col. 6,11. 38—68). Thus,
4
Appeal 2014-008467
Application 13/076,354
Davidson’s Gaussian filter is used to generate a left and right forced
perspective image pair.
Image Pair Edges
Claims 2, 3, 16, 17
Claim 2 recites “each of the left and right forced perspective images in
the pair has an inside edge that is taller than an outside edge” (Claim App.).
Claim 16 recites similar limitation (id.). Claim 3 recites “each of the left and
right forced perspective images in the pair has an inside edge that is shorter
than an outside edge” (id.). Claim 17 recites similar limitation (id.).
The Examiner finds Davidson discloses a rectangular image, when
viewed through converging cameras can look like a trapezoid having
opposing edges not equal in length (Final Act. 3; Ans. 11; Davidson col. 12,
11. 59—67, Fig. 10B). Accordingly, the Examiner finds Davidson discloses
Davidson’s image pairs may each have inside and outside edges that differ
in length (Final Act. 3; Ans. 11; Davidson col. 12,11. 59—67).
Appellants argue Davidson does not mention that each of a pair of
images has an inside edge taller or shorter than an outside edge (App. Br.
13—14; Reply Br. 7). Appellants further argue that even if Davidson does
disclose that an inside edge of an image is taller or shorter than the outside
edge of the image, “[disclosure of only one image having such a feature
does not correspond to” the subject matter of claims 2 and 3 (Reply Br. 7).
We are not persuaded by these arguments.
As found by the Examiner, and discussed supra, Davidson discloses
converting a 2D image into a stereoscopic pair of complementary 2D images
(see Final Act. 3; see also Ans. 9—10; Davidson col. 2,11. 57—67). In fact,
Davidson’s image transformation wherein a rectangle may appear as a
5
Appeal 2014-008467
Application 13/076,354
trapezoid is applicable to each of Davidson’s stereoscopic pair of images
(see Davidson col. 2,11. 57—67, col. 12,11. 59—67). Accordingly, we are not
persuaded by Appellants’ argument that Davidson discloses that only one
image may experience this phenomena.
Forced Perspective Parameter
Claims 4, 18
Claim 4 recites “the transforming is responsive to at least one forced
perspective parameter used by the transformation processor that indicates
how the complementary taper functions are to be applied” (Claim App.).
Claim 18 recites similar limitations (id.).
The Examiner finds Davidson’s image transform operation
parameters, such as scaling and image rotation, used to generate the
stereoscopic pair of images, disclose the claimed forced perspective
parameter (Final Act. 4; Ans. 11—12; Davidson col. 4,11. 25—67, col. 6,
11. 38—68). The Examiner additionally finds that during generation of the
stereoscopic images, the aforementioned blurring algorithm may be utilized
to correct any perceptual inaccuracies caused by a lack of valid depth
information (Ans. 11—12). Thus, the Examiner finds Davidson’s transform
operation parameters (forced perspective parameters) indicate how depth
correction is applied to the stereoscopic pair of images (e.g., scaled, rotated,
etc.) (Final Act. 4; Ans. 11—12).
Appellants argue Davidson’s image transform operation parameters
do not correspond to a forced perspective parameter because they relate to
things like scaling the size of the image or rotating the image (see App. Br.
14; Reply Br. 7—8). We do not agree with this conclusory statement absent
supporting evidence. Appellants have not explained why parameters
6
Appeal 2014-008467
Application 13/076,354
relating to scaling and rotating an image do not correspond to the claimed
forced perspective parameter.
Appellants further argue Davidson’s image transform operation
parameters “do not indicate how the Gaussian filter of Davidson is to be
applied, as would be necessary if the Gaussian filter were to correspond to
the claimed complementary taper function” (Reply Br. 8). We are not
persuaded by this argument.
As discussed above, and found by the Examiner, Davidson’s
stereoscopic images may be generated utilizing the Gaussian filter, and the
image transform operation parameters indicate an amount of scaling or
rotation that may be applied to the stereoscopic images (Final Act. 4; Ans.
11—12; Davidson col. 4,11. 25—67, col. 6,11. 38—68). Thus, as found by the
Examiner, Davidson’s transform operation parameters do indicate how the
Gaussian filter is applied to the stereoscopic images, such as with or without
image rotation or scaling (Final Act. 4; Ans. 11—12; Davidson col. 4,11. 25—
67, col. 6,11. 38-68).
Angular Parameter
Claims 5, 19
Claim 5 recites “the forced perspective parameter is an angular
parameter that expresses rotation about a y-axis of at least one projection
plane for the left or right forced perspective image” (Claim App.). Claim 19
recites similar limitations (id.).
The Examiner finds Davidson’s transform operation parameter
corresponding to a degree of image rotation discloses the claimed angular
parameter (Final Act. 4; Ans. 12; Davidson col. 4,11. 25—67, Fig. 10B). The
Examiner further finds Figure 10B of Davidson depicts rotation about a y-
7
Appeal 2014-008467
Application 13/076,354
axis of a projection plane for the left or right forced perspective image in
accordance with the image rotation degree parameter (Final Act. 4; Ans. 12;
Davidson col. 4,11. 25—67, Fig. 10B).
Appellants argue “the image rotation degree of Davidson has nothing
to do with the Gaussian filter of Davidson and does not otherwise indicate
how any complementary taper function is to be applied” (Reply Br. 8; see
App. Br. 14—15). We are not persuaded by this argument for the reasons
provided supra regarding claim 4 because Appellants’ argument does not
reveal error in the Examiner’s findings.
Rotation Within A Range
Claims 6, 20
Claim 6 recites “the forced perspective parameter specifies a relative
rotation about a y-axis of the left and right forced perspective images in a
range of about -1.0 to -3.0 degrees” (Claim App.). Claim 20 recites similar
limitations (id.).
The Examiner finds Davidson discloses that the distance between two
cameras can be set to 1/3 0th of the distance between a camera and a nearest
object in a scene to achieve a desired 3D effect (Final Act. 4; Ans. 12—13;
Davidson col. 5,11. 6—13). The Examiner, applying this spatial relationship
to the geometry depicted in Figure 10B of Davidson, finds that a relative
rotation angle of-1.91 degrees is obtained (Ans. 12—13). Thus, the
Examiner finds Davidson discloses the relative rotation within the claimed
range of about -1.0 to -3.0 degrees (Final Act. 4; Ans. 12—13).
Appellants argue the value of -1.91 is not properly derived from the
1/30 ratio (App. Br. 15). This conclusory statement, without supporting
evidence, does not persuade us of any error in the Examiner’s calculations.
8
Appeal 2014-008467
Application 13/076,354
Appellants additionally argue “there is no indication in Davidson that
the nearest object would be located at a point equidistant between the two
cameras, such that the Examiner’s trigonometry would even apply” (Reply
Br. 8—9). We are not persuaded by this argument. The Examiner applied the
calculations to the geometry depicted in Figure 10B of Davidson, which,
contrary to Appellants’ argument, indicates the nearest object to be located
at a point equidistant between the two cameras (Ans. 12—13; Davidson Fig.
10B).
Corner Mapping Coordinates
Claims 7, 21
Claim 7 recites “the forced perspective parameter is a set of comer
mapping coordinates that specify where comers of the 2D image should end
up in a transformed image” (Claim App.). Claim 21 recites similar
limitations (id.).
The Examiner finds Davidson’s disclosure of how pixels in a left view
image can be translated into a right view image utilizing an offset map and a
blurring algorithm, discloses the disputed limitation (Final Act. 4—5; Ans.
13).
Appellants contend the Examiner has not shown that Davidson
discloses where comers of the 2D image should end up in the transformed
image (App. Br. 15—16). Appellants further argue the Examiner has not
shown that Davidson’s image transform operation parameters set the
claimed comer mapping coordinates (Reply Br. 7—8). We are persuaded by
Appellants’ arguments.
As discussed supra, the Examiner finds Davidson’s image transform
operation parameters disclose the claimed forced perspective parameter
9
Appeal 2014-008467
Application 13/076,354
(Final Act. 4; Ans. 11—12). The Examiner has not shown, however, how any
of Davidson’s image transform operation parameters is a set of comer
mapping coordinates that specify where comers of the 2D image should end
up in a transformed image. We do not opine as to whether comer mapping
coordinates that specify where comers of a 2D image are located in a
transformed image is inherent or obvious in view of Davidson. Rather, we
are persuaded the Examiner has not shown that Davidson anticipates the
subject matter of claims 7 and 21.
Image Offset
Claims 8, 22
Claim 8 recites “transforming further includes shifting the forced
perspective image pair to offset the left image to the left and the right image
to the right, responsive to an offset parameter used by the transformation
processor” (Claim App.). Claim 22 recites similar limitations (id. ).
The Examiner finds Davidson discloses determining offset values that
each indicate a displacement between image data in a first image of a
stereoscopic pair and corresponding image data in a second image of the
stereoscopic pair (Final Act. 5; Ans. 14; Davidson Abstract, col. 1,11. 30—
44).
Appellants argue “Davidson never shifts both left and right images,
only one or the other” (Reply Br. 10; see App. Br. 16; Ans. 10). We do not
agree.
Contrary to Appellants’ argument, and as found by the Examiner,
Davidson discloses “determining offset values that each indicate a
displacement between image data in a first image of a stereoscopic pair and
corresponding image data in a second image of the stereoscopic pair”
10
Appeal 2014-008467
Application 13/076,354
(Davidson Abstract, col. 1,11. 32—36). Accordingly, we are not persuaded of
Examiner error.
Detecting Cuts
Claims 10 14, 25—29
Claims 10 recites “detecting cuts in the stream using the cut detection
processor, wherein successive 2D images represent different scenes” (Claim
App.). Claims 13, 25, and 28 recite similar limitation (id.).
The Examiner finds Davidson’s use of each left view image frame
from a series of sequential frames to get the right view image frame
discloses detecting cuts in the stream (see Final Act. 5, 6; Ans. 14, 15). The
Examiner further finds that “one of ordinary skill in the art would have
recognized at the time of the invention that each image should be different
for a moving object (i.e., successive 2D images represent different scenes
and at least once for each scene as claimed)” (Ans. 14, 15).
Appellants argue Davidson does not disclose cut detection or a
mechanism to assign a parameter to a detected scene (App. Br. 17).
Appellants further argue, under the assumption that the Examiner finds
processing each sequential frame discloses detecting a cut, the Examiner has
provided no evidence to support such a finding (Reply Br. 11). We are
persuaded by Appellants’ arguments.
The Examiner has not shown why processing each sequential frame in
a series of 2D images discloses detecting a cut in a stream of 2D images.
Moreover, the Examiner has not shown Davidson discloses successive 2D
image represent different scenes. Rather, the Examiner relies on
obviousness to show that one of skill in the art would have recognized that
successive 2D images represent different scenes, which is inappropriate for a
11
Appeal 2014-008467
Application 13/076,354
rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102 (Ans. 14, 15). Accordingly, we are
persuaded of Examiner error.
Predetermined Aspect Ratio
Claim 24
Claim 24 recites “logic running on the transformation processor clips
the left and right forced perspective images to a predetermined aspect ratio”
(Claim App.).
The Examiner finds receiving 2D image information that includes a
camera’s aspect ratio to generate left and right view images of a stereoscopic
display, as disclosed in Davidson, discloses the disputed limitation (Final
Act. 8; Ans. 17; Davidson col. 4,11. 25—67, Fig. 1—3).
Appellants argue Davidson merely mentions that the left camera’s
aspect ratio can be provided, but does not disclose clipping both the left and
right images to a predetermined aspect ratio (App. Br. 23; Reply Br. 12—13).
We are persuaded of Examiner error.
Although the Examiner finds Davidson’s system receives the required
information to generate the stereoscopic images, the Examiner has not
shown the information, or application of the information, includes clipping
the left and right images to a predetermined aspect ratio. We do not opine as
to whether clipping images to a predetermined aspect ratio is inherent or
obvious in view of Davidson. Rather, we are persuaded the Examiner has
not shown that Davidson anticipates the subject matter of claim 24.
Combination of References
Claims 9, 23
Appellants argue “a person of ordinary skill in the art would not see
any particular reason to excerpt the identified feature from paragraph [0031]
12
Appeal 2014-008467
Application 13/076,354
of Breslow with any reasonable expectation of success in improving
efficiency without undue experimentation” (App. Br. 28; see Reply Br. 12).
We are not persuaded of Examiner error.
The Examiner provides sufficient articulated reasoning with a rational
underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness (see KSR Int 7
Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 418 (2007)). Specifically, the Examiner finds
it would have been obvious to modify Davidson’s system to use Breslow’s
offset values (Final Act. 10—11). The motivation proffered by the Examiner
for combining the references is to provide an efficient method to make a
modified image by using only one two-dimensional image to create a three-
dimensional image (id.). The Examiner finds this motivation in paragraph
11 of Breslow (id.). Moreover, Appellants provide no support for the
argument that utilizing Breslow’s offset values in Davidson’s system would
not result in reasonable expectation of success and would require undue
experimentation. Accordingly, we are not persuaded of Examiner error.
CONCLUSIONS
In view of the foregoing, we sustain the Examiner’s rejections of
claims 1—6, 8, 15—20, 22, and 30 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) and claims 9 and
23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
However, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 7, 21, and 24, as
well as claims 10, 13, 25, and 28, and their respective dependent claims 11,
12, 14, 26, 27, and 29 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
13
Appeal 2014-008467
Application 13/076,354
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1—6, 8, 9, 15—20,
22, 23, and 30, but reverse the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 7, 10—
14, 21, and 2A-29.
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-IN-PART
14