Ex Parte Dennis

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 19, 2017

13317342 (P.T.A.B. May. 19, 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.
13/317,342 10/17/2011 Danfung Dennis 34MA-198137 3582
69849 7590 05/23/2017
SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
379 Lytton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
EXAMINER
PATEL, JITESH
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2617
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/23/2017 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):
svpatents @ sheppardmullin.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DANFUNG DENNIS
Appeal 2015-007351
Application 13/317,342
Technology Center 2600
Before HUNG H. BUI, AARON W. MOORE, and
MICHAEL J. ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judges.
Opinion for the Board filed by Administrative Patent Judge MOORE.
Opinion Dissenting filed by Administrative Patent Judge ENGLE.
MOORE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2015-007351
Application 13/317,342
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1—7, 9—15, 17, and 19, which are all of the pending claims. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
THE INVENTION
The application is directed to “viewing video content captured using a
wide angle fisheye lens after editing and re-formatting as a virtual concave
spherical projection of a portion of the entire whole of the captured data.”
(Abstract.) Claim 1, reproduced below, exemplifies the subject matter on
appeal:
1. A method of displaying streaming video on an electronic tab­
let in a way that realizes an immersive viewing experience, com­
prising the steps of:
downloading an edited moving video file in a compressed for­
mat comprising a set of pixel data of a subject area field of view
(FOV) first captured as raw video data using a digital single-lens
reflex camera affixed with a hemispheric lens;
displaying a framed display portion of the edited moving
video file, said framed display portion comprising a default FOV
including a first subset of the pixel data of the subject area FOV;
and
in response to user input, modifying the framed display por­
tion to comprise a second FOV including a second subset of the
pixel data of the subject area FOV, the second subset of the pixel
data of the subject area FOV including at least one pixel in the
first subset of the pixel data of the subject area FOV and at least
1 Appellant identifies Condition One, Inc. as the real party in interest. (See
App. Br. 2.)
2
Appeal 2015-007351
Application 13/317,342
one pixel different from pixels in the first subset of the pixel data
of the subject area FOV, in modifying the framed display portion
to comprise the second FOV, displaying the second FOV to con­
vey an appearance of panning.
THE REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Zimmermann et al. US 2005/0062869 A1 Mar. 24, 2005
Nasiri et al. US 7,907,838 B2 Mar. 15, 2011
Ishii US 7,986,344 B1 July 26,2011
THE REJECTIONS
1. Claims 1—7, 9—13, 15, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Zimmermann and Ishii. (See Final Act. 5—18.)
2. Claims 14 and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Zimmermann, Ishii, and Nasiri. (See Final Act. 18—20.)
ANALYSIS
Appellant contends the rejections are in error because, with respect to
independent method claim 1, the Examiner has failed to show that
Zimmerman teaches [A] “in response to user input, modifying the framed
display portion to comprise a second FOV including a second subset of the
pixel data of the subject area FOV”; [B] “the second subset of the pixel data
of the subject area FOV including at least one pixel in the first subset of the
pixel data of the subject area FOV and at least one pixel different from
pixels in the first subset of the pixel data of the subject area FOV”; and
3
Appeal 2015-007351
Application 13/317,342
[C] “in modifying the framed display portion to comprise the second FOV,
displaying the second FOV to convey an appearance of panning.” (See App.
Br. 7—13.) Appellant makes analogous contentions for analogous limitations
in independent Beauregard claim 12 (see App. Br. 13—17), independent
system claim 13 (see App. Br. 17—21), and independent means-plus-fimction
claim 19 (see App. Br. 21—24).
Appellant’s argument is that Zimmerman does not teach the argued
limitations because it teaches different views using different cameras. (See
App. Br. 9—11.) Zimmerman does indeed describe such an embodiment.
However, Zimmerman also teaches that a “remote user can select areas of
interest in the displayed immersed image for perspective corrected video
viewing” and “[t]he system produces the equivalent of pan, tilt, zoom, and
rotation within a selected view.” (Zimmerman 1105.) We agree with the
Examiner that the disclosure of “pan” is sufficient to teach or suggest argued
limitation [A] because, in panning, the framed display portion is modified to
comprise a second FOV (the view after panning) that includes a second
subset of the pixel data of the subject area FOV (as the panned view includes
some pixels in the direction of the pan that are added while others in the
direction away from the pan are removed). (See Final Act. 6—7.)
Zimmerman’s disclosure is also sufficient to teach or suggest argued
limitation [B], as the second subset of the pixel data includes at least one
pixel in the first subset of the pixel data (e.g., a pixel that was in the middle
before the panning and moved to a side as a result of the panning) and at
least one pixel different from pixels in the first subset of the pixel data (e.g.,
a new pixel added in the direction of panning). (See id.) And Zimmerman’s
disclosure is sufficient to teach or suggest argued limitation [C], as panning
4
Appeal 2015-007351
Application 13/317,342
would, of course, “convey an appearance of panning.” (See id.) Appellant’s
assertion that “Zimmermann does not teach displaying a plurality of field of
views of a subject area view” (App. Br. 11) is unexplained and, we
conclude, unpersuasive of error.
In the Reply, Appellant argues “the Examiner has misinterpreted the
claim language of a ‘subject area field of view.’” (Reply Br. 2.) We do not
agree. The Examiner’s comments, in their entirety, were as follows:
The claimed subject area field of view (FOV) is interpreted as a
view seen by a user where the view is a portion of a larger un­
derlying image. This interpretation is consistent with the speci­
fication of the instant application at paragraph [0031] which re­
cites, “In certain frame compositions, various interesting subject
matter is left outside the default field of view (a subject area
FOV). The default field of view is shown in FIG. 6 as a rectan­
gular frame within a larger circular frame. The user may “dis­
cover” by panning in certain directions, up, down, left right, as
the frames of video are played at 24 to 30 frames per second.”
The claimed subset of pixel data is interpreted as a set of pixels
that lie within a given subject area FOV. The second FOV is in­
terpreted as a view seen by a user after the user has panned out­
side a first/default field of view.
(Ans. 2—3, emphasis omitted.) We understand this to mean that the “subject
area field of view (FOV)” is the larger underlying image, and that the viewer
sees portions of that larger image, which correspond to the claimed “default
FOV” and “second FOV.” This is fully consistent with Appellant’s
Specification.
In particular, the Specification describes the “field of view” as the
pixel content of the full fisheye view or the default or second views that
represent particular portions of the entire image that are being viewed. This
is shown in Figure 6, in which the subject area FOV is the fisheye (round)
5
Appeal 2015-007351
Application 13/317,342
portion and the default/second FOV is the small rectangle, as reproduced
below.
As described,
[I]n certain frame compositions, various interesting subject
matter is left outside the default field of view. The default field
of view is shown in Fig. 6 as a rectangular frame within a larger
circular frame. The user may ‘discover’ by panning in certain
directions, up, down, left right, as the frames of video are played
at 24 to 30 frames per second. Doing so provides the user with
an “immersive experience.”
Spec. 131.
In view of Appellants’ Specification and Appellants’ own arguments
(e.g., Reply Br. 2), we understand the term “subject area field of view
(FOV)” to refer to a set of pixels, either the entire fisheye view or the subset
seen at a given time.
Because we find Appellant’s contentions insufficient to establish
Examiner error, we sustain the obviousness rejections of independent claims
1, 12, 13, and 19, as well as the obviousness rejections of dependent claims
2—7, 9-11, 14, 15, and 17, which are not separately argued.
6
Appeal 2015-007351
Application 13/317,342
DECISION
The rejections of claims 1—7, 9-15, 17, and 19 are affirmed.
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
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DANFUNG DENNIS
Appeal 2015-007351
Application 13/317,342
Technology Center 2600
Before HUNG H. BUI, AARON W. MOORE, and
MICHAEL J. ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judges.
ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judge, dissenting.
Appellant argues Zimmerman says its panning occurs within only “a
single field of view.” App. Br. 11 (emphasis added) (citing Zimmerman
1105); see also Zimmerman 112 (“the present invention provides ... an
image of any portion of the viewing space within a selected field-of-view”)
(emphasis added). Such statements in Zimmerman contradict the
Examiner’s finding that Zimmerman’s panning does change the field of
view. In my opinion, the Examiner has not sufficiently addressed this.
I believe this contradiction arises because the Examiner’s
interpretation of “field of view” is at odds with the term’s ordinary meaning.
Appellant did not directly challenge the construction of “field of view,” so I
understand the majority’s reluctance to take up any new claim construction.
But see Reply Br. 2—6. However, in my view, Appellant’s argument that the
Examiner’s finding conflicts with Zimmerman’s text cannot be resolved
without addressing the construction of “field of view” as a subsidiary issue.
Appeal 2015-007351
Application 13/317,342
In photography/videography as well as optics in general, field of view
(or FOV) is a well-defined term of art that refers to the angle of how widely
a camera can see. See, e.g., Spec. 128 (“an ultrawide fisheye lens ... is
used to capture a full 180 degree field of view”); Zimmerman Fig. 1 (“0 TO
180° FIELD-OF-VIEW”), H 84 (“a 180 degree field-of-view”), 14, 17, 54.
Turning a camera left or right (i.e., “panning”) may change the content of
what the camera can see, but it does not change the angle of how widely the
camera can see (e.g., 180°). See Spec. Ull (“modifying the pixel data
content of the default FOV ... to convey an appearance of panning”), 36
(“virtual panning ... to modify a content of the default FOV”). “In other
words, the default field of view presents a new certain subset of the
composite video content,” Spec. 135, but panning does not change the field
of view itself. Thus, in Figure 6 of the Specification, changing the size or
shape of the viewing area (e.g., going from the larger circular frame to the
smaller rectangular frame) may change the field of view (i.e., because the
rectangle sees a smaller amount of the scene than the circle), (Spec. H 31,
23), but merely moving the rectangle around within the circular frame (e.g.,
panning) would not if each rectangle sees exactly the same amount of the
scene. Moreover, when the Specification meant content, it expressly said so.
E.g., Spec. H 12 (“modify the content of the default FOV”) (emphasis
added), 11,36, 13. The Examiner therefore erred in interpreted “field of
view” to mean the content rather than the angle. Ans. 2—A.
Thus, I agree with Appellant and Zimmerman that panning alone does
not change the field of view and does not teach “a second FOV.” In the
event of further prosecution, I would encourage Appellant to clarify whether
the claim was intended to cover changing the angle or just the content.
2