Ex Parte Grundhofer et al

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardMar 27, 2019

14844165 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Mar. 27, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 14/844,165 09/03/2015 63658 7590 03/29/2019 Disney Enterprises, Inc. c/o Dorsey & Whitney LLP 1400 W ewatta Street Suite 400 Denver, CO 80202-5549 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Anselm Grundhofer 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 ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. P254291.US.Ol 3683 EXAMINER MONSHI, SAMIRA ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2422 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/29/2019 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): Docketing-DV@dorsey.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte ANSELM GRUNDHOFER and DAVID ROBERT WYATT ROSE 1 Appeal2018-007016 Application 14/844, 165 Technology Center 2400 Before JASON V. MORGAN, HUNG H. BUI, and ADAM J. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judges. MORGAN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from the Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1-12 and 14--23. Claim 13 is canceled. Appeal Br. 16. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b ). We AFFIRM. 1 Appellant is the applicant and real party in interest, Disney Enterprises, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of The Walt Disney Company. Appeal Br. 3. Appeal2018-007016 Application 14/844, 165 Summary of disclosure The Specification discloses "a method for intensity correction for multiple projector systems" that "includes generating a plurality of pixel maps for a plurality of projectors." Abstract. Representative claims (key limitations emphasized) 1. A method of blending pixel intensity comprising: generating, by a processor, a plurality of pixel maps for a plurality of projectors based on at least one of an orientation of the plurality of projectors and a projection surface, wherein generating the plurality of pixel maps comprises: receiving, by the processor, data corresponding to an image of a structured light pattern projected by the plurality of projectors onto the projection surface; and mapping, by the processor, specific pixels of the projectors to corresponding pixels of other projectors of the plurality of projectors in the plurality of projectors to generate a plurality of projector-to-projector look up tables; and adjusting, by the processor, an intensity of at least one pixel of at least one of the plurality of projectors based, at least in part, on the plurality of pixel maps. 11. A method of generating a substantially seamless image with a plurality of overlapping projection images, comprising: projecting, with a first projector, a first structured light pattern on a projection surface; receiving, by a processor, a first image corresponding to the first structured light pattern; projecting, with a second projector, a second structured light pattern on the projection surface, wherein the second structured light pattern at least partially overlaps the first structured light pattern on the projection surface; 2 Appeal2018-007016 Application 14/844, 165 receiving, by the processor, a second image corresponding to the second structured light pattern; generating, by the processor, a set of pixel correspondences between the first projector and second projector, based on the first image and the second image; and modifying a brightness of one or more pixels of at least one of the first and second projector based, at least in part, on the set of pixel correspondences, wherein the brightness of the one or more pixels is modified based on a shortest distance between the pixel and an edge of the one or more projection regions. Rejection The Examiner rejects claims 1-12 and 14--23 2 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ I02(a)(l) as being anticipated by Culbertson et al. (US 2007/0291233 Al; published Dec. 20, 2007) ("Culbertson"). Final Act. 4--14. ANALYSIS We agree with and adopt as our own the Examiner's findings as set forth in the Answer and in the Action from which this appeal was taken, and we concur with the Examiner's conclusions. We have considered Appellant's arguments, but do not find them persuasive of error. We provide the following explanations for emphasis. CLAIMS 1-10 AND 18-23 Culbertson discloses a calibration unit that "identifies pixel locations in each projector 112 that correspond to the same screen locations in the screen domain as other pixel locations on one or more other projectors 112." Culbertson ,r 148. 2 The statement of the rejection erroneously lists claims 1-23 even though claim 13 was canceled. Final Act. 4. 3 Appeal2018-007016 Application 14/844, 165 In rejecting claim 1 as anticipated under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 102(a)(l), the Examiner finds that Culbertson's calibration discloses "mapping ... specific pixels of the projectors to corresponding pixels of other projectors of the plurality of projectors in the plurality of projectors to generate a plurality of projector-to-projector look up tables." Final Act. 5 (citing Culbertson ,r 148, Figs. 6D, 9A-B). Appellant contends the Examiner erred because, rather than disclosing a pixel mapping between projectors, "Culbertson requires a tedious process where each projector image is separately analyzed to determine its projection coordinates in the screen domain, then the screen domain coordinates for each of the projectors are compared, and then the matching coordinates in the screen domain are determined to be overlapping." Appeal Br. 11. That is, Appellant argues "[ t ]he overlap of screen locations does not provide a projector-to-projector mapping, but [at] most a projector to screen overlap relationship." Reply Br. 3 (citing Culbertson ,r,r 65---67). Appellant's arguments are unpersuasive because, as the Examiner correctly finds, Culbertson's "identified corresponding pixel locations for each projector 112 in the overlap regions in the projector domains [discloses a] relationship between projectors." Ans. 4. Appellant's arguments focus on Culbertson's use of triangle meshes used in the process of calibrating each projector rather than on the corresponding pixel locations identified as a result of the calibration. See Appeal Br. 9 (citing, e.g., Culbertson ,r,r 65---67). Moreover, despite Appellant's argument that Culbertson merely discloses a "projector to screen overlap relationship" (Reply Br. 3), Culbertson discloses identifying the overlapping regions of projectors (see Culbertson Fig. 6D; ,r 148). 4 Appeal2018-007016 Application 14/844, 165 For these reasons, we agree with the Examiner that Culbertson discloses "mapping ... specific pixels of the projectors to corresponding pixels of other projectors of the plurality of projectors in the plurality of projectors to generate a plurality of projector-to-projector look up tables," as recited in claim 1. See Final Act. 5. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. Â§ 102(a)(l) rejection of claim 1, and claims 2-10 and 18-23, which Appellant does not argue separately. Appeal Br. 12. CLAIMS 11, 12, AND 14--17 Similar to claim 1, claim 11 recites "generating ... a set of pixel correspondences between the first projector and second projector." For the reasons discussed above, we agree with the Examiner that Culbertson discloses this recitation. See Final Act. 9. Claim 11 further recites modifying a brightness of one or more pixels based on a shortest distance between the pixel and an edge of the one or more projection regions. The Examiner relies on Culbertson, which discloses use of "at least two distances between a first pixel location in a first frame 110A and edges of the first frame llOA" (Culbertson ,r 153) in calibration, to disclose modifying a brightness based on a shortest distance between the pixel and an edge in the manner claimed (Final Act. 9 ( citing Culbertson ,r 153, Figs. 6E, 6G); see also Ans. 6 (citing Culbertson ,r,r 150, 154--56)). Appellant contends the Examiner erred because "[ r ]equiring at least two distances[] simply does not anticipate using a shortest distance." Reply Br. 3. Culbertson illustrates, however, the use of all pixel to edge distances in calibrating a projector. See Culbertson ,r 153, Fig. 9B; see also Ans. 6. 5 Appeal2018-007016 Application 14/844, 165 This includes the shortest distance. See id. Fig. 9B (distance d(l)(A)). The disputed recitation is not limited to using only the shortest distance. Thus, the use of the shortest distance and additional distances falls within the scope of the disputed recitation. Therefore, we agree with the Examiner that Culbertson discloses "modifying a brightness of one or more pixels ... based on a shortest distance between the pixel and an edge of the one or more projection regions," as recited in claim 11. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. Â§ 102(a)(l) rejection of claim 11, and claims 12 and 14--1 7, which Appellant does not argue separately. Appeal Br. 12. DECISION We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-12 and 14--23. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. Â§ 41.50(Â±). AFFIRMED 6