Ex Parte Harville et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Apr 5, 2013

11455148 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Apr. 5, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte MICHAEL HARVILLE, W. BRUCE CULBERTSON,
DANIEL G. GELB, IRWIN SOBEL, ANDREW E. FITZHUGH and
DONALD O. TANGUAY JR.
____________________

Appeal 2010-009171
Application 11/455,148
Technology Center 2800
____________________

Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, HUNG H. BUI, and MIRIAM L. QUINN,
Administrative Patent Judges.

BUI, Administrative Patent Judge

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner’s final rejections of claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.2

1 Real Party in Interest is Hewlett-Packard Development Company, LP.
2 Our decision refers to Appellants’ Appeal Brief filed October 12,
2009 (“App. Br.”); Reply Brief filed March 3, 2010 (“Reply Br.”);
Examiner’s Answer mailed January 4, 2010 (“Ans.”); and the original
Specification filed June 16, 2006 (“Spec.”).
Appeal 2010-009171
Application 11/455,148

2

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ Invention
Appellants’ invention relates to a display system and method of
displaying images includes performing geometric processing and
photometric processing on image frames to generate a plurality of processed
image frames, and projecting the plurality of processed image frames on a
non-planar display surface with at least one projector, wherein the geometric
processing includes applying a first plurality of meshes to the plurality of
image frames, in which the first plurality of meshes defines 2D mappings
between the display surface and the at least one projector. See Appellants’
Spec. 2, ll. 6-14 and Abstract.
Claims on Appeal
Claims 1, 13 and 20 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1 is
representative of the invention, and is reproduced below with disputed
limitations emphasized:

1. A method of displaying images, comprising:
performing geometric processing and photometric
processing on a plurality of image frames, thereby generating a
plurality of processed image frames;
projecting the plurality of processed image frames on a
non-planar display surface with at least one projector, the non-
planar display surface including a plurality of physically
applied fiducial marks; and
wherein the geometric processing includes applying a
first plurality of meshes to the plurality of image frames,
wherein the first plurality of meshes is generated based on the
plurality of physically applied fiducial marks and defines 2D
mappings between the display surface and the at least one
projector.

Appeal 2010-009171
Application 11/455,148

3

Evidence Considered
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Suzuki US 5,712,711 Jan. 27, 1998
Mayer, III US 6,115,022 Sep. 5, 2000
Ioka US 2002/0024640 A1 Feb. 28, 2002
Raskar US 2004/0184011 A1 Sep. 23, 2004
Korobkin US 6,912,293 B1 Jun. 28, 2005
Matthys US 7,339,625 B2 Mar. 4, 2008

Examiner’s Rejections
(1) Claims 1-3, 5-9, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Raskar and Ioka. Ans. 3-7.
(2) Claim 4 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Raskar, Ioka, and Korobkin. Ans. 7.
(3) Claim 10 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Raskar, Ioka, and Mayer. Ans. 8.
(4) Claim 11 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Raskar, Ioka, Mayer and Matthys. Ans. 8-9.
(5) Claim 12 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Raskar, Ioka, and Suzuki. Ans. 10.
(6) Claims 13-17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Raskar, Ioka, Suzuki and Matthys. Ans. 10-12.
(7) Claims 18 and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as
being unpatentable over Raskar, Ioka, Suzuki, Matthys, and Mayer. Ans.
13-14.

Appeal 2010-009171
Application 11/455,148

4

ISSUES
Based upon our review of the record, the arguments proffered by
Appellants, and the findings of the Examiner, the dispositive issues on
appeal are:
(1) Whether the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-3, 5-9, and 20
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Raskar and Ioka. The
issue turns on whether the combination of Raskar and Ioka discloses the
following features:
(a) “the non-planar display surface including a plurality of
physically applied fiducial marks” and “the first plurality of
meshes is generated based on the plurality of physically applied
fiducial marks and defines 2D mappings between the display surface
and the at least one projector,” as recited in independent claim 1, and
similarly recited in claim 20 (App. Br. 6-7; Reply Br. 2-5; emphasis in
original); and
(b) “the first plurality of meshes is generated based on a
second plurality of meshes configured to map a first domain
associated with the display surface to a second domain associated with
a camera configured to capture an image of the display surface, and a
third plurality of meshes configured to map the second domain to at
least one third domain associated with the at least one projector,” as
recited in claim 3 (App. Br. 8; Reply Br. 5);
(2) Whether the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 4 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Raskar, Ioka and Korobkin.
App. Br. 4; Reply Br. 6-8.
Appeal 2010-009171
Application 11/455,148

5

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
arguments that the Examiner has erred. Only those arguments actually made
by Appellants in the Appeal Brief have been considered. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
We disagree with Appellants’ conclusions as to all rejections. We
adopt as our own (1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in
the action from which this appeal is taken and (2) the reasons set forth by the
Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellants’ Appeal
Brief. We also concur with the conclusions reached by the Examiner and
further highlight and address specific findings and arguments for emphasis
as follows.

§ 103(a) Rejection of Claims 1-3, 5-9, and 20 Based on Raskar and Ioka
With respect to independent claims 1 and 20, Appellants contend that
the combination of Raskar and Ioka does not disclose “the non-planar
display surface including a plurality of physically applied fiducial marks”
and “the first plurality of meshes is generated based on the plurality of
physically applied fiducial marks and defines 2D mappings between the
display surface and the at least one projector.” App. Br. 6-7; Reply Br. 2-5.
In particular, Appellants argue that:
(1) Like the Raskar reference, Ioka also does not teach or
suggest generating meshes based on physically applied fiducial marks.
Rather, Ioka discloses that quadratic or polynomial transformation
functions are generated, such as those given in para. nos. 0079 and
0080. (See, e.g., Ioka at para nos. 0074-0088 and 0104-0107) (App.
Br. 4);
Appeal 2010-009171
Application 11/455,148

6

(2) [T]he Examiner has not identified any disclosure in Ioka
that teaches or suggests generating a plurality of meshes based on a
plurality of physically applied fiducial marks (Reply Br. 3); and

(3) In addition, Raskar discloses "we do not wish to rely on
any Euclidean information external to the projector, e.g., active
beacons in a room, boundaries on display screens or human aid . . . ."
(Raskar at para. no. 0049). This disclosure explicitly teaches away
from using the LEDs disclosed in Ioka, which are deployed about the
periphery of the projection screen (See, Ioka at para. no. 0104). The
cited references do not teach or suggest generating meshes based on
physically applied fiducial marks, and the Examiner has failed to
provide an articulated reasoning supported by substantial evidence to
support the conclusion that one of ordinary skill would combine the
cited references in a manner that would produce the claimed
invention; (App. Br. 7; Reply Br. 4) (emphasis added).

However, we do not find Appellants’ arguments persuasive to
demonstrate reversible error in the Examiner’s position. See In re Jung, 637
F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011). At the outset, we note that claims are
given their broadest reasonable construction consistent with the
specification. In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1369, (Fed.
Cir. 2004).
In the context of Appellants’ Specification, we note that Appellants
describe the term “fiducial marks” as shown, for example, in FIG. 1C and
FIG. D as:
any suitable pattern or set of patterns that include a set of
points with predetermined arrangement of the points where the
patterns are recognizable by a pattern recognition algorithm.
Fiducial marks 118 may be permanently attached to display
surface 116 or may be applied to display surface 116 only
during the calibration process . . . . Fiducial marks 118 may be
located outside of the display area on display surface 116 where
Appeal 2010-009171
Application 11/455,148

7

images 114 will appear when displayed by projectors 112. In
the embodiment shown in Figures 1 C and 1D, fiducial marker
strips 118A and 118B form a black and white checkerboard
patterns at the top and bottom of display surface 116 where the
distance between the corners of the checkerboard patterns in the
horizontal direction is known by the image display system 10.
In other embodiments, fiducial marks 118 may form any other
suitable pattern. In further embodiments, fiducial marks 118
may also consist of active light emitters, such as LEDs, lasers,
or infrared light sources. These light sources may optionally be
deactivated during display of images 114 on display surface
116.

Spec. 8, l. 26 – 9, l. 13 (emphases added).
First, and as correctly found by the Examiner, Raskar teaches the
fiducial marks in the form of a structured pattern, e.g., a uniform
checkerboard or square grid, projected on a display surface and the first
plurality of meshes generated based on the projected fiducial marks. Ans.
15 (citing Raskar ¶¶ [0068]-[0069]). As a secondary reference, Ioka is
simply cited for using physically applied fiducial marks physically placed on
a screen, as opposed to using fiducial marks projected on the screen. Ans.
16; see also Ioka, ¶ [0104], ¶ [0107]. Under the broadest reasonable
interpretation of the term “physically applied fiducial marks,” the claims are
not precluded from encompassing either the projected structured pattern in
Raskar (Raskar, [0068]) or the markers ML deployed about the periphery of
the projection screen in Ioka (Ioka, ¶¶ [0104], [0107]). In fact, the
Examiner’s findings are consistent with that interpretation.
Second, we are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument that Raskar
“teaches away” from its combination with Ioka. “A reference may be said to
teach away when a person of ordinary skill, upon reading the reference,
Appeal 2010-009171
Application 11/455,148

8

would be discouraged from following the path set out in the reference, or
would be led in a direction divergent from the path that was taken by the
applicant.” In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 553 (Fed. Cir. 1994). A reference
does not teach away, however, if it merely expresses a general preference for
an alternative invention but does not “criticize, discredit, or otherwise
discourage” investigation into the invention claimed. In re Fulton, 391 F.3d
1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Here, both Raskar and Ioka disclose an image
projection system to display images with minimum distortion using fiducial
marks. Appellants do not argue that Raskar discourages investigation into
claimed invention. Rather, Appellants have only presented conclusory
statements and have failed to show sufficient evidence of record to support
the argument that Raskar teaches away from the Examiner’s proposed
combination.
Third, the Examiner has provided “some articulated reasoning with
some rational underpinning” to support the combination of Raskar and Ioka
and his legal conclusions of obviousness. See In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988
(Fed. Cir. 2006) (cited with approval in KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550
U.S. 398, 418 (2007). In particular, the Examiner concludes that:
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the
art at the time of the invention to use the physically applied
fiducial marks taught by Ioka to replace the projected fiducial
marks of Raskar such that Raskar transformation techniques be
applied using the physically applied fiducial marks, generating
meshes based on the physically applied fiducial marks; because
the fiducial marks provide the same information of geometric
deformation while reducing additional computational power
required to carry out additional algorithm and task of projecting
a pattern and recognizing the projected pattern.

Ans. 16.
Appeal 2010-009171
Application 11/455,148

9

The Examiner’s conclusions of obviousness are clearly articulated and
based on detailed factual findings regarding Raskar and Ioka. See Ans. 4,
16. Thus, we agree with the Examiner’s findings and conclusions, and
therefore, sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 1 and 20.
With respect to claim 3, Appellants acknowledge that Raskar
discloses a 3D polygon mesh that reflects the shape of the display surface,
but argue that Raskar does not include any disclosure that teaches or
suggests the three different pluralities of meshes, i.e., “first plurality of
meshes is generated based on a second plurality of meshes . . . and a third
plurality of meshes.” App. Br. 8; Reply Br. 5-6. However, the Examiner
did not err in determining the three different pluralities of meshes, including
(1) a 3D polygon mesh composed of triangles meeting Appellants’ claimed
“first plurality of meshes;” (2) the rotated version of the 3D polygon mesh
meeting Appellants’ claimed “second plurality of meshes;” and (3) the
rendered 3D polygon mesh meeting Appellants’ claimed “third plurality of
meshes.” Ans. 18. While the 3D polygon mesh disclosed in Raskar is not
“generated based on” the rotated version of the 3D polygon mesh and the
rendered 3D polygon mesh, as argued by Appellants, we understand the
Examiner’s position to be based on determining that these pluralities of
meshes are characteristics of triangles in triangle meshes constructed using
available triangulation methods including, for example, well-known
Delaunay triangulation for image processing.
For the reasons set forth above, we are not persuaded of error in the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 3, and 20, and dependent claims 2 and 5-9,
which were not separately argued. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s
Appeal 2010-009171
Application 11/455,148

10

rejection of claims 1-3, 5-9, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Raskar and Ioka.

§ 103(a) Rejection of Claim 4 Based on Raskar, Ioka and Korobkin
Appellants contend that the combination of Raskar, Ioka and
Korobkin does not disclose that “the first plurality of meshes, second
plurality of meshes, and third plurality of meshes are generated based on
Delaunay triangulation,” as recited in claim 4. In particular, Appellants
acknowledge that Korobkin teaches using the Delaunay triangulation
technique to compute resolution of non-planar surface, but argue that:
[T]he cited portion of Korobkin does not appear to
mention anything about non-planar surfaces or computing the
resolution of such surfaces. In addition, like the Raskar and
Ioka references, Korobkin also does not teach or suggest
generating the three different pluralities of meshes recited in
claim 3 based on Delaunay triangulation.

App. Br. 10; Reply Br. 6-7 (citing Korobkin, col. 15, ll. 1-13).
However, we disagree with Appellants’ contention. As correctly
found by the Examiner, Raskar already discloses using triangulation
methods to generate triangle meshes on a non-planar surface, i.e., display
surface 230, FIG. 2A of Raskar. Ans. 22. Korobkin is cited for its
disclosure of using well-known Delaunay triangulation methods for image
processing. We are not persuaded of error in the Examiner’s findings and
conclusions, and, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 4.
With respect to claims 10-19, Appellants present no separate
arguments for patentability of these claims. App. Br. 10-13; Reply Br. 8. As
Appeal 2010-009171
Application 11/455,148

11

such, claims 10-19 fall with independent claims 1 and 13. See 37 C.F.R. §
41.37 (c)(1)(vii).

CONCLUSION
On the record before us, we conclude that the Examiner has not erred
in rejecting: (1) claims 1-3, 5-9, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Raskar and Ioka; (2) claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103( a) as
being unpatentable over Raskar, Ioka, and Korobkin; and (3) the remaining
claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Raskar and Ioka
in combination with the other cited references.

DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1-20.
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).

AFFIRMED

ke