Ex Parte Ikeda et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 27, 2016

13558806 (P.T.A.B. May. 27, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/558,806 07/26/2012 52349 7590 06/01/2016 WENDEROTH, LIND & PONACK LLP, 1030 15th Street, N.W. Suite 400 East Washington, DC 20005-1503 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Wataru IKEDA 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. 2012_1018 4847 EXAMINER BECK,LERON ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2487 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/01/2016 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): ddalecki@wenderoth.com eoa@wenderoth.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ExparteWATARUIKEDA, TOMOKIOGAWA, T AIJI SASAKI, and HIROSHI Y AHAT A Appeal2014-007286 Application 13/558,806 Technology Center 2400 Before DEBRA K. STEPHENS, JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, and KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, Administrative Patent Judges. STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134 from a Final Rejection of claims 1 and 2. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b ). We AFFIRM. Appeal2014-007286 Application 13/558,806 STATEMENT OF THE fNVENTION According to Appellants, the claims are directed to a playback device for playing back three-dimensional (3D) and two-dimensional (2D) images from a main-view video stream and a sub-view video stream (Abstract). Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A receiving device for receiving data transmitted via a broadcast or via a network, wherein the data includes a main-view video stream and a sub-view video stream, the main-view video stream includes picture data of a main view of a stereoscopic image, the sub-view video stream includes picture data of a sub view of the stereoscopic image, the data further includes information that indicates that the picture data of the main view of the stereoscopic image is displayed as a two-dimensional image while a graphic is displayed, the receiving device comprises: a video decoder operable to obtain the picture data of the main view and the picture data of the sub view by decoding the main-view video stream and the sub-view video stream; and an output unit operable to output the picture data of the main view and the picture data of the sub view, as a stereoscopic image, and upon receiving the information, the output unit outputs the picture data of the main view of the 2 Appeal2014-007286 Application 13/558,806 stereoscopic image as the two-dimensional image while the graphic is displayed. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Soltan Oshima Toho us 6,052, 100 US 2003/0053797 Al US 2006/0176295 Al REJECTIONS Apr. 18, 2000 Mar. 20, 2003 Aug. 10, 2006 Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting over co-pending Application No. 13/558,779, Oshima, and Toho (Final Act. 3-8). Claim 1 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Oshima and Toho (Final Act. 8-10). Claim 2 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Oshima, Toho, and Soltan (Final Act. 10). We have only considered those arguments that Appellants actually raised in the Briefs. Arguments Appellants could have made but chose not to make in the Briefs have not been considered and are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. Â§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2012). ISSUE 1 Non-Statutory Double Patenting: Claim 1 Appellants argue the Examiner erred in determining their invention as recited in claim 1 is non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting (App. Br. 12-13). The issue presented by the arguments is: 3 Appeal2014-007286 Application 13/558,806 Issue 1: Has the Examiner erred in finding the invention as recited is non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting? ANALYSIS Appellants argue the non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection is "inapplicable to amended claim 1" because "claim 1 of Application No. 13/558,779 recites that metadata is extracted from the data that includes the main-view video stream, sub-view video stream, and a graphics stream, and that a stereoscopic display of graphics is performed" (App. Br. 12). Specifically, Appellants argue that the similarly recited extracted metadata and stereoscopic display of graphics is not obvious because "Application No. 13/558,779 still fails to disclose or suggest output unit operable to output the picture data" (App. Br. 12-13). We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments. The Examiner finds the output to be an obvious variation of Application No. 13/558,779 in view of Oshima and Toho (Final Act. 6-8; Ans. 8-10). We agree with the Examiner's finding that the output of stereoscopic images, in Oshima, and the output of two-dimensional image display with graphics, in Toho, is obvious (Final Act. 6-8; Ans. 8-10). Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 under the judicially created doctrine of non-statutory obviousness- type double patenting. ISSUE 2 35 US.C. Â§ 103(a): Claim 1 Appellants assert their invention is not obvious over Oshima and Toho (App. Br. 3-11). The issue presented by the arguments is: 4 Appeal2014-007286 Application 13/558,806 Issue 2: Has the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Oshima and Toho teaches or suggests: the data further includes information that indicates that the picture data of the main view of the stereoscopic image is displayed as a two-dimensional image while a graphic is displayed, the receiving device comprises: a video decoder operable to obtain the picture data of the main view and the picture data of the sub view by decoding the main-view video stream and the sub-view video stream; and an output unit operable to output the picture data of the main view and the picture data of the sub view, as a stereoscopic image, and upon receiving the information, the output unit outputs the picture data of the main view of the stereoscopic image as the two-dimensional image while the graphic is displayed, as recited in claim 1? ANALYSIS We disagree with Appellants' conclusions and 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 Answer in response to the Appeal Brief. With respect to the claims argued by Appellants, we highlight and address specific findings and arguments for emphasis as follows. Appellants argue Oshima and Toho do not teach "the data further includes information that indicates that the picture data of the main view of the stereoscopic image is displayed as a two-dimensional image while a graphic is displayed in a stereoscopic manner" and 5 Appeal2014-007286 Application 13/558,806 an output unit operable to output the picture data of the main view and the picture data of the sub view, as a stereoscopic image, wherein, upon receiving the information, the output unit outputs the picture data of the main view of the stereoscopic image as the two-dimensional image while the graphic is displayed (App. Br. 7-8)( emphasis added). According to Appellants, Toho merely teaches a user rotation of an image updates and stores parameters for displaying a two-dimensional graphic, to render different viewing angles of the object; and the structure of Toho is "completely different from switching between a two-dimensional display and a stereoscopic display of a video stream" (App. Br. 8)( emphasis added). Further, Appellants argue Oshima, like Toho, does not disclose or suggest "switching between outputting the picture data of the main view and sub view, as a stereoscopic image, and outputting the picture data ... as the two-dimensional image while the graphic is displayed" (App. Br. 10). Appellants also argue "Oshima teaches that the synchronization is performed between video data and audio data, which is completely different from performing synchronization between a video and a graphic, as required by claim 1." (App. Br. 10). We are not persuaded. Appellants' claim 1 does not recite a graphic is displayed in a stereoscopic manner; wherein, upon receiving the information; or switching between outputting the picture data, as argued by Appellants (see id. at 8-13). Nor does claim 1 recite "synchronization" (see id. at 10). Thus, Appellants are arguing limitations not recited in the claims. Therefore, we are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments. Appellants additionally argue Oshima does not teach its stereoscopic/progressive video arrangement information relates to display of 6 Appeal2014-007286 Application 13/558,806 picture data and a graphic, as required by claim 1; rather, Appellants contend, Oshima teaches synchronization of video and audio data output based on the stereoscopic/progressive video arrangement information (App. Br. 9--10). Appellants have not persuaded us that Toho's three dimensional information is not graphic data (Ans. 5-8). We agree with the Examiner's finding that the operability of an output unit to output both stereoscopically and two-dimensionally, does not require a switch between the two outputs, as argued by Appellants (Ans. 6; App. Br. 8-9). Therefore, Appellants are arguing limitations not recited in the claim. Additionally, we further agree with the Examiner's finding that Oshima's right and left stereoscopic data can reasonably be interpreted as the main and sub views represented in claim 1 (Final Act. 8-9). As such, we are not persuaded the combination of Toho and Oshima fails to teach the disputed limitations. Appellants further argue Toho and Oshima are non-analogous art and an ordinarily skilled artisan would not have been motivated to combine the features of Oshima and Toho (App. Br. 8-9). According to Appellants, Toho does not disclose or suggest a stereoscopic image or displaying a graphic in a stereoscopic manner (id.). Appellants concede Toho teaches representing a three-dimensional model by generating two-dimensional image data and display parameters but contend Toho's invention is in a completely different field of endeavor (id. at 4, 8). Appellants have not proffered sufficient evidence or argument to persuade us Toho and Oshima are non-analogous art; rather, we agree with the Examiner that both Toho and Oshima are from the same field of endeavor (Ans. 5---6). Additionally, the Examiner has set forth why an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been 7 Appeal2014-007286 Application 13/558,806 motivated to combine the teachings and suggestions of Toho and Oshima (Final Act. 9--10) and Appellants have not proffered sufficient evidence or argument to persuade us otherwise. Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Oshima and Toho teaches or suggests the limitations as recited in claim 1. Nor are we persuaded the Examiner improperly combined the teachings and suggestions of Oshima and Toho. Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) for obviousness over Oshima and Toho. ISSUE 3 35 USCÂ§ 103(a): Claim 2 Appellants assert their invention is not obvious over Oshima, Toho, and Soltan (App. Br. 11 ). The issue presented by the arguments is: Issue 3: Has the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Oshima, Toho and Soltan teaches or suggests "the output unit repeatedly outputs a same type of picture data among the picture data of the main view twice or more while the graphic is displayed," as recited in claim 2? ANALYSIS Appellants argue the combination of Oshima, Toho, and Soltan does not teach the switching feature of independent claim 1, from which claim 2 depends (App. Br. 11 ). Appellants concede Soltan teaches an image frame displayed as a three-dimensional image; however, Appellants argue the three-dimensional imaging of aircrafts is "completely different from the concept of claim 1" and the output of picture data as claimed (App. Br. 11 ). 8 Appeal2014-007286 Application 13/558,806 We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments. We agree with the findings discussed above and sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent claim 1. We further agree with the Examiner's finding that Soltan is relied upon for the repetition of output recited in claim 2; and we agree that Soltan teaches the image is displayed in each time period, which is a reasonable interpretation of more than once, or "repeatedly," as recited in the claim (Ans. 7-8). Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Oshima, Toho, and Soltan teaches or suggests the limitations as recited in dependent claim 2. Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) for obviousness over Oshima, Toho, and Soltan. DECISION The Examiner's rejection of claim 1 under non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting as being obvious over conflicting Application No. 13/558,779 is affirmed. The Examiner's rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Oshima and Toho is affirmed. The Examiner's rejection of claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Oshima, Toho, and Soltan is affirmed. 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§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED 9