Ex Parte ITODownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 7, 201713158939 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 7, 2017) Copy Citation 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. 13/158,939 06/13/2011 Yuichiro ITO AC-723-3103 1491 27562 7590 03/09/2017 NIXON & VANDERHYE, P.C. 901 NORTH GLEBE ROAD, 11TH FLOOR ARLINGTON, VA 22203 EXAMINER SULLIVAN, TYLER ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2487 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/09/2017 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): PTOMAIL@nixonvan.com pair_nixon @ firsttofile. com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte YUICHIRO ITO Appeal 2016-008025 Application 13/158,939 Technology Center 2400 Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, JEFFREY S. SMITH, and TERRENCE W. McMILLIN, Administrative Patent Judges. SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2016-008025 Application 13/158,939 STATEMENT OF THE CASE This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the rejection of claims 1—17, which are all the claims pending in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. Representative Claim 1. A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having stored therein an image display program which is configured to stereoscopically display a real world image onto which a 3- dimensional virtual object is superimposed on a screen of a stereoscopic display apparatus configured to provide a stereoscopic view to a user, the stereoscopic display apparatus including a computing system that includes at least one processor circuit coupled to a memory device, the memory device configured to store real world image data output by a left camera and a right camera, the image display program comprising instructions that are, when executed by a computing system, configured to: recognize a predetermined shooting target from the stored real world image data output by the left camera and the right camera; calculate first position orientation information indicating relative positions and relative orientations of the right camera and the predetermined shooting target with respect to each other; calculate second position orientation information indicating relative positions and relative orientations of the left camera and the predetermined shooting target with respect to each other; calculate a data value, which is indicative of a single position and a single orientation in a virtual space, as a function of the calculated first position orientation information and the calculated second position orientation information; calculate a position and an orientation of a right virtual camera for generating a right virtual space image of the virtual space based on the calculated data value; 2 Appeal 2016-008025 Application 13/158,939 calculate a position and an orientation of a left virtual camera for generating a left virtual space image in the virtual space based on the calculated data value; generate the right virtual space image as viewed from the right virtual camera in accordance with the calculated position and the calculated orientation of the right virtual camera; generate the left virtual space image as viewed from the left virtual camera in accordance with the calculated position and the calculated orientation of the left virtual camera; superimpose the right virtual space image onto the real world image data outputted from the right camera; superimpose the left virtual space image onto the real world image data outputted from the left camera; and output the superimposed images to the stereoscopic display apparatus for a stereoscopic view. Prior Art Mashitani US 2005/0089212 A1 Apr. 28, 2005 Anabuki US 2006/0071945 A1 Apr. 6, 2006 Tooyama US 7,321,682 B2 Jan. 22, 2008 Ito US 2008/0246757 A1 Oct. 9, 2008 Maeda US 2008/0266386 A1 Oct. 30, 2008 Davidson US 2009/0262108 A1 Oct. 22, 2009 Suzuki US 2010/0304857 A1 Dec. 2, 2010 Schooleman US 2011/0029903 A1 Feb. 3,2011 Matsui JP 2009-025918 Feb. 5, 2009 Examiner’s Rejections Claims 1, 10, and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite. Claims 1,2, and 10—12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Matsui, Davidson, Mashitani, and Anabuki. 3 Appeal 2016-008025 Application 13/158,939 Claim 3 stands rejected under U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Matsui, Davidson, Mashitani, Anabuki, and Maeda. Claims 4 and 7—9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Matsui, Davidson, Mashitani, Anabuki, Maeda, and Ito. Claims 5 and 6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Matsui, Davidson, Mashitani, Anabuki, Maeda, and Suzuki. Claims 13—17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Matsui, Davidson, Mashitani, Anabuki, Schooleman, and Tooyama. ANALYSIS We adopt the findings of fact made by the Examiner in the Final Rejection and Examiner’s Answer as our own. We concur with the conclusions reached by the Examiner for the reasons given in the Examiner’s Answer. Section 112 rejection of claims 1, 10, and 11 The Examiner finds the recited “a data value” of claim 1 to be indefinite to failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter regarded as the invention. Final Act. 7—8. Specifically, the Examiner finds the claimed “a data value” is indefinite because “the Specification does not define what a ‘data value’ consists of (e.g. a location/point, matrix, vector, object are many representations of information which are obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art).” Final Act. 8. 4 Appeal 2016-008025 Application 13/158,939 Appellant contends a person of ordinary skill “would understand the meaning of the term ‘data value’ when read in light of the specification and the claims” and would “understand that data values encompasses more than a transformation matrix” or “that it is possible to represent transitions and/or rotations in the context of computer graphics as other types of data values” and that it is “indicative of a single position and a single orientation in a virtual space.” App. Br. 34—35; Reply Br. 13—14 (citing Spec. Tflf 165—166). During prosecution, we apply the test for indefiniteness under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, approved by our reviewing court, i.e., “a claim is indefinite when it contains words or phrases whose meaning is unclear.” In re Packard, 751 F.3d 1307, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2014); see also Manual of Patent Examining Procedure § 2173.02(I)(Rev. 07.2015, Nov. 2015)(advising Examiners that a rejection for indefmiteness is appropriate “after applying the broadest reasonable interpretation to the claim, if the metes and bounds of the claimed invention are not clear”). Here, claim 1 calculates “a data value, which is indicative of a single position and a single orientation in a virtual space.” The scope of the claimed data value encompasses a single value, and also encompasses multiple values, namely, a value for a position a value for an orientation. We agree with the Examiner’s finding that the meaning of “a data value” that encompasses multiple data values is unclear. We sustain the rejection of claims 1,10, and 11 under 35 U.S.C. §112, second paragraph. 5 Appeal 2016-008025 Application 13/158,939 Section 103 rejections of claims 1, 2, 5—12, and 15—17 Claim 1 recites “calculate a data value, which is indicative of a single position and a single orientation in a virtual space, as a function of the calculated first position orientation information and the calculated second position orientation information.” Appellant contends the Examiner has failed to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. Reply Br. 2. The Examiner finds Matsui teaches the limitations of claim 1, except for calculating a data value indicative of a single position and a single orientation in a virtual space, as a function of the calculated first position orientation information and the calculated second position orientation information, and performing subsequent calculating steps using the calculated data value. Final Act. 9—12; See Matsui, Abstract; 1120-42. Cumulative to the Examiner’s findings, we highlight Paragraphs 2—5 of Appellant’s Specification teach that the steps of claim 1, other than calculating the data value indicating a single position and orientation in a virtual space, and using the calculated data value in subsequent calculating steps, were known in the prior art. The Examiner finds Anabuki teaches “calculate a data value, which is indicative of a single position and a single orientation in a virtual space, as a function of the calculated first position orientation information and the calculated second position orientation information” as recited in claim 1. Final Act. 10; Anabuki || 50-67. The Examiner further finds Anabuki teaches using the calculated data value to perform the subsequent calculating steps of claim 1. Final Act. 10—11. The Examiner finds a motivation to combine the teachings of Matsui and Anabuki is using information indicating the image coordinates in a captured image to calculate the 6 Appeal 2016-008025 Application 13/158,939 position/orientation of a camera viewpoint as taught by Anabuki. Final Act. 12. Cumulative to the Examiner’s reason to combine, we highlight that calculating an index, or value, indicative of a single position and a single orientation as taught by Anabuki, then using the value along with Anabuki’s triangular method, to calculate the position and orientation of the left and right virtual cameras of Matsui, does no more than yield the predictable result of determining a position and orientation of multiple cameras from a single position and orientation as taught by Anabuki. Appellant contends Anabuki does not disclose or teach average orientation information of a plurality of cameras. Reply Br. 6. According to Appellant, Paragraph 58 of Anabuki teaches calculating an average position, but not an average orientation, of the objective view camera 110. Id. We highlight Paragraph 34 of Anabuki teaches the orientations of the cameras in objective view camera 110 are fixed, and Figure 2 of Anabuki shows objective view camera 110 as two cameras fixed in the same orientation, therefore, calculating an average orientation would be redundant. Appellant has not provided persuasive evidence to show that the multiple cameras of objective view camera 110 would not have the same fixed orientation as shown in Figure 2 of Anabuki. Further, Paragraphs 34, 37, and 38 of Anabuki teach using a triangular method to calculate a position and orientation of cameras with respect to each other and with respect to indices is within the level of ordinary skill. Paragraphs 54 through 57 of Anabuki teach using position and orientation of each camera in the objective view camera 110 to determine coordinate values in the world coordinate system that are supplied to viewpoint position-orientation calculator 140. Paragraphs 58 through 60 of Anabuki 7 Appeal 2016-008025 Application 13/158,939 teach using viewpoint position-orientation calculator 140 to then calculate position and orientation. We find, by a preponderance of the evidence, that one of ordinary skill in the art would more likely than not, use the teachings of Anabuki to determine a single position and a single orientation value for the cameras of objective view camera 110 as suggested by Anabuki. Appellant contends the combination of Anabuki with Matsui and other references would not result in the claimed invention. Reply Br. 7—8. According to Appellant, one of ordinary skill would not apply the position information of the objective view camera to the subjective view cameras. Reply Br. 7. Appellant also contends using multiple cameras in the objective view camera of Anabuki does not teach a left camera and a right camera for a stereoscopic display. Reply Br. 8. However, Matsui teaches applying the position information of multiple real world, or objective view, cameras to virtual, or subjective view, cameras for a stereoscopic display as discussed above. Appellant’s contention against Anabuki alone does not distinguish claim 1 over the combined teachings of the prior art. We sustain the rejection of independent claim 1, as well as commensurate independent claims 10-12 and dependent claims 2—9, and 15—17, not separately argued, under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Section 103 rejection of claims 13 and 14 Appellant contends the combination does not teach “wherein the data value is a transformation matrix which indicates the single position and the single orientation,” as recited in claim 13. In response, the Examiner finds “Anabuki teaches integration techniques combining position and orientation 8 Appeal 2016-008025 Application 13/158,939 information for multiple cameras and the use of indices/markers to combine camera information.” Final Act. 22. We agree with the Examiner for the reasons given in the Final Action and the Examiner’s Answer. Cumulative to the Examiner’s findings, we highlight Paragraph 54 of Anabuki teaches “that the position and orientation in the world coordinate system of a Camera A in the objective view camera . . . and a modeling transformation matrix ... of the index in the camera coordinate system of the camera A is converted into a position ... of the index in the world coordinate system.” Therefore, Anabuki teaches a transformation matrix representing the single position and the single orientation as claimed. Appellant contends the combination does not teach “wherein the one combined data value is a variable and the processing system is further configured to store the calculated variable to the memory device for multiple frames of execution,” as recited in claim 14. Specifically, Appellant contends Schooleman and Matsui describe two transformation matrices rather than one transformation matrix. App. Br. 31. Appellant also contends Anabuki does not teach storing a matrix or other one combined data value over multiple frames of execution. App. Br. 32. We disagree with Appellant for the reasons given by the Examiner in the Final Action and Examiner’s Answer. Cumulative to the Examiner’s findings, we highlight the scope of “to store the calculated variable to the memory device for multiple frames of execution” as claimed encompasses at least repeating the calculation of values for multiple frames of execution, where the calculated variable is the calculated position and/or orientation information as taught by Anabuki. Appellant has not provided persuasive 9 Appeal 2016-008025 Application 13/158,939 argument or evidence to distinguish “the one combined data value is a variable and the processing system is further configured to store the calculated variable to the memory device for multiple frames of execution,” as recited in claim 14 from Anabuki’s transformation matrix for the position and orientation information. We sustain the rejection of claims 13 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. DECISION The rejection of claims 1, 10, and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph is affirmed. The rejections of claims 1—17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 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). See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f). AFFIRMED 10 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation