Ex Parte ITO

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 7, 2017

13158939 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 7, 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.
13/158,939 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