Ex Parte Makino et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 31, 2017

13366866 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 31, 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.
13/366,866 02/06/2012 Kozo Makino MEN-723-3343 6848
27562 7590 02/02/2017
NIXON & VANDERHYE, P.C.
901 NORTH GLEBE ROAD, 11TH FLOOR
ARLINGTON, VA 22203
EXAMINER
LI, TRACY Y
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2487
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/02/2017 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 KOZO MAKINO, KEISUKE KIKUCHI,
YUTAKA FUKAYA, and YOTA AIZAWA
Appeal 2016-001915
Application 13/366,866
Technology Center 2400
Before JEFFREY S. SMITH, AMBER L. HAGY, AND
MICHAEL M. BARRY, Administrative Patent Judges.
BARRY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1—13, which are all of the claims pending in the application. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
Introduction
The application relates to information processing using an augmented
reality technique. Spec. 1. Claim 1 is illustrative:
[1.] A non-transitory storage medium encoded with a computer
readable information processing program executable by a
1 Appellants identify Nintendo Co., Ltd. as the real party in interest. App.
Br. 3.
1
Appeal 2016-001915
Application 13/366,866
computer of an information processing apparatus connected to
an image pick-up apparatus and a display, the information
processing program, when executed, causing the computer to
control the information processing apparatus to perform
operations comprising:
obtaining an image of a subject picked up by the image
pick-up apparatus;
detecting a search target from the obtained image of the
subject;
recognizing a shape of the detected search target;
causing an event to occur in a virtual space in accordance
with a deformation of the recognized shape of the search target;
generating a virtual image by shooting the event that
occurs with a virtual camera arranged in the virtual space; and
causing the display to display the virtual image so that the
virtual image is visually superimposed on the image of the
subject or on the subject seen through a screen of the display.
App. Br. 20 (Claims App’x).
Rejections
Claims 1,5, 7—11, and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Navab (US 7,274,380 B2; Sept. 25, 2007) and Arahari
(US 2011/0018875 Al; Jan. 27, 2011). Final Act. 3-5.
Claim 2 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Navab, Arahari, and Phillips (US 2012/0235893 Al; Sept. 20, 2012). Final
Act. 5—6.
Claim 3 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Navab, Arahari, and Isabelle (US 2009/0022665 Al; Jan. 22, 2009). Final
Act. 6—7.
2
Appeal 2016-001915
Application 13/366,866
Claim 4 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Navab, Arahari, and Homma (US 2012/0044173 Al; Feb. 23, 2012). Final
Act. 7—8.
Claim 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Navab, Arahari, and Sugio (US 2007/0126734 Al; June 7, 2007). Final Act.
8-9.
ISSUES
Based on Appellants’ arguments, the issues before us are whether the
Examiner errs by:
(1) finding Arahari teaches claim l’s (a) “detected search target,”
(b) “causing an event to occur in a virtual space in accordance
with a deformation of the recognized shape of the search
target,” and (c) “generating a virtual image by shooting the
event that occurs with a virtual camera arranged in the virtual
space.” (App. Br. 13—15);
(2) finding Arahari teaches claim 13 ’s requirement to “detect a
deformation of the shape of the search target and, in response
thereto, generate an event in a virtual space” {id. at 15);
(3) finding Phillips teaches claim 2’s “a result of detection from a
sensor detecting an orientation of the information processing
apparatus indicates a prescribed orientation of the information
processing apparatus {id. at 15—16);
(4) finding Isabelle teaches claim 3’s “an orientation of a vector
extending from a center of the search target toward one side of
the search target in the image of the subject” {id. at 16);
(5) finding Homma teaches claim 4’s requirements “to cause a first
event to occur when the search target is successfully detected,
and cause a second event to occur when the shape of the
recognized search target deforms to a prescribed shape
subsequent to occurrence of the first event {id. at 17); and
3
Appeal 2016-001915
Application 13/366,866
(6) failing to articulate sufficiently how the cited prior art
establishes a prima facie case of obviousness of claim 11 {id. at
18).
ANALYSIS
Claim 1
Appellants argue the Examiner errs in finding Arahari teaches a
“detected search object” because “claim 1 is directed to obtaining an image
of a subject picked up by an image pick-up apparatus, detecting a search
target from the obtained image of the subject; and recognizing a shape of the
detected search target.” App. Br. 13. The Examiner relies on Navab,
however, not Arahari, for teaching those claim 1 requirements emphasized
by Appellants. Final Act. 3. One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking
references individually when the rejection is based on a combination of
references. In re Merck & Co. Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
“Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of those references would
have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.” In re Keller, 642 F.2d at
425; see also In reNievelt, 482 F.2d 965, 968 (CCPA 1973) (“Combining
the teachings of references does not involve an ability to combine their
specific structures.”).
Appellants do not dispute the Examiner’s finding that Navab teaches
detecting a search target. See App. Br. 11—14. Instead, Appellants contend
Arahari’s “head portion 47 of the player object 46 is a virtual object that is
placed in the virtual three dimensional space” and, accordingly, cannot be
the recited “detected search target.” Id. at 13. This does not persuade us.
Appellants do not explain why, per the Examiner’s findings {see Final Act.
3—4, Ans. 8—11), using Navab’s teachings to obtain, detect, and recognize
Arahari’s “head portion” (for subsequent use as a virtual object using
4
Appeal 2016-001915
Application 13/366,866
Arahari’s teachings) was “uniquely challenging or difficult for one of
ordinary skill in the art.” See Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc.,
485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing KSR Int 7 Co. v. Teleflex, Inc.,
550 U.S. 398,419 (2007)).
Appellants also argue the Examiner errs in finding Arahari teaches
claim l’s “causing an event to occur in a virtual space in accordance with a
deformation of the recognized shape of the search target” requirement. App.
Br. 14. The Examiner responds by finding Arahari’s process teaches a
process that allows a user to deform the face/head of a virtual player object,
and that this results in software necessarily generating and handling the
events caused by the user input, thereby teaching this requirement. Ans. 9.
Appellants reply that manipulating the head portion of the player
object is “not a deformation of a recognized shape of a search target. . .
detected from an image obtained by an image pick-up apparatus.” Reply Br.
2. We find this unpersuasive because, as discussed above, the Examiner
relies on Navab, not Arahari, for obtaining an image, detecting a search
target in it, and recognizing a shape.
Appellants further reply that “Arahari does not disclose causing an
event to occur in a virtual space in accordance with a deformation of the
recognized shape of a search target.” Id. We again are unpersuaded of
Examiner error. We agree with the Examiner that user input to deform the
face/head of a player object generates events, which include displaying the
deformation in the virtual space. See, e.g., Arahari 147 (“In the deformed
result space 74, the image of the head portion 47 (face 50) of a player object
46, corresponding to the result of the deforming parameter having been
changed is displayed.”) (cited at Ans. 9). Figure 6 of Arahari is useful for
5
Appeal 2016-001915
Application 13/366,866
illustrating how Arahari, in view of Navab, teaches claim 1 ’s “causing an
event to occur . .
) <
74 70
Figure 6 of Arahari shows a face deforming screen 70 with user-controllable
selectable deforming parameters 72 and a deformed result space 74 that
displays the head/face of a player object.
In the vernacular of claim 1, when a user instructs the system of
Arahari to perform “a deformation of the recognized shape of the search
target” by changing a parameter, this accordingly “causes an event to occur
in a virtual space,” such as the event of displaying the deformed head/face.
Appellants also argue the Examiner errs in finding Arahari teaches
“generating a virtual image by shooting the event that occurs with a virtual
camera arranged in the virtual space” because deforming the head/face “does
not determine the actions that are performed in the soccer game captured by
the virtual camera 49, which the Final Office Action asserts corresponds to
‘generating a virtual image by shooting the event that occurs with a virtual
camera arranged in the virtual space.’” App. Br. 14. The Examiner answers
by finding Arahari’s 3D display of the deformed face/head teaches this
requirement. Ans. 10 (citing Arahari || 39, 42, 62—63, Fig. 2). We note
6
Appeal 2016-001915
Application 13/366,866
Figure 9 (discussed in || 62—63) illustrates a virtual camera arranged to
capture face deformation events of the type discussed above for Figure 6:
47a
Figure 9 of Arahari shows a head portion 47a and virtual camera 49a.
Appellants do not rebut the findings in the Answer for how Arahari
teaches claim l’s requirement for “generating a virtual image by shooting
the event. . . with a virtual camera ...” and, accordingly, do not persuade us
the Examiner errs.
Therefore, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1. In so
doing, we adopt as our own the findings and reasons of the Examiner as set
forth in the Final Action (see pp. 3—4) and Answer (see pp. 8—11). We also
sustain the rejection of claims 5—10, for which Appellants provide no
substantive argument separate from claim 1.
Claim 13
Appellants argue the Examiner errs in rejecting claim 13 for reasons
similar to claim 1 (App. Br. 14—15), which we find unpersuasive for the
reasons discussed supra. Appellants further argue the Examiner errs
because “the Final Office Action rejected claim 13 for the same reasons
discussed with regard to claim 1, but has not articulated which features of
Navab and/or Arahari correspond to detecting a deformation of the shape of
7
Appeal 2016-001915
Application 13/366,866
the search target.” Id. at 15. This is unpersuasive. Notwithstanding any
difference in scope between claim 13 ’s requirement to “detect a deformation
of the shape of the search target and, in response thereto, generate an event
in a virtual space” and claim l’s “causing an event to occur in a virtual space
in accordance with a deformation of the recognized shape of the search
target,” the same analysis for claim 1, as discussed supra, indeed applies
here for claim 13. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 1, and in
doing so, we adopt the findings and reasons of the Examiner as set forth in
the Final Action (see pp. 3—5) and Answer (see pp. 8—11).
Claim 2
Claim 2 adds to claim 1 the requirement “to cause the event to occur
in accordance with the deformation of the shape of the search target when a
result of detection from a sensor detecting an orientation of the information
processing apparatus indicates a prescribed orientation of the information
processing apparatus.” App. Br. 20 (Claims App’x). The Examiner finds
Phillips 123 teaches this requirement. Final Act. 5—6. Appellants’ only
argument separate from claim 1 is that the Examiner errs because Phillips
123 teaches “detecting viewing orientation of a viewer (see Fig. 4 and
associated description in Philips)” (App. Br. 15) and “an orientation of the
viewer is not the same as an orientation of the information processing
apparatus” (id. at 16).
The Examiner answers by finding that, in a handheld embodiment,
“Phillips suggests changing occurs when a detector detects there is an
orientation of a viewer, and the orientation of the viewer is the orientation of
the device being held in viewer’s hands.” Ans. 12 (citing Phillips 21—23,
Fig. 7a) (emphasis added). The Examiner persuades us. Detecting the
8
Appeal 2016-001915
Application 13/366,866
viewer’s orientation relative to the handheld device as illustrated in Phillips
Figure 7a corresponds (is reciprocally related) to detecting the device’s
orientation relative to the viewer. Thus, one suggests the other.
Accordingly, as Appellants provide no persuasive rebuttal to the
Examiner’s findings and reasons in the rejection of claim 2, we sustain its
rejection.
Claim 3
Claim 3 adds to claim 1 the requirement “to recognize the
deformation of the shape of the search target based on an orientation of a
vector extending from a center of the search target toward one side of the
search target in the image of the subject.” App. Br. 21 (Claims App’x). The
Examiner finds Isabelle H 15, 44 teach this requirement. Final Act. 6—7.
Appellants argue the Examiner errs because the cited portions of Isabelle
“say nothing about ‘an orientation of a vector extending from a center of the
search target toward one side of the search target in the image of the
subject.’” App. Br. 16.
The Examiner answers by finding that “Isabelle suggests . . . shape
changing based on an orientation of a vector extending from a center of the
search target toward one side of the search target.” Ans. 12 (citing Isabelle
11 15—18, 42-45, Fig. 2) (emphasis added). Appellants do not rebut this
finding, and, accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 3.
Claim 4
Claim 4 adds to claim 1 the requirement “to cause a first event to
occur when the search target is successfully detected, and cause a second
event to occur when the shape of the recognized search target deforms to a
prescribed shape subsequent to occurrence of the first event.” App. Br. 21
9
Appeal 2016-001915
Application 13/366,866
(Claims App’x). The Examiner finds Homma || 110, 142 teach this
requirement. Final Act. 7—8.
Appellants argue the Examiner errs because “Homma discloses
operations performed by a display controller 150 in response to given touch
events” and does not teach “performing the claimed events based on the
detection and a shape of the recognized search target. The Examiner is
requested to explicitly point out which features of Homma correspond to the
search target, a shape of the recognized search target, and a prescribed
shape.” App. Br. 16. The Examiner answers by finding that “as stated in
[0110], [0142], Homma suggests] events occur sequentially. Also as
depicted in Fig.l 1, Arahari teaches multiple events occur sequentially.”
Ans. 12.
While the Examiner correctly finds that the cited art teaches
sequential events, we agree with Appellants that the Examiner has not
identified how either Homma or Arahari teaches or suggests the two
specifically recited events of claim 4. The Examiner does not identify (and
we do not discern) a teaching or suggestion in those references of the recited
requirement for the second event “to occur when the shape of the recognized
search target deforms to a prescribed shape subsequent to occurrence of the
first event.”
Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 4. We also do
not sustain the rejection of claims 11 and 12, both of which depend from
claim 4.
DECISION
For the reasons above, we affirm the rejection of claims 1—3, 5—10,
and 13, and reverse the rejection of claims 4, 11, and 12.
10
Appeal 2016-001915
Application 13/366,866
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).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
11