Ex Parte Makino et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJan 31, 201713366866 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 31, 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. 13/366,866 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation