Ex Parte Morehead et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 22, 2019

13718553 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Mar. 22, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO.
13/718,553
103865 7590
Procopio - SPE
525 B Street
Suite 2200
FILING DATE
12/18/2012
03/26/2019
San Diego, CA 92101
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Dave Morehead
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.
l 13748-l 12UT1 3884
EXAMINER
EL-BKAIL Y, AHMAD M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2176
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/26/2019 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):
docketing@procopio.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DA VE MOREHEAD, YIOTIS KATSAMBAS,
JAMES WILLIAMS, ROB SKIENA, and
UMBERTO LAZZARI
Appeal 2018-005571
Application 13/718,553
Technology Center 2100
Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, and
ERIC S. FRAHM, Administrative Patent Judges.
DIXON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2018-005571
Application 13/718,553
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of
claims 1, 3---6, 8-13, and 16, and 18-20. Claims 2, 7, 14, 15, and 17 are
canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We reverse.
The claims are directed to an asset management during production of
multimedia and provides for managing assets using scouting images during
storyboarding in content production. (Spec. 1-2). Claim 1, reproduced
below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method of managing assets including at least one
scouting image during a storyboarding process in production of
a motion picture, the method comprising:
generating metadata corresponding to the at least one
scouting image, the metadata including a path to a script
including commands needed to reconstruct a 3-D environment
and camera positions of the at least one scouting image;
importing the at least one scouting image from the 3-D
environment for the storyboarding process;
incorporating the least one scouting image into the
storyboarding process to generate a plurality of storyboard
images by organizing the at least one scouting image and the
plurality of storyboard images into a single application, wherein
the single application is used to generate complex 3-D setups and
reconstruction of the camera positions within the 3-D
environment; and
1 Appellants indicate that Sony Corporation and Sony Pictures
Techonologies Inc. are the real parties in interest. (App. Br. 2).
2
Appeal 2018-005571
Application 13/718,553
manipulating the at least one scouting image as a reference
using the script and the camera positions within the 3-D
environment to generate the plurality of storyboard images.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Clatworthy et al.
Ferlitsch et al.
US 2007/0146360 Al
US 2009/0144629 Al
REJECTION
The Examiner made the following rejection:
June 28, 2007
June 4, 2009
Claims 1, 3-6, 8-13, 16, and 18-20 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35
U.S.C. § I03(a) as being unpatentable over Clatworthy in view ofFerlitsch.
ANALYSIS
With respect to independent claims 1 and 16, Appellants present
arguments to the claims together. Therefore, we address independent claim
1 as the illustrative claim for the group of claims rejected for obviousness
(i.e., claims 1, 3---6, 8-13, 16, and 18-20).
Appellants argue the claimed invention requires "incorporating the at
least one scouting image into the storyboarding process to generate a
plurality of storyboard images by organizing the at least one scouting image
and the plurality of storyboard images into a single application, wherein the
single application is used to generate complex 3-D setups and reconstruction
of the camera positions within the 3-D environment." (App. Br. 5).
Appellants further contend that by incorporating the scouting images (which
3
Appeal 2018-005571
Application 13/718,553
are obtained by using a 3-D app to select camera positions in 3-D
environments and to create complex 3-D setups) into the storyboard process,
a plurality of storyboard images is generated and a more accurate
representation of the final shot can be achieved. (App. Br. 5). Appellants
further identify that the Specification (paragraphs 16 and 17 (pages 4--5))
defines an additional type of "scouting" image data. (App. Br. 5).
Appellants contend that
the cited paragraphs of Clatworthy fails to teach, suggest, or
disclose incorporating the scouting images into the
storyboarding process by organizing the scouting images and
the plurality of storyboard images into a single application used
to generate complex 3-D setups and reconstruction of the
camera positions within the 3-D environment.
(App. Br. 6).
In the statement of the rejection, the Examiner finds that in the
Clatworthy reference "The 2D background objects 1205 (i.e., scouting
image) may include hand-drawn or real-life images of backgrounds from
different angles, with different amounts of detail, with various amounts of
depth, at various times of the day, at various times of the year, and/or the
like." (Clatworthy [101]). (Final Act. 2-3). Additionally, the Examiner
finds paragraphs 41--44 of the Clatworthy reference discloses a cinematic
frame creation system 100, which cinematic frame creation system 145 may
translate received text into a series of storyboard frames and/or shots that
represent the narrative structure and convey the story. (Clatworthy ,r 44).
Although, we agree with the Examiner that paragraph 101 the Clatworthy
reference discloses background images and additional data objects, we find
the Clatworthy reference does not identify that the hand-drawn or real-life
4
Appeal 2018-005571
Application 13/718,553
images are "scouting images" in addition to the storyboarding data and
images.
In the Reply Brief, Appellants restate their argument that in the
Clatworthy reference "the cited paragraphs do not teach the claimed
limitations (i.e., incorporating the scouting images into the storyboarding
process by organizing the scouting images and the plurality of storyboard
images into a single application)." (Reply Br. 3--4).
We agree with the Appellants that the Examiner has not directly
responded to Appellants' argument. Appellants further contend hat the
Examiner has shown "[some] image" data in a storyboarding process, but
not specifically addressed any difference between storyboarding images and
"scouting" images and the incorporation of the two types of image data into
a single application. (Reply Br. 4).
Additionally, we note that the Examiner has not specifically addressed
to the "incorporating" claim limitation. Although, the Examiner repeats the
"incorporate" language in the headings in the Examiner's Answer, the
Examiner does not specifically address the merits of "incorporating" the two
types of data in the claimed storyboarding process. As a result, we find the
Examiner has not shown that the combination teaches or suggests the
claimed invention, and we cannot sustain the rejection of illustrative
independent claim 1 and dependent claims 3---6 and 8-13.
Independent claim 16 recites similar limitations which the Examiner
has not shown to be taught or suggested by the combination of Clatworthy
and Ferlitsch. As a result, we cannot sustain the rejection of independent
claim 16 and its dependent claims 18-20.
5
Appeal 2018-005571
Application 13/718,553
CONCLUSION
The Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1, 3---6, 8-13, 16, and 18-
20based upon obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
DECISION
For the above reasons, we reverse the Examiner's obviousness
rejection of claims 1, 3---6, 8-13, 16, and 18-20.
REVERSED
6