Ex Parte Varadhan et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 6, 2016

12423434 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 6, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/423,434 04/14/2009
100462 7590 04/06/2016
Dority & Manning P.A. and Google Inc.
Post Office Box 1449
Greenville, SC 29602
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Gokul V aradhan
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.
GGL-334A 8530
EXAMINER
BARRETT, RYANS
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2171
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
04/06/2016 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte GOKUL V ARADHAN and DANIEL BARCA Y
Appeal2014-004994
Application 12/423,434
Technology Center 2100
Before JEFFREY A. STEPHENS, CARLL. SILVERMAN, and
JOHN D. HAMANN, Administrative Patent Judges.
STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants 1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1, 4-6, 8, 10-14, 16-18, 20, 22-25,
and 31-35, which are all the claims pending in the application. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 The real party in interest is identified as Google Inc. (Br. 3.)
Appeal2014-004994
Application 12/423,434
Claimed Subject Matter
The claimed invention generally relates to navigating a virtual camera
in a three-dimensional virtual environment. (See Abstract.) Claim 1,
reproduced below, is illustrative:
1. A computer-implemented method for navigating a virtual
camera in a three dimensional environment, wherein the virtual
camera specifies a view of the three dimensional environment,
compnsmg:
(A) determining a target location relative to a three-
dimensional model in the three dimensional environment, the
virtual camera at a first position to capture a vertical view of the
three-dimensional model, wherein the three-dimensional model
is curved;
(B) determining a distance between a first location of a
virtual camera and the target location in the three dimensional
environment;
(C) determining a reduced distance relative to the distance
in (B);
(D) determining a tilt as a function of the reduced distance,
wherein the function is defined such that the tilt approaches 90
degrees as the reduced distance approaches zero, the tilt
specifying an angle relative to an upward vector from the target
location;
(E) positioning the virtual camera at a second location
determined according to the tilt, the reduced distance and the
target location, wherein the positioning comprises rotating the
camera to reduce or eliminate roll caused by curvature by the
three-dimensional model;
(F) rotating the three-dimensional model in the three
dimensional environment such that the target location projects
onto the same point on a viewport of the virtual camera when the
virtual camera is at the first location and at the second location;
and
2
Appeal2014-004994
Application 12/423,434
(G) repeating steps (B)-(F) to transition the virtual camera
from the first position to capture the vertical view of the three-
dimensional model to a second position to capture a horizontal
view of the three-dimensional model, the second position closer
to the three-dimensional model than the first position.
Rejections
Claims 1, 8, 10-12, 14, 20, 22-24, and 31-33 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Bolton (US 7,613,566 Bl, issued Nov.
3, 2009), Kamiwada et al. (US 2006/0103650 Al, published May 18, 2006),
and Khan (US 2004/0001110 Al, published Jan. 1, 2004). (Final Act. 2-
22.)
Claims 4---6, 13, 16-18, and 25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Bolton, Kamiwada, Khan, and Mackinlay et
al. (US 5,276,785, issued Jan. 4, 1994). (Final Act. 22-29.)
Claim 34 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Bolton, Kamiwada, Khan, and Deb et al. (US 8,089,479 B2, issued Jan.
3, 2012). (Final Act. 29-30.)
Claim 35 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Bolton, Kamiwada, Khan, and Beverley et al. (US 2009/0204920 Al,
published Aug. 13, 2009). (Final Act. 30.)
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants'
arguments the Examiner erred (Br. 9-19). We note Appellants have not
filed a Reply Brief to rebut the findings and conclusions presented in the
Examiner's Answer. We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments. We
adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the
3
Appeal2014-004994
Application 12/423,434
action from which this appeal is taken and set forth in the Answer (see Ans.
2-7). We highlight and address specific arguments and findings for
emphasis as follows.
Appellants argue Bolton does not teach or suggest determining a
target location and determining a distance between a first location of a
virtual camera and the target location, as recited in claim 1. (Br. 10-11.)
As the Examiner finds, however, Bolton teaches to display a map utilizing a
first perspective and a first magnification, as shown in Figure 4, step 100 and
Figure 3 (position (a)). (Final Act. 2.) Appellants acknowledge these
teachings, but state "nothing in Bolton teaches or suggest 'determining a
target location.'" (Br. 11.) We are not persuaded by Appellants' argument
because the portion of the map displayed when Bolton's virtual camera is in
the first position shown in Figure 3 is the portion on which the view of the
camera is maintained as the camera zooms in and changes the perspective of
the view. (See Ans. 2 (citing Bolton Fig. 3, 1 :32-35).) Thus, the portion of
the map displayed is the "target location," and this location is determined by
receiving a request to zoom in to the portion of the map currently displayed.
We also agree with the Examiner (Final Act. 3; Ans. 3) that Bolton
teaches determining a distance between a first location of a virtual camera
and the target location, as recited in claim 1. As the Examiner finds (Ans.
3), Bolton teaches "a displayed image with zero or little magnification
would show the image from a first distance while the displayed image with
substantial magnification would show the image from a second distance,
closer or nearer than the first distance" (Bolton 6: 12-16). Bolton thus
teaches or suggests the distance to the target is known, and, therefore,
"determined," as recited in claim 1.
4
Appeal2014-004994
Application 12/423,434
Appellants also contend Bolton does not teach determining a tilt as a
function of the reduced distance, as recited in claim 1. (Br. 12-15.) In
particular, Appellants disagree with the Examiner's finding "that 'Bolton
further states that a user input directed to changing magnification/ distance
causes a change in perspective/tilt [and] since the user input does not
directly specify a perspective/tilt, it is obvious that a function correlates
magnification/ distance and perspective/tilt.'" (Br. 14--15 (quoting Advisory
Act. 2 (alteration by Appellants)).) Appellants do not, however, present
persuasive evidence or argument to rebut the Examiner's finding and
reasoning, with which we agree. Therefore, we are not persuaded of error in
the rejection on this basis.
Appellants contend that even assuming Bolton teaches determining a
tilt as a function of the reduced distance, "Bolton still would not teach or
suggest that 'the function is defined such that the tilt approaches 90 degrees
as the reduced distance approaches zero.'" (Br. 15.) The Examiner finds,
however, that Bolton teaches greater magnification and perspective with
each subsequent view, so that the distance is decreasing and tilt moves closer
to 90 degrees (i.e., closer to a horizontal perspective view). (See Ans. 4.)
We agree this feature of Bolton teaches the tilt approaches 90 degrees as the
reduced distance approaches zero, and Appellants do not persuasively rebut
the Examiner's findings.
Appellants also argue the cited references do not teach or suggest
rotating the three-dimensional model in the three dimensional environment
such that the target location projects onto the same point on a viewport of
the virtual camera when the virtual camera is at the first location and at the
second location, as recited in claim 1. (Br. 15-18.) In particular, Appellants
5
Appeal2014-004994
Application 12/423,434
contend Bolton does not teach a target location (Br. 16), but, as discussed
above, we are not persuaded by this argument. In addition, Appellants
contend Bolton "is completely silent regarding 'a point on a viewpoint [sic,
viewport] of the virtual camera'" (Br. 16), but the reference need not use the
exact terms of the claim to teach the feature. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425
( CCP A 19 81) ("The test for obviousness is not ... that the claimed
invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references.
Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have
suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.").
The Examiner finds:
Bolton teaches a moving camera locked on to a target location
(figure 3). The location and tilt are coordinated such that the left
edge of the map is always at the left edge of the viewport and the
right edge of the map is always at the right edge of the viewport,
as indicated by the dashed lines. This necessarily requires that
the center of the map ("the target location") is always in the
center ("the same point") of the viewport.
Furthermore, this is consistent with an expressly stated problem
of the prior art to be solved: "various points of reference,
waypoints, or other navigation aides displayed on an overhead
view may be lost or substantially repositioned on the display
when immediately switching from the overhead view to a
perspective view" (Bolton column 1 lines 32-35, emphasis
added).
(Ans. 5.) Absent persuasive rebuttal of the Examiner's findings, we are not
persuaded of error in the Examiner's finding that Bolton teaches or suggests
moving the camera such that the target location projects onto the same point
on a viewport of the virtual camera when the virtual camera is at the first
location and at the second location.
6
Appeal2014-004994
Application 12/423,434
The Examiner relies on Khan to find one of ordinary skill in the art
would have modified Bolton to move or adjust the model, rather than the
camera. (Final Act. 6.) Khan teaches:
Although the present invention has been described in terms of
moving and adjusting a camera or view of a model, the present
invention can conversely be equally considered and described
with reference to moving or adjusting the model with reference
to or relative to the view.
(Khan i-f 74.) Appellants argue "the Examiner cites no support for
concluding the combination [of Bolton and Khan] would reduce user
orientation [sic, disorientation], and as such the obviousness rationale is the
product of impermissible hindsight reasoning." (Br. 18.)
In the Answer, the Examiner provides additional reasoning for
combining the references that stands unrebutted by Appellants. (See Ans. 6-
7.) For example, the Examiner finds "Khan provides a finite number of
identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success,
the finite number being two: moving the camera or moving the model."
(Ans. 6-7.) We agree with the Examiner's finding because Khan's teaching,
in particular that moving or adjusting the model rather than the camera can
obtain the same results, supports the Examiner's finding that the
combination with Bolton produces predictable results. "[W]hen a patent
simply arranges old elements with each performing the same function it had
been known to perform and yields no more than one would expect from such
an arrangement, the combination is obvious." KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007) (internal quotation omitted). Accordingly, we are
not persuaded the Examiner erred in concluding it would have been obvious
to modify Bolton to rotate the model rather than move the camera such that
the target location projects onto the same point on a viewport of the virtual
7
Appeal2014-004994
Application 12/423,434
camera when the virtual camera is at the first location and at the second
location, as recited in claim 1.
Appellants also contend Khan does not teach a "target location" (Br.
17), but, as discussed above, the Examiner relies on Bolton for teaching the
target location.
Accordingly, for the reasons discussed above and by the Examiner,
we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Bolton, Kamiwada, and Khan.
Thus, we sustain the rejection of claim 1, and, for the same reasons, the
rejection of claims 8, 10-12, 14, 20, 22-24, and 31-33, which are not argued
separately.
Appellants provide no additional arguments in support of claims 4---6,
13, 16-18, 25, 34, and 35 (see Br. 18-19). Thus, forthe same reasons as
claim 1, we sustain the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of claims 4---6,
13, 16-18, and 25 as unpatentable over Bolton, Kamiwada, Khan, and
Mackinlay, claim 34 as unpatentable over Bolton, Kamiwada, Khan, and
Deb, and claim 35 as unpatentable over Bolton, Kamiwada, Khan, and
Beverley.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1, 4---6, 8, 10-14,
16-18, 20, 22-25, and 31-35.
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
8