SONY CORPORATION

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardNov 19, 2021

2020005271 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 19, 2021)

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. 15/765,805 04/04/2018 Junichi TANAKA 1946-1061 1019 142241 7590 11/19/2021 Paratus Law Group, PLLC 1765 Greensboro Station Place Suite 320 Tysons Corner, VA 22102 EXAMINER MESSMORE, JONATHAN R ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2482 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 11/19/2021 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 JUNICHI TANAKA Appeal 2020-005271 Application 15/765,805 Technology Center 2400 BeforeJEAN R. HOMERE, ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, and LARRY J. HUME, Administrative Patent Judges. HOMERE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE1 Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant2 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1 and 3–24 which constitute all of the claims pending. Appeal Br. 5. Claim 2 is cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. 1 We refer to the Specification, filed April 4, 2018 (“Spec.”); the Final Office Action, mailed Nov. 5, 2019 (“Final Act.”); the Appeal Brief, filed Mar. 18, 2020 (“Appeal Br.”); the Reply Brief, filed July 8, 2020 (“Reply Br.”); the Examiner’s Answer, mailed June 22, 2020 (“Ans.”). 2 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “Applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Sony Corp. Appeal Br. 3. Appeal 2020-005271 Application 15/765,805 2 II. CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER According to Appellant, the claimed subject matter relates to an encoding /decoding method and system by which two-dimensional image data of a viewpoint corresponding to a predetermined display image generation method and depth image data can be acquired without depending upon the viewpoint upon image pickup. Spec. ¶ 1. Figures 1 and 2, reproduced below, are useful for understanding the claimed subject matter: Figure 1 shows image data transmitted through image pickup apparatus (11) followed by encoding/decoding (12, 13) and then displayed (14). Spec. ¶ 22. The image pickup apparatus (11) includes a multi-camera, a distance measuring feature and an image processing unit. Id. ¶ 23. Appeal 2020-005271 Application 15/765,805 3 Figure 2 shows conversion unit (21) including two-dimensional data generation unit (53) using three-dimensional data of an image pickup object to generate two-dimensional image data and depth data, which is then encoded. Spec. ¶¶ 41, 42. Claims 1, 10, 11, 20, 23, and 24 are independent. Claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed subject matter (disputed limitations emphasized): 1. An encoding apparatus, comprising: a two-dimensional data generation unit configured to generate, from a three-dimensional model of an image pickup object, two-dimensional image data of a plurality of first viewpoints corresponding to a given display image generation method and depth image data indicative of a position of each of pixels in a depthwise direction of the image pickup object with respect to a second viewpoint; an encoding unit configured to encode the two- dimensional image data of the plurality of first viewpoints and Appeal 2020-005271 Application 15/765,805 4 the depth image data generated by the two-dimensional data generation unit; and a transmission unit configured to transmit the two- dimensional image data of the plurality of first viewpoints and the depth image data encoded by the encoding unit, wherein the two-dimensional data generation unit, the encoding unit, and the transmission unit are each implemented via at least one processor. III. REFERENCES The Examiner relies upon the following references as evidence.3 Name Reference Date Pfister et al. US 2005/0185711 A1 Aug. 25, 2005 Liu et al. (Liu ‘264) US 2010/0238264 A1 Sept. 23, 2010 Redert et al. US 2011/0242279 A1 Oct. 6, 2011 Liu (Liu ‘437) US 2013/0021437 A1 Jan. 24, 2013 Kang et al. US 2017/0223338 A1 Aug. 3, 2017 IV. REJECTIONS The Examiner rejects claims 1, 4, 5, 8–11, 13–15, 18–20, 23, and 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Pfister. Final Act. 3. The Examiner rejects claims 3 and 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the teachings of Pfister and Liu ‘264. Final Act. 6. The Examiner rejects claims 6 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the teachings of Pfister and Redert. Final Act. 7. 3 All reference citations are to the first named inventor only. Appeal 2020-005271 Application 15/765,805 5 The Examiner rejects claims 7 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the teachings of Pfister and Liu ‘437. Final Act. 8. The Examiner rejects claims 21 and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the teachings of Pfister and Kang. Final Act. 10. V. ANALYSIS We consider Appellant’s arguments seriatim, as they are presented in the Appeal Brief, pages 14–21.4 We are unpersuaded by Appellant’s contentions on the anticipation and obviousness rejections. Except as otherwise indicated herein below, we adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth in the Final Action, and the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellant’s Appeal Brief. Final Act. 3–12; Ans. 3–6. However, we highlight and address specific arguments and findings for emphasis as follows. A. Anticipation Rejection of Claims 1, 4, 5, 8–11, 13–15, 18–20, 23, and 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) Appellant selects independent claim 1 as representative of claims 1, 4, 5, 8–11, 13–15, 18–20, 23, and 24 on appeal. Appeal Br. 17. Appellant argues the reference Pfister does not disclose the disputed limitations An encoding apparatus, comprising: a two-dimensional data generation unit configured to generate, from a three-dimensional model of an image pickup object, two- dimensional image data of a plurality of first viewpoints corresponding to a given display image generation method and depth image data indicative of a position of each of pixels in a 4 We have considered in this Decision only those arguments Appellant actually raised in the Briefs. Arguments not made are forfeited. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2017). Appeal 2020-005271 Application 15/765,805 6 depthwise direction of the image pickup object with respect to a second viewpoint. Appeal Br. 14. Appellant disagrees with the Examiner’s finding that Pfister’s system discloses the disputed limitation. Appeal Br. 15. Appellant argues Pfister’s disclosure in paragraph 21 is completely unrelated to its disclosure in paragraph 87 because paragraph 21 is in the “BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION” and merely introduces the history of 3D technology whereas paragraph 87 is in the “DESCRIPTION OF THE PREFERRED EMBODIMENT.” Appeal Br. 15–16 (emphasis omitted). Appellant further argues “Pfister is completely silent regarding any generating, from a three- dimensional model of an image pickup object . . . .” Appeal Br. 16 (emphasis omitted). The Examiner finds Pfister’s system that adapts to other 3D TV compression algorithms, encodes multiple views, for example into 2D video plus depth maps, and transmits and decodes in the display stage discloses the disputed limitation “a two-dimensional data generation unit configured to generate, from a three-dimensional model of an image pickup object.” Final Act. 3–4; Ans. 3–4. We are not persuaded the Examiner erred and agree with the Examiner’s findings because Pfister’s system encoding multiple views into 2D video plus depth maps from 3D TV compression algorithms discloses that the 2D images are generated from a 3D model and thus discloses the disputed limitation of claim 1. See Pfister ¶ 89. Appeal 2020-005271 Application 15/765,805 7 Therefore, on this record, we are not persuaded of Examiner error in the anticipation rejection of claim 1 and grouped claims 4, 5, 8–11, 13–15, 18–20, 23, and 24. B. Obviousness Rejections of Claims 3, 6, 7, 12, 16, and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 Appellant does not present any substantive arguments regarding dependent claims 3, 6, 7, 12, 16, and 17. Appeal Br. 17–20. Therefore, we affirm the Examiner’s rejections of these claims 3, 6, 7, 12, 16, and 17. Arguments not made are waived. C. Obviousness Rejection of Claims 21 and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 Regarding the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 21 and 22, Appellant argues Kang fails to alleviate the deficiencies of Pfister and that Kang still fails to teach or suggest “a two-dimensional data generation unit configured to generate, from a three-dimensional model of an image pickup object.” Appeal Br. 20 (emphasis omitted). However, we agree with the Examiner’s findings because Kang’s modified set of two-dimensional coordinate points, determined from the three-dimensional mesh using pixel to pixel mapping, teaches or at least suggests the disputed limitation, i.e., “a two-dimensional data generation unit configured to generate, from a three-dimensional model of an image pickup object.” See Kang ¶ 34; Ans. 5; Final Act. 10. We also note a disclosure that anticipates under 35 U.S.C. § 102 also renders the claim unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103, for “anticipation is the epitome of obviousness.” Jones v. Hardy, 727 F.2d 1524, 1529 (Fed. Cir. Appeal 2020-005271 Application 15/765,805 8 1984). See also In re Fracalossi, 681 F.2d 792, 794 (CCPA 1982); In re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399 (CCPA 1974). Therefore, on this record, we are not persuaded of Examiner error in the obviousness rejection of claims 21 and 22. VI. CONCLUSION We affirm the anticipation rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) of claims 1, 4, 5, 8–11, 13–15, 18–20, 23, and 24 and also affirm the obviousness rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of claims 3, 6, 7, 12, 16, 17, 21, and 22. VII. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Bas is Affirmed Reversed 1, 4, 5, 8–11, 13–15, 18– 20, 23, 24 102(a)(1) Pfister 1, 4, 5, 8–11, 13–15, 18– 20, 23, 24 3, 12 103 Pfister, Liu ‘264 3, 12 6, 16 103 Pfister, Redert 6, 16 7, 17 103 Pfister, Liu ‘437 7, 17 21, 22 103 Pfister, Kang 21, 22 Overall Outcome 1, 3–24 No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). See 37 C.F.R. § 41.(f). AFFIRMED