Ex Parte Atanassov et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 29, 2016

13218379 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 29, 2016)

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.
13/218,379 08/25/2011 Kalin Atanassov QCMLF.144A/102580 7794
14870 7590 01/03/2017
KNOBBE, MARTENS, OLSON & BEAR, LLP
2040 Main Street
Fourteenth Floor
Irvine, CA 92614
EXAMINER
RAHMAN, MOHAMMAD J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2487
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/03/2017 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):
ocpat_uspto@qualcomm.com
efiling @ knobbe. com
j ayna.cartee @ knobbbe. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte KALIN ATANASSOV, SERGIU R. GOMA, JOSEPH CHEUNG,
and VIKAS RAMACHANDRA
Appeal 2016-001638
Application 13/218,3791
Technology Center 2600
Before ELINI MANTIS MERCADER, TERRENCE W. MCMILLIN, and
NORMAN H. BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judges.
BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 1—31. We have jurisdiction over the pending
rejected claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 Appellants identify Qualcomm Corporation as the real party in interest.
(App. Br. 4.)
Appeal 2016-001638
Application 13/218,379
THE INVENTION
Appellants’ disclosed and claimed invention is directed to determining
a user’s preference for depicting a stereoscopic effect. (Abstract.)
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on
appeal:
1. A method, implemented on an electronic device, for
determining a parameter for a stereoscopic effect comprising:
displaying to a user a plurality of images comprising a
stereoscopic effect of an object, the object depicted at a
plurality of three-dimensional locations by the plurality of
images, wherein at least two of the plurality of three-
dimensional locations have different depth positions;
receiving a selection from the user of a preferred image
having a preferred three-dimensional location of the object, the
preferred three-dimensional location being selected from the at
least two of the plurality of three-dimensional locations
displayed to the user; and
determining a parameter for stereoscopic depictions of
additional images based upon the selection, wherein the
parameter corresponds to a depth range of the stereoscopic
effect of the object preferred by the user.
REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejected claims 1—9, 11—23, 25—28, 30, and 31 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Tomita (US 2006/0203085 Al,
pub. Sept. 14, 2006) and Kang et al. (US 2011/0304690 Al, pub. Dec. 15,
2011) (“Kang”). (Final Act. 2-10.)
The Examiner rejected claims 10 and 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Tomita, Kang, and “Tomital” (US 7,489,319 B2,
issued Feb. 10,2009). (Final Act. 10-11.)
2
Appeal 2016-001638
Application 13/218,379
The Examiner rejected claim 29 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Tomita, Kang, and Bi (US 2011/0107216 Al, pub. May 5,
2011). (Final Act. 11.)
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 12, 17, and 26 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Tomita and Bu et al. (US 2012/0188226
Al, pub. July 26, 2012) (“Bu”). (Final Act. 12-15.)
ISSUE ON APPEAL
Appellants’ arguments in the Briefs present the following issue:2
Whether the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Tomita and
Kang or, alternatively, the combination of Tomita and Bu, teaches or
suggests the independent claim 1 limitations:
[Rjeceiving a selection from the user of a preferred
image having a preferred three-dimensional location of the
object, the preferred three-dimensional location being selected
from the at least two of the plurality of three-dimensional
locations displayed to the user; and
determining a parameter for stereoscopic depictions of
additional images based upon the selection, wherein the
parameter corresponds to a depth range of the stereoscopic
effect of the object preferred by the user,
and the similar limitations recited in independent claims 12, 17, and 26.
(App. Br. 8—16.)
2 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the findings of the
Examiner, we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed May 1, 2015); the Reply Brief
(filed Nov. 19, 2015); the Final Office Action (mailed Nov. 14, 2014); and
the Examiner’s Answer (mailed Sept. 21, 2015) for the respective details.
3
Appeal 2016-001638
Application 13/218,379
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
arguments the Examiner erred. We disagree with Appellants’ arguments,
and we adopt as our own (1) the pertinent findings and reasons set forth by
the Examiner in the Action from which this appeal is taken (Final Act.
2—15) and (2) the corresponding findings and reasons set forth by the
Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellants’ Appeal Brief
(Ans. 3—7). We concur with the applicable conclusions reached by the
Examiner, and emphasize the following.
In finding Tomita and Kang teach or suggest the independent claim
limitations at issue, the Examiner relies on the disclosure in Tomita of a
three-dimensional display which accounts for “individual variations” via a
manually set depth adjust signal “to finely adjust the stereoscopic depth
according to the observer’s preference and thereby produce a 3D image most
suited to the observer.” (Ans. 4—5; Tomita Fig. 5, Tflf 73—74, 108—109.) The
Examiner also relies on the disclosure in Kang of a three-dimensional
display receiving a user’s selection for adjusting the depth of a displayed
three-dimensional video signal while viewing the image so that it is
“properly displayed.” (Final Act. 3, Ans. 4—5, Kang Figs. 2-4, 6, 49, 71,
94.)
In finding Tomita and Bu also teach or suggest the independent claim
limitations at issue, the Examiner relies on the above discussed disclosure in
Tomita, and on the disclosure in Bu of a stereoscopic display for which “the
user may select a depth range among the plurality of depth ranges based on
personal preference via an interface” in order to avoid “visual discomfort.”
(Final Act. 12; Bu 32, 34.) Bu further provides:
4
Appeal 2016-001638
Application 13/218,379
[T]he user may thus verily whether the displayed testing
stereoscopic image provides a proper stereoscopic effect in the
current viewing environment. If the testing stereoscopic image
is not satisfactory, the user may choose to further fine-tune the
selected depth range. . . .
(Bu 147.)
Appellants argue the Examiner errs as to both combinations because
none of the cited references involve displaying two or more images at
different depths and allowing the user to select the desired depth — e.g.,
“There is no teaching ... of a selection of a preferred image having a
preferred three dimensional location.” (App. Br. 10, 14—15.) Appellants
further argue the combinations do not determine the required depth range
parameter, again because the references do not “disclose a system that
presents a plurality of images at differing depths to a user and allows the
user to select a particular image that is preferred.” (App. Br. 11—12.)
Appellants’ arguments are not persuasive given the disclosures of the
cited combinations — for example, the above-summarized disclosures
whereby users adjust depth parameters to arrive at an “image most suited to
the observer”; or view the image so that it is “properly displayed”; or “fine-
tune the selected depth range” to obtain a satisfactory image. Because these
operations involve the user viewing successive images at different depth
values, we find no error in the Examiner’s finding such disclosures at least
teach or suggest the further embellishment of simultaneously displaying
images at various depths and selecting the depth parameters via selecting the
desired image. (Ans. 3—7.)
Appellants further argue there would be no reason to combine Tomita
with Kang or Bu because Tomita “already discloses an input unit. . . that is
5
Appeal 2016-001638
Application 13/218,379
configured to output a depth adjustment signal which can adjust the
stereoscopic images to produce an optimum three-dimensional effect.”
(App. Br. 12—13, 15—16.) However, “the test for obviousness is not whether
the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the
structure of the primary reference.” In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA
1981). Instead, the relevant issue is “what the combined teachings of the
references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.” Id.
“Combining the teachings of references does not involve an ability to
combine their specific structures.” In reNievelt, 482 F.2d 965, 968 (CCPA
1973). We agree with the Examiner’s findings, given the above discussion,
and given that the cited references, as well as the subject matter of the
pending claims, are commonly directed to determine the desired depth
parameters of three-dimensional displays, the combinations relied on by the
Examiner are properly supported. (Ans. 3—4, 7.)
Appellants do not point to any evidence of record that the
combinations would be “uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary
skill in the art” or “represented an unobvious step over the prior art.”
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, 418-19 (2007)).
The Examiner’s findings are reasonable because the skilled artisan would
“be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a
puzzle” because the skilled artisan is “a person of ordinary creativity, not an
automaton.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 420-21. We are persuaded the claimed
subject matter exemplifies the principle that “[t]he combination of familiar
elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does
no more than yield predictable results.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 416.
6
Appeal 2016-001638
Application 13/218,379
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, we sustain the obviousness rejections of
independent claims 1, 12, 17, and 26 over Tomita and Kang, and we also
sustain the obviousness rejections of those claims over Tomita and Bu. We
also sustain the obviousness rejections of claims 2—9, 11, 13—16, 18—23, 25,
27, 28, 30, and 31 over Tomita and Kang, which rejections are not argued
separately with particularity.
For the obviousness rejections of claims 10 and 24 over Tomita,
Kang, and Tomital, and of claim 29 over Tomita, Kang, and Bi, Appellants
raise the same arguments made for the independent claims, and therefore we
also sustain those rejections. (App. Br. 13.)
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s obviousness rejections of claims 1—31.
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
7