Ex Parte Bassett et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Sep 8, 2010

10636980 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 8, 2010)

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.
10/636,980 08/08/2003 Scott Bassett 723-1417 1872
27562 7590 09/09/2010
NIXON & VANDERHYE, P.C.
901 NORTH GLEBE ROAD, 11TH FLOOR
ARLINGTON, VA 22203
EXAMINER
HAJNIK, DANIEL F
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2628
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/09/2010 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 BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte SCOTT BASSETT and SHIGEKI YAMASHIRO
____________________

Appeal 2009-004685
Application 10/636,9801
Technology Center 2600

____________________

Before JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO, MARC S. HOFF,
and THOMAS S. HAHN, Administrative Patent Judges.

HOFF, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL2

1 The real party in interest is Nintendo Co. Ltd.
2 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, or filing a request for rehearing, as
recited in 37 C.F.R. § 41.52, begins to run from the “MAIL DATE” (paper
delivery mode) or the “NOTIFICATION DATE” (electronic delivery mode)
shown on the PTOL-90A cover letter attached to this decision.
Appeal 2009-004685
Application 10/636,980

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Non-Final
Rejection of claims 1-5, 7-16, and 20-23. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Appellants’ invention relates to dynamic virtual camera effects for
video game play and other computer graphics simulations to enhance the
illusion of speed. In one embodiment, the field of view of a virtual camera
is narrowed while simultaneously increasing the distance between the virtual
camera and a moving object as the speed of the moving object through the
three-dimensional scene increases. This simultaneous control provides the
illusion of speed while avoiding distortions caused by changing the apparent
size of the displayed object (Abstract).
Claim 1 is exemplary:
1. A method of generating an interactive display of a three-dimensional
scene using a 3D computer graphics system, the method comprising:
defining a computer-based three-dimensional scene including an
object that can move relative to the scene;
displaying said object moving within said three-dimensional scene;
determining the rate said object is moving within the scene; and
simultaneously controlling the field of view of a virtual camera, the
distance of said virtual camera from said object, and the height of the virtual
camera relative to said scene, at least in part in response to said determined
rate of motion, wherein said controlling step cooperatively, dynamically
controls said field of view, said distance and said height to maintain
substantially constant displayed object size while enhancing the illusion of
speed of said object as said object moves within said scene.

2
Appeal 2009-004685
Application 10/636,980

The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Naka US 5,411,270 May 2, 1995
Robertson US 5,608,850 Mar. 4, 1997
Iizuka US 6,377,264 B1 Apr. 23, 2002
Koike US 6,650,329 B1 Nov. 18, 2003
Fukuda US 6,670,957 B2 Dec. 30, 2003

Steven M. Drucker et al. “CINEMA: A System for Procedural Camera
Movements,” Proceedings of the Symposium on Interactive 3D Graphics,
Cambridge, MA pgs. 67-70, 1992.

Claims 7-9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as non-statutory
subject matter.3
Claims 1-5, 7-13, and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Fukuda in view of Drucker.
Claim 20 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Fukuda in view of Drucker and Iizuka.
Claims 14-16 and 21-22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Fukuda in view of Drucker, Iizuka, Koike,
Robertson, and Naka.
Rather than repeat the arguments of Appellants or the Examiner, we
make reference to the Appeal Brief (filed March 28, 2008), the Reply Brief
(filed July 28, 2008), and the Examiner’s Answer (mailed May 29, 2008) for
their respective details.

3 The Examiner has withdrawn this rejection (Ans. 2).
3
Appeal 2009-004685
Application 10/636,980

ISSUE
Appellants contend that Drucker does not disclose the camera control
combination claimed nor that such a combination could be used to create an
illusion of increased speed (App. Br. 13). Appellants assert that Drucker
does not disclose simultaneously controlling the three specific virtual camera
parameters: (1) the field of view of a virtual camera; (2) the distance of said
virtual camera from said object; and (3) the height of the virtual camera
relative to the scene as required by the claims (App. Br. 13-14; Reply Br. 2).
As such, Appellants argue that the Examiner has failed to make a prima
facie case of obviousness (App. Br. 14).
Appellants contend further that Drucker does not disclose virtual
camera control in response to an object’s rate of motion through a three
dimensional (3D) scene to create an illusion of speed (App. Br. 16).
Appellants assert that since the dramatic effect of the "vertigo shot"
disclosed in Drucker is to impart spiral-like apparent motion to a stationary
stairwell, there is no evidence that one skilled in the art would destroy the
dramatic effect of this shot and “modify Drucker to couple the claimed
camera parameters to the determined rate of motion of the object” (App. Br.
16). Appellants argue further that the Examiner's reliance on Drucker's
suggestion to "track the motion of a walking figure while preventing the
camera from moving through walls" does not disclose virtual camera control
in response to an object’s rate of motion through a 3D scene to create an
illusion of speed (App. Br. 16). As such, Appellants assert that the
Examiner used impermissible hindsight (App. Br. 16). Appellants argue that
just because Drucker could be programmed to provide the claimed
4
Appeal 2009-004685
Application 10/636,980

combination does not mean that the claimed combination is obvious in view
of Drucker (App. Br. 17).
Appellants’ contentions present us with the following issue:
Do the references disclose “simultaneously controlling the field of
view of a virtual camera, the distance of said virtual camera from said
object, and the height of the virtual camera relative to said scene, at least in
part in response to said determined rate of motion, wherein said controlling
step cooperatively, dynamically controls said field of view, said distance and
said height to maintain substantially constant displayed object size while
enhancing the illusion of speed of said object as said object moves within
said scene,” as recited in claim 1?

FINDINGS OF FACT
The following Findings of Fact (FF) are shown by a preponderance of
the evidence.
Fukuda
1. Fukuda discloses an entertainment apparatus, storage medium
and an object display method that gives the viewer a desired feeling of speed
when a moving picture is obtained by photographing a controlled object
moving in a virtual three dimensional field using a virtual camera, wherein
the moving picture is displayed on display screen. A positional relation in
the three dimensional field between the controlled object and the virtual
camera is determined so that the virtual camera moves farther from the
controlled object according to a moving speed of the controlled object in the
three dimensional field. When the player increases the moving speed of the
object, a pictorial image surrounding the object taken (or Field of View) by
5
Appeal 2009-004685
Application 10/636,980

the virtual camera broadens depending on the increased amount of speed
(Abstract; col. 3, ll. 1-25).
2. Fukuda discloses that the virtual camera is controlled to track
moving objects and moving the camera in the three dimensions of x, y, and
z, where the z axis represents that height of the camera setup point (Figs. 8,
15A, and 15B).
Drucker
3. Drucker discloses a cinema system that has a procedural
interface for specifying camera movements relative to objects, events, and
the general state of an environment which enables the implementation of
many common interactive metaphors and proves the ability to build higher
level parameterized procedures (Introduction, p. 67, first para.).
4. Drucker discloses a cinema system that simulates Hitchcock’s
“vertigo shot” where the camera moves outwards while the field of view
grows narrower keeping the object a constant size at the center of the frame
which makes viewers feel as if they are moving closer and closer to an
unattainable goal (Example 2, p. 69, first para.).
5. Drucker discloses that the virtual camera can track the motion
of a walking figure. Camera movements can be interactively adjusted to
achieve a desire result. (4. Future Work, p. 69-70, first-second para.).

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
On the issue of obviousness, the Supreme Court has stated that “the
obviousness analysis cannot be confined by a formalistic conception of the
words teaching, suggestion, and motivation.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
550 U.S. 398, 419 (2007). Further, the Court stated “[t]he combination of
6
Appeal 2009-004685
Application 10/636,980

familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when
it does no more than yield predictable results.” Id. at 416.

ANALYSIS
Claims 1-5, 7-13, and 23
We select claim 1 as representative of this group of claims, pursuant
to our authority under 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
Representative claim 1 recites “simultaneously controlling the field of
view of a virtual camera, the distance of said virtual camera from said
object, and the height of the virtual camera relative to said scene, at least in
part in response to said determined rate of motion, wherein said controlling
step cooperatively, dynamically controls said field of view, said distance and
said height to maintain substantially constant displayed object size while
enhancing the illusion of speed of said object as said object moves within
said scene.” Independent claims 7 and 10 recite a similar claim limitation.
We do not consider Appellants’ arguments supra to be persuasive to
show Examiner error. Specifically, Fukuda discloses an entertainment
apparatus that gives the viewer a desired feeling of speed when a moving
picture is obtained by photographing a controlled object moving in a virtual
three dimensional field using a virtual camera (FF 1). In response to the
moving speed of the controlled object in the three dimensional field, a
positional relation in the three dimensional field between the controlled
object and the virtual camera is determined so that the virtual camera moves
farther from the controlled object (FF 1). When the player increases the
moving speed of the object, a pictorial image surrounding the object taken
(or Field of View) by the virtual camera broadens depending on the
7
Appeal 2009-004685
Application 10/636,980

increased amount of speed (FF 1). Fukuda further discloses that the virtual
camera is controlled to track moving objects and that the camera may be
moved in three dimensions (x, y, and z), where the z axis represents the
height of the camera setup point (FF 2).
Drucker discloses a cinema system that has a procedural interface for
specifying camera movements relative to objects, events, and the general
state of an environment (FF 3). More particularly, Drucker discloses a
cinema system that simulates Hitchcock’s “vertigo shot,” in which the
camera moves outwards while the field of view grows narrower keeping the
object a constant size at the center of the frame, which makes viewers feel as
if they are moving closer and closer to an unattainable goal (FF 4). Hence,
we agree with the Examiner’s finding that Drucker discloses simultaneously
controlling the three parameters of field of view, camera distance from an
object, and virtual camera height within a three-dimensional scene (Ans. 16-
17; FF 4). Further, Drucker discloses that the virtual camera can track the
motion of a walking figure and that camera movements can be interactively
adjusted to achieve a desired result (FF 5).
We agree with the Examiner’s finding that the “vertigo shot” of
Drucker gives the illusion of speed and motion (Ans. 17). We also agree
with the Examiner’s finding that the “vertigo shot” is acquired through
complex camera movement, wherein the camera movement, field of view
and constant object size meet the “controlling” step of the claim, these
parameters being simultaneously and dynamically controlled (Ans. 16-17).
In summary, we agree with the Examiner’s finding that it would have
been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Fukuda to
incorporate the “vertigo shot” of Drucker into the virtual camera shown in
8
Appeal 2009-004685
Application 10/636,980

Figure 8 of Fukuda, such that in response to the rate of motion, the camera’s
field of view, distance, and height from the object are controlled
simultaneously for the purpose of enhancing the illusion of speed (Ans. 5-6).
Therefore, we find that the Examiner has established the prima facie
obviousness of the claims, because the combination of Fukuda and Drucker
discloses “simultaneously controlling the field of view of a virtual camera,
the distance of said virtual camera from said object, and the height of the
virtual camera relative to said scene, at least in part in response to said
determined rate of motion, wherein said controlling step cooperatively,
dynamically controls said field of view, said distance and said height to
maintain substantially constant displayed object size while enhancing the
illusion of speed of said object as said object moves within said scene.”
As a result, we will sustain the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of
representative claim 1 and that of independent claims 7 and 10, and also that
of dependent claims 2-5, 8-9, 10-13, and 23.
Claims 14-16 and 20-22
Appellants argue that that claims 14-16 are patentable over the cited
prior art because the claims depend from claim 1 and that claims 20-22 are
patentable over the cited prior art because the claims depend from claim 10
(App. Br. 19).
As noted supra, however, we find that the combination of Fukuda and
Drucker teaches all the features of independent claims 1 and 10. We,
therefore, affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claim 14-16 and 20-22 under
35 U.S.C. § 103, for the same reasons expressed with respect to parent
claims 1 and 10, supra.
9
Appeal 2009-004685
Application 10/636,980

CONCLUSIONS
The references disclose “simultaneously controlling the field of view
of a virtual camera, the distance of said virtual camera from said object, and
the height of the virtual camera relative to said scene, at least in part in
response to said determined rate of motion, wherein said controlling step
cooperatively, dynamically controls said field of view, said distance and said
height to maintain substantially constant displayed object size while
enhancing the illusion of speed of said object as said object moves within
said scene.”

ORDER
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-5, 7-16, and 20-23 is affirmed.
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).

10
Appeal 2009-004685
Application 10/636,980

AFFIRMED

ELD

NIXON & VANDERHYE, P.C.
901 NORTH GLEBE ROAD, 11TH FLOOR
ARLINGTON VA 22203

11