Ex Parte Coombe et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 10, 2018

13775308 (P.T.A.B. May. 10, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
131775,308 02/25/2013
100462 7590 05/14/2018
Dority & Manning P.A. and Google LLC
Post Office Box 1449
Greenville, SC 29602
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Greg Coombe
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-197 9040
EXAMINER
WU, CHONG
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2613
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/14/2018 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):
usdocketing@dority-manning.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte GREG COOMBE and FRANCOIS BAILL Y 1
Appeal2016-004817
Application 13/775,308
Technology Center 2600
Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., and
BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, Administrative Patent Judges.
BAUMEISTER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 1, 5-13, 16-18, and 20, which constitute all the
claims pending in this application. App. Br. 7. 2 Claims 2--4, 14--15, and 19
have been cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm-in-part.
1 Appellants list Google Inc. as the real party in interest. Revised Appeal
Brief 3, filed August 19, 2015 ("App. Br.").
2 Rather than repeat the Examiner's positions and Appellants' arguments in
their entirety, we refer to the above-mentioned Appeal Brief, as well as the
following documents, for their respective details: the Final Action, mailed
March 12, 2015 ("Final Act."); the Examiner's Answer mailed February 1,
2016 ("Ans."); and the Reply Brief filed April 1, 2016 ("Reply Br.").
Appeal2016-004817
Application 13/775,308
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants describe the present invention as follows:
A staged camera traversal for navigating a virtual camera
in a three dimensional environment is provided. The staged
camera traversal can include a launch stage and an approach
stage. During the launch stage, the tilt angle can be decreased
towards zero tilt (i.e. straight down) with respect to the vertical.
During an approach stage, the tilt angle of the virtual camera can
be increased from about zero tilt towards the tilt angle associated
with a target location. In certain implementations, the staged
camera traversal can further include a traversal stage occurring
between the launch stage and the approach stage. The tilt angle
of the virtual camera can be maintained at about zero tilt during
the traversal stage. The approach path of the virtual camera can
be aligned along a view direction associated with the target
destination during the approach stage.
Abstract.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Independent claim 1, reproduced below, illustrates the claimed
invention:
1. A computer-implemented method of navigating a virtual
camera, compnsmg:
presenting a view of a three dimensional model from a
virtual camera at a first location, the virtual camera having a first
tilt angle at the first location;
receiving a user input requesting transition of the virtual
camera to a second location, the virtual camera having a second
tilt angle at the second location; and
responsive to the user input and without further user
interaction, transitioning the virtual camera from the first
location to the second location according to a staged camera
traversal having a launch stage, a traversal stage and an approach
stage;
2
Appeal2016-004817
Application 13/775,308
wherein transitioning the virtual camera from the first
location to the second location according to the staged camera
traversal comprises increasing an altitude of the virtual camera
while decreasing a tilt angle of the virtual camera from the first
tilt angle towards zero tilt during the launch stage, maintaining
the tile angle of the virtual camera at about zero tilt during the
traversal stage, and decreasing an altitude of the virtual camera
while increasing the tilt angle of the virtual camera towards the
second tilt angle during the approach stage.
REFERENCES AND REJECTIONS ON APPEAL
Claims 1 and 11-13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over Bailly et al. (US 7,933,395 Bl; issued Apr. 26, 2011)
("Bailly"). Final Act. 3-8.
Claims 5-9 and 16-18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over Bailly and Varadhan et al. (US 2009/090259976 Al; published
October 15, 2009) ("Varadhan"). Final Act. 8-14.
Claims 10 and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious
over Bailly, Varadhan, and Aliprandi et al. (US 2010/0026712 Al; published
Feb. 4, 2010) ("Aliprandi"). Final Act. 14--16.
We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues
identified by Appellants, and in light of the arguments and evidence
produced thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 107 5 (BP AI 2010)
(precedential).
CLAIMS 1, 5-8, 11-13, 16, and 18
Examiner's Findings
The Examiner finds that Bailly discloses all of the limitations of
claim 1 with the exception of performing the camera transitioning without
3
Appeal2016-004817
Application 13/775,308
further user interaction. Final Act. 3--4. More specifically, the Examiner
finds that during Bailly's disclosed fly-through process, user interaction is
not required. Id. at 5. The Examiner also finds that Bailly teaches that
viewing parameters can be preset manually for the disclosed fly-through
process. Id. The Examiner further finds that Bailly expressly discloses
zoomed in and zoomed out states. Id.
Id.
Based on these findings, the Examiner concludes
it's very reasonable to preset camera parameters (e.g., camera
altitude and tilt angle) for zoomed in and zoomed out states in
the fly-through process to the settings used in Fig[ s]. 3b and 3c
as disclosed by Bailly, such that the staged camera transitioning
can be performed without further user interaction.
Final Act. 5.
The Examiner further concludes
[i]t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art
at the time of the invention to have modified the method of Bailly
to preset camera altitudes and tilt angles properly so that the
camera transitioning can be performed without further user
interaction. Viewing parameters are entirely designer's choices.
Increasing camera altitude while decreasing tilt angle or
decreasing camera altitude while increasing tilt angle are very
widely used designs.
The Examiner clarifies the rejection's rationale further in the Answer
(Ans. 2-11): the Examiner explains one portion of Bailly discloses
simulating a fly-through of a route from a start to stop location. Ans. 4
(citing Bailly Fig. 4, steps 403--411 ). In this simulation, the display
window 321 simulates a camera automatically zooming out, traversing from
one point to another, and automatically zooming in. Ans. 4--5. The
Examiner explains that Bailly teaches presetting viewing parameters,
4
Appeal2016-004817
Application 13/775,308
including altitudes and tilt angles, before the virtual tour is presented.
Ans. 8 (citing Bailly col. 16, 1. 42-58).
The Examiner further explains that Bailly teaches a separate
functionality wherein once the virtual camera is zoomed-in at a given
location, the user can manually control the camera's tilt angle for exploring
the location or "waypoint" in a free-style manner. Id. at 5. The Examiner
finds that Baily also discloses that using specific settings of camera altitude
and tilt angle advantageously provides more details of a building so that the
entire building's shape can be seen. Id. (citing Bailly col. 16, 1. 29;
FI Gs. 3b, 3c ).
The Examiner reasons that incorporating the specified altitudes and
tilt angles discussed in Bailly's manual functionality into the automated
zoomed-in portions of Bailly's fly-through process teaches all of the
limitations of claim 1. Ans. 6-7. We understand the Examiner to be
concluding that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to
combine these separately disclosed functionalities of Bailly, i.e., the manual
and automatic functions, so that the automated fly-through process
automates both the zoom functions and the tilt function to provide better
views of buildings during the fly-through's zoom-in periods, as taught by
Bailly. Id. at 8.
A claimed invention is not patentable if it merely automates a prior art
process. Broadly providing an automatic way to replace a manual activity
accomplishing the same result is not sufficient to distinguish an automated
process over the prior art. In re Venner, 262 F.2d 91, 95 (CCPA 1958). An
improved product in the art is obvious if that "product [is] not [one] of
innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense." KSR Int'! Co. v.
5
Appeal2016-004817
Application 13/775,308
Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421 (2007). Here, the Examiner has shown that
it would have been obvious to automate Bailly's manual activities.
The Examiner's clarifications in the Answer that Bailly' s combined
embodiments of manual and automated functions are being used moot some
of Appellants' arguments in the Appeal Brief. Cf, e.g., App. Br. 9 (wherein
Appellants argue that "the Office Action has failed to cite a single reference
or other teaching supporting the assertion that 'viewing parameters[,]' as set
forth in the manner of claim 1 [,] are 'entirely designer's choices"') with
Ans. 8 (explaining that Bailly is relied upon for teaching that it was known
to provide specific settings of camera altitude and tilt angle to improve the
appearance of buildings). Our analysis therefore focuses on Appellants'
remaining arguments presented in the Reply Brief.
Contentions and Analysis
Appellants assert "[t]he Examiner's Answer fails to demonstrate how
a user would use the 'tilt control 315 and rotate control 321' during the
'automatic[] zoom out and then slide over to and zoom in' to achieve 'a
staged camera traversal without further user interaction' as recited in the
[claim 1]." Reply Br. 3, bold emphasis omitted. This argument is
unpersuasive because the Examiner is not basing the rejection on the theory
of a user using the tilt control and rotate control in the modified teachings.
We understand the premise of the rejection to be that the functionality of the
tilt and rotate controls would be automated so that the user does not have to
control the tilt manually.
Appellants next argue that the Examiner is relying on functionality
from the two disparate embodiments of Bailly's Figures 3b and 3c, and as
such, the Examiner's Answer does not point to a single reference or
6
Appeal2016-004817
Application 13/775,308
embodiment that, alone, performs all of the claimed functionality. Reply
Br. 3. This argument is unpersuasive because the fact that the Examiner
relies upon different embodiments of Bailly is the precise reason the
Examiner issued an obviousness rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 instead of
an anticipation rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102. As the Examiner explains
(Ans. 9--10), arguments regarding anticipation are not applicable to the
obviousness rejection.
Appellants finally argue
the Examiner's Answer still fails to point to a single reference
that teaches "maintaining the tilt angle at about zero tilt during
the traversal stage" as recited in claim 1. The only analysis
provided in the Examiner's Answer is "sliding over to a location
implies there is no orientation change." Appellant disagrees.
Nothing in the word "sliding" necessarily indicates there is no
orientation change. In addition, even if there were no orientation
change, use of the term "sliding" does not necessarily indicate
that the tilt angle is maintained at about zero tilt.
Reply Br. 3--4.
This argument is unpersuasive. Bailly's Figure 3b depicts a high
elevation (zoomed-out) view of a city with a zero degree tilt. This
disclosure, in combination with Bailly's discussion of the fly-through
functionality (see, e.g., FIG. 4) either implies or at least suggests that the tilt
angle may be set to remain constant at a zero-degree tilt angle during the
route between destinations. See also Bailly, col. 16, 11. 34---62 (discussing
the virtual tours of user-defined paths). Bailly states within this discussion,
"[i]n one particular embodiment, the technique simulates a helicopter flying
along the chosen path (e.g., driving directions between two points, or a path
created manually using drawing tools) at a constant ground speed with a
constant tilt angle." Id. col. 16, 11. 54--58 (emphasis added).
7
Appeal2016-004817
Application 13/775,308
Conclusions
For the foregoing reasons, Appellants have not persuaded us of error
in the Examiner's obviousness rejection of independent claim 1. We
therefore sustain the Examiner's rejection of that claim, as well as dependent
claims 11-13, which are not argued separately. App. Br. 11-12; Reply
Br. 2--4.
We likewise sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejection of
claims 5-8, 16, and 18 over Bailly in view of Varadhan. Appellants have
not particularly pointed out errors in the Examiner's reasoning regarding the
additional teachings of Varadhan or Aliprandi, but merely reiterate the same
arguments that are set forth in relation to independent claim 1 regarding the
alleged deficiencies of Bailly. App. Br. 12-13, 17; see also generally
Reply Br.
CLAIMS 9, 10, 17, and 20
Claim 9, as well as dependent claim 8, from which claim 9 depends,
reads as follows:
8. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein
transitioning the virtual camera from the first location to the
second location according to the staged camera traversal
comprises aligning an approach path of the virtual camera with a
view direction associated with the second location during the
approach stage.
9. The computer-implemented method of claim 8, wherein
aligning an approach path of the virtual camera with a view
direction associated with the second location during the approach
stage comprises:
determining a first camera path extending along the view
direction associated with the target location;
8
Appeal2016-004817
Application 13/775,308
determining a second camera path that increases the tilt
angle of the virtual camera towards the second tilt angle and
decreases the altitude of the virtual camera; and
determining the approach path for the virtual camera by
blending one or more camera parameters defined by the first
camera path with one or more camera parameters defined by
second camera path.
Findings and Contentions
The Examiner finds in relation to claim 8 that "Bailly discloses
transitioning the virtual camera from the first location to the second location
according to the staged camera traversal ... , but fails to disclose aligning an
approach path of the virtual camera with a view direction associated with the
second location during the approach stage." Final Act. 10 (emphasis
omitted). The Examiner finds that Varadhan teaches this limitation and that
motivation existed to incorporate these teachings of Varadhan into Bailly's
invention. Id.
The Examiner then finds in relation to claim 9 that V aradhan
additionally teaches the steps of determining the two camera paths and
determining the approach path by blending the parameters of the two camera
paths. Id. at 10-11 (citing Varadhan, FIGs. IA, IB).
In the Answer, the Examiner expounds upon how the claim language
is being interpreted:
in [Figure 7 of Appellants' Specification], the "path extending
along the view direction associated with the target location"
(i.e.[,] path 450) is also aligned with a view direction
corresponding to the camera tilt angle at the target location (i.e.
tilt angle at F). However, such feature is not claimed. There is
no claimed limitation involving the relationship between the
"view direction associated with the target location"
and the "second tilt angle at the second location". Therefore, the
9
Appeal2016-004817
Application 13/775,308
"view direction associated with the target location" does not need
to be aligned with the view direction corresponding to a camera
tilt angle at the target location. Under the term's broadest
reasonable interpretation, any view direction having a line of
sight passing through the target location could be interpreted as
"a view direction associated with the target location". Path 450
in [the] above figure only shows a special case where the "view
direction associated with the target location" just overlaps the
view direction corresponding to the camera tilt angle at the target
location.
Ans. 14 (emphasis added).
Appellants argue, inter alia, that the Office Action has failed to
establish that FIG. lB discloses "a first camera path extending along the
view direction associated with the target location." App. Br. 16.
Analysis
Contrary to the Examiner's finding that claim 9 does not set forth
limitations relating to the direction of the first camera path (Ans. 14),
claim 9 expressly requires "a first camera path extending along the view
direction associated with the target location." The requirement is illustrated
in Appellants' Figure 7, which depicts first camera path 450 extending in the
same direction as the target location's view direction at point F.
Accordingly, Appellants have persuaded us of error in the Examiner's
obviousness rejection of dependent claim 9. We, therefore, do not sustain
the Examiner's rejection of that claim, or of claim 17, which recites similar
requirements.
We likewise do not sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejection of
claims 10 and 20 over Bailly, Varadhan, and Aliprandi. The Examiner does
not rely on Aliprandi to cure the noted deficiency of Varadhan. Final
Act. 14--16 (citing Aliprandi i-f 127).
10
Appeal2016-004817
Application 13/775,308
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1, 5-8, 11-13, 16, and 18 is
affirmed.
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 9, 10, 17, and 20 is
reversed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal maybe extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
11