Ex Parte Ebisawa et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 14, 2016

13028329 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 14, 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.
13/028,329 02/16/2011 Yasushi Ebisawa MEN-723-3009 8534
27562 7590 12/16/2016
NIXON & VANDERHYE, P.C.
901 NORTH GLEBE ROAD, 11TH FLOOR
ARLINGTON, VA 22203
EXAMINER
NGUYEN, VU
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2619
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/16/2016 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):
PTOMAIL@nixonvan.com
pair_nixon @ firsttofile. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte YASUSHI EBISAWA and EIJIMUKAO
Appeal 2015-007876
Application 13/028,329
Technology Center 2600
Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, MARC S. HOFF, and
JOHN D. HAMANN, Administrative Patent Judges.
DIXON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims
1—9 and 11—20. Dependent claim 10 has been canceled. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
Appeal 2015-007876
Application 13/028,329
The claims are directed to a computer-readable storage medium
having stored therein a display control program, display control apparatus,
display control method, and display control system. Claim 1, reproduced
below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium
having stored therein a display control program which is
executed by a computer of a display control apparatus that
displays a three-dimensional virtual space on a display apparatus
capable of stereoscopic display, the display control program
causing the computer to perform features comprising:
placing virtual objects including a first object in the three-
dimensional virtual space;
specifying a distance between the first object placed in the
three-dimensional virtual space and a viewpoint position based
on positions of a left virtual camera and a right virtual camera
used for virtually shooting the virtual space;
setting, in accordance with the specified distance, a degree
of transparency of a part or entirety of the first object such that
the longer the distance is, the higher the degree of transparency
is;
generating an image for a right eye and an image for a left
eye by shooting the three-dimensional virtual space with the right
virtual camera and the left virtual camera, respectively, so that
the first object, which is included in each of the image for a right
eye and the image for a left eye, has the set degree of
transparency; and
displaying the generated image for the right eye and the
generated image for the left eye on the display apparatus.
2
Appeal 2015-007876
Application 13/028,329
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Snyder et al. US 6,326,964 B1 Dec. 4,2001
Mashitani US 2005/0253924 Al Nov. 17, 2005
Takahashi et al. US 2010/0039504 Al Feb. 18,2010
Doc:2.4/Manual/World/Mist-BlenderWiki, wiki.blender.org/index.php?
title=Doc:2.4/Manual/World/Mist&oldid=84716, Blender, (last visited
3/14/14) (“Blender”)
REJECTIONS
The Examiner made the following rejections:
Claims 1—4 and 10-19 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Mashitani in view of Blender.
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Mashitani and Blender as applied above, and further
in view of Snyder.
Claims 7—9 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Mashitani and Blender, as applied above, and further in
view of Takahashi.
3
Appeal 2015-007876
Application 13/028,329
ANALYSIS
Appellants present similar arguments for independent claims 1 and
13—15 together. We address independent claim 1 as the illustrative claim for
the group because the claims contain similar limitations.
With respect to illustrative independent claim 1, Appellants contend
illustrative claim 1 recites “specifying a distance between the first object
placed in the three-dimensional virtual space and a viewpoint position based
on positions of a left virtual camera and a right virtual camera used for
virtually shooting the virtual space” and “setting, in accordance with the
specified distance, a degree of transparency of a part or entirety of the first
object such that the longer the distance is, the higher the degree of
transparency is ” (emphasis in original). Appellants further contend that
Mashitani and Blender fail to disclose or suggest such features, nor would it
have been obvious to modify Blender’s technique with Mashitani. (App. Br.
13).
The Examiner responds to Appellants’ arguments by interpreting
Appellants’ claim language using the broadest reasonable interpretation in
light of the Specification. (Ans. 2). The Examiner finds that Appellants are
arguing against the references individually and consequently that
Appellants’ arguments are not persuasive. (Ans. 3—4). The Examiner finds
that the Mashitani reference discloses a single camera embodiment and a
multiple camera embodiment identifying paragraphs 80, 82, 144 and Figures
5—10, 26, and 29-32. (Ans. 4). With regards to Appellants’ arguments, the
Examiner further finds that “the claim requires altering transparency of an
object for rendering, rather than Appellants’[sic] assertion of altering the
transparency of a stereoscopically displayed image” and “Blender reads on
4
Appeal 2015-007876
Application 13/028,329
limitation (2) [“setting, in accordance with the specified distance, a degree of
transparency of a part or entirety of the first object such that the longer the
distance is, the higher the degree of transparency is”] by making objects
farther away (i.e., based on specified distance) from the camera more
transparent. Blender, p. 2,11. 57—61.” (Ans. 5). The Examiner finally
concludes that:
by combining Mashitani and Blender based on the discussion
above and previously cited in Final Rejection, one of ordinary
skill in the art finds it obvious to “[specify] a distance between
the first object placed in the three-dimensional virtual space and
a viewpoint position based on positions of a left virtual camera
and a right virtual camera used for virtually shooting the virtual
space”; and (2) “[set], in accordance with the specified distance,
a degree of transparency of a part or entirety of the first object
such that the longer the distance is, the higher the degree of
transparency is” to an enhance the illusion of depth, for example.
(Ans. 5—6).
Appellants contend that neither the Mashitani nor Blender references
specify a viewpoint position based on positions of left and right virtual
cameras in order to set a degree of transparency of an object in a virtual
space. (Reply Br. 2). Appellants further contend that the Blender reference
regarding the single virtual camera position in combination with the alleged
three-dimensional display of the Mashitani reference would not suggest to
indicate that the degree of transparency is set based on positions of left and
right virtual cameras. That is, the claims require both “a left virtual camera
and a right virtual camera” and the combination still fails to show the
requisite nexus indicating that a degree of transparency of an object will be
set based on positions related to the multiple virtual cameras. (Reply Br. 2).
We agree with Appellants. Appellants further argue:
5
Appeal 2015-007876
Application 13/028,329
the three-dimensional image in Mashitani appears to be a result
of multiple real cameras in combination with a single temporary
camera placed in a virtual space. That is, Mashitani appears to
generate the three-dimensional image using only a single
temporary virtual camera placed in the virtual space, and does
not appear to create the three-dimensional image using both left
and right virtual cameras. While Mashitani indicates that it is
possible to use multiple “temporary cameras,”' Mashitani’s
teachings are clear that only a single temporary camera is used in
generating the three-dimensional image. Thus, even if combined
with Blender, the combination appears to only result in a single
virtual camera being used to create some type of alleged three-
dimensional image.
(Reply Br. 3). Appellants further contend that even with the
Examiner’s proffered extension of the Blender reference from a two-
dimensional image to a three-dimensional image, the Examiner has
not shown how the Blender reference teaches or suggests generating a
“stereoscopically displayed image.” (Reply Br. 5—6). We agree with
Appellants. As a result, we cannot sustain the rejection of illustrative
independent claim 1.
With respect to dependent claims 2-4, 11, and 12, we cannot
sustain the Examiner’s rejection, for the same reasons advanced with
respect to illustrative independent claim 1.
With regards to independent claims 13—15, the Examiner relies upon
the rejection set forth with independent claim 1. (Final Act. 8—9). We find
these claims include similar limitations regarding the left and right virtual
cameras addressed above. Additionally, while the language of the claims is
not identical regarding “stereoscopically displayed image,” the claims
include a limitation “display the generated image for the right eye and the
generated image for the left eye on the display apparatus.” As a result, we
6
Appeal 2015-007876
Application 13/028,329
agree with Appellants that the Examiner’s rejection based upon the
combination of the Mashitani and Blender references does not teach or
suggest the invention recited in independent claims 13—15 for the same
reasons set forth with respect to independent claim 1 discussed above.
With respect to dependent claims 16—19, we need not address
Appellants’ arguments because we found the same deficiency in the
Examiner’s rejection of the base independent claims, and the Examiner has
not addressed how the additional reference with the base combination
remedies the deficiency.
With respect to dependent claims 5—9, the Examiner has not identified
how the Snyder or Takahashi references remedy the deficiency in the base
combination. Consequently, we need not address Appellants’ arguments and
cannot sustain the obviousness rejection of dependent claims 5—9 for the
reasons addressed above.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1—9 and 11—20 based upon
obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
DECISION
For the above reasons, we reverse the Examiner’s obviousness
rejection of claims 1—9 and 11—20.
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).
7
Appeal 2015-007876
Application 13/028,329
REVERSED
8