Ex Parte Fukazawa et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 25, 2016

13219883 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 25, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/219,883 08/29/2011
60803 7590
Paratus Law Group, PLLC
620 Herndon Parkway
Suite 320
Herndon, VA 20170
10/25/2016
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
RyoFUKAZAWA
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.
1946-0042 1783
EXAMINER
JOHNS, ANDREW W
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2665
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
10/25/2016 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 RYO FUKAZAWA, YUSUKE KUDO, and TAKASHI KITAO
Appeal2015-007212
Application 13/219,883
Technology Center 2600
Before, ROBERT E. NAPPI, LARRY J. HUME, and
STEVEN M. AMUNDSON Administrative Patent Judges.
NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1 through 15, which constitute all the
claims pending in this application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ).
We affirm.
INVENTION
The disclosed and claimed inventions are directed to image processing
apparatus and methods which recognize a user identifying an image among
plural images on a display, and drawing the selected image as a stereoscopic
image and the other images as planer images. See Abstract.
Appeal2015-007212
Application 13/219,883
CLAI1\1ED SUBJECT l\1ATTER
Claim 1 is illustrative of the invention and reproduced below:
1. An image processing apparatus comprising:
an operation recognition unit for recognizing an
operation signal for identifying a focused image among
images displayed on a screen of an image display unit,
wherein said identifying is based on at least one of head
tracking of a user and eye tracking of the user indicating
a user's attention on the focused image; and
an image drawing unit for drawing the focused image
on the screen so as to display the focused image as a
stereoscopic image on the screen based on the at least
one of head tracking of the user and eye tracking of the
user.
REFERENCES AND REJECTIONS AT ISSUE
The Examiner rejected claims 5, 6, 13, and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 112
first paragraph as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
Ans. 2--4. 1
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 13, and 14 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Osaka and Surakka.
Ans. 5-7.
The Examiner rejected claims 3, 4, 11, and 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Osaka, Surakka, and Wikipedia. Ans. 7-8.
1 Throughout this Opinion we refer to the Appeal Brief dated Feb. 27, 2015,
Reply Brief dated July 27, 2015 and the Examiner's Answer mailed on
May 27, 2015.
2
Appeal2015-007212
Application 13/219,883
The Examiner rejected claims 7 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Osaka, Surakka, and Choo. Ans. 8-10.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed Appellants' arguments in the Briefs, the
Examiner's rejections and the Examiner's response to Appellants'
arguments. Appellants' arguments have not persuaded us of error in the
Examiner's rejection of claims 5, 6, 13, and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 112 and of
claims 1through15of35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, iI 1
The Examiner rejected claims 5, 6, 13, and 14 as Appellants'
Specification does not identify the image drawing unit as drawing the image
on the screen to display the focused image as a stereoscopic image or a
planar image on the basis of a size of an area occupied on the screen
(claims 5, 13) or distance from the focused image in the screen to a center of
the screen (claims 6, 14). Appellants argue that Figure 18 and the disclosure
in paragraphs 67 and 68 provide support for the claims. App. Br. 10-12,
Reply Br. 4. The Examiner in response identifies that paragraphs 67 and 68
discuss two alternative embodiments, a) identifying a focused image with
only the focused image displayed as a stereoscopic image and b)
determining whether an image is to displayed as a stereoscopic image based
on the size of the area occupied by the image in the screen, or the distance
from the image to the center of the screen. Answer 11-12. We concur with
the Examiner. Claims 1 and 8 recite identifying a focused image based upon
head tracking or eye tracking and drawing the focused image as a
stereoscopic image based upon the head or eye tracking. Claims 5, 6, 13,
and 14 are dependent upon claims 1 and 8, and further recite that the display
3
Appeal2015-007212
Application 13/219,883
of the stereoscopic image is dependent upon either size or location on the
screen. As the Examiner identifies, the paragraphs of Appellants'
specification cited in Appellants' arguments identify two separate
embodiments, and there is no disclosure of combining the embodiments.
Accordingly, Appellants' arguments have not persuaded us of error, and we
sustain the Examiner's rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112.2
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103
Appellants argue the Examiner's rejection of independent claims 1, 8,
and 9 is in error as Surakka and Osaka do not teach display of a stereoscopic
image on the screen based on the at least one of head tracking and eye
tracking of the user. App. Br. 13. Further, Appellants argue that there is no
reasonable basis to combine the references. App. Br. 15-16.
The Examiner in response finds that Osaka teaches a stereoscopic
display which recognizes when a user uses a pointer to select an image and
displays the selected image stereoscopically while the rest of the images are
displayed in planar. Answer 14--15 (citing Figure 15 and col. 16 1. 65 to col.
17, 1. 5). Further, the Examiner finds that Osaka teaches using gaze tracking
to move a pointer. Answer 15. The Examiner considers that the skilled
artisan would combine the gaze tracking to control the pointer of Osaka as it
would allow the use of the system by persons with disabilities. Answer 15,
17-19. We have reviewed the Examiner's findings, the evidence relied upon
2 We recognize that Appellants have alleged that the Examiner's Final
Rejection is premature. These arguments are directed to a petitionable issue
and not an appealable issue. See In re Schneider, 481F.2d1350, 1356-57
(CCPA 1973), and Jn re Mindick, 371F.2d892, 894 (CCPA 1967). See also
Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) (8th Ed., August 2001)
§ 1002.02(c), item 3(g), and§ 1201.
4
Appeal2015-007212
Application 13/219,883
by the Examiner, and we concur with the Examiner findings and
conclusions. Thus, we are not persuaded of error in the Examiner's rejection
of claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 13, and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Appellants' arguments directed to the Examiner's rejections of
claims 3, 4, 7, 11, 12, and 15, assert that the additional references used in the
rejections of these claims do not remedy the deficiency in the rejection of the
independent claims as discussed above. App. Br. 18-19. As Appellants'
arguments directed to the independent claims have not persuaded us of error,
we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 3, 4, 7, 11, 12, and 15 for the
same reasons as discussed with respect to claims 1 and 8.
DECISION
We sustain the Examiner's rejections of claims 1 through 15 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a),and the Examiner's written description rejection of claims 5,
6, 13, and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph.
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
5