Ex Parte Glynn et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 31, 201613215186 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 31, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/215, 186 08/22/2011 83667 7590 09/02/2016 Patterson & Sheridan, LLP I PIXAR 24 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1600 Houston, TX 77046 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR DOMINIC GLYNN 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. PIXA/0019.03 (050759) 1733 EXAMINER LI, TRACYY ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2487 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/02/2016 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): P AIR_eOfficeAction@pattersonsheridan.com PSDocketing@pattersonsheridan.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte DOMINIC GLYNN and ROD BOGART Appeal2015-005454 Application 13/215,186 Technology Center 2400 Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, JAMES R. HUGHES, and ERIC S. FRAHM, Administrative Patent Judges. FRAHM, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal2015-005454 Application 13/215,186 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1-18, which constitute all the claims pending in this application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm-in-part. The invention relates to compensating for the perceived false depth of objects that move along the axis of ocular separation in a time-division stereoscopic display (Spec. i-fi-f l, 6-9). CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A computer-implemented method for modifying a perceived depth of an object visible in a stereoscopic image sequence, the method comprising: displaying a first frame associated with the stereoscopic image sequence, wherein the first frame includes a first left image and a first right image with left precedence, wherein the first left image is displayed before the first right image; and displaying a second frame associated with the stereoscopic image sequence, wherein the first frame includes a second left image and a second right image with right precedence, wherein the second right image is displayed before the second left image; wherein displaying the first frame with left precedence and displaying the second frame with right precedence modifies the perceived depth of the object. 2 Appeal2015-005454 Application 13/215,186 REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Yuuki Kim Hulyalkar Sasaki US 2006/0114317 Al June 1, 2006 US 2011/0032330 Al Feb. 10, 2011 US 2011/0058016 Al Mar. 10, 2011 US 2011/0310235 Al Dec. 22, 2011 REJECTIONS The Examiner made the following rejections: Claims 1, 2, 7, 8, 10, 11, 16, and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kim and Sasaki. Claims 3, 4, 12, and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kim and Hulyalkar. Claims 5, 6, 14, and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kim and Yuuki. 1 Claims 9 and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kim, Sasaki, and Hulyalkar. 1 We note that the Examiner has not specifically cited the Sasaki reference in the rejection of claims 3, 4, 12, and 13 over Kim and Hulyalkar, and the rejection of claims 5, 6, 14, and 15 over Kim and Yuuki, despite the fact that Sasaki was relied upon for the rejection of independent claims 1 and 10, from which claims 3---6 and 12-15 depend. However, Appellants do not present specific arguments alleging any shortcomings of the Examiner's rejections of these claims. We thus deem claims 3---6 and 12-15 to fall with independent claims 1 and 10, as discussed below. 3 Appeal2015-005454 Application 13/215,186 Appellants contend: ANALYSIS Claims 1-7and10--16 As the plain language of claim 1 clearly requires, the displaying of the first frame with left precedence and the displaying of the second frame with right precedence modifies the perceived depth of the object. Sasaki describes only that a change in the depth of a 3D graphics image may be associated with a left shift or a right shift of a right-view PG stream .... But Sasaki is completely silent regarding the requirement that displaying frames with left and right precedence modifies the perceived depth of an object. (App. Br. 8). We are not persuaded by Appellants' argument. The claim 1 limitation "wherein displaying the first frame with left precedence and displaying the second frame with right precedence modifies the perceived depth of the object," merely identifies an intended result of the steps of displaying frames with alternating left and right precedence. That is, aside from the steps of "displaying a first frame ... with left precedence" and "displaying a second frame ... with right precedence," there are no additional steps in claim 1 to achieve the "modifies the perceived depth of an object" result. "Claim scope is not limited by claim language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed." MPEP § 2111.04. For example, a "whereby clause in a method claim is not given weight when it simply expresses the intended result of a process step positively recited." Minton v. Nat 'l Ass 'n of Securities Dealers, Inc., 336 F.3d 1373, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Accordingly, we do not give patentable weight to the claim 1 language "modifies the perceived depth of the object." Therefore, the Examiner is only required to show the prior art meets the 4 Appeal2015-005454 Application 13/215,186 positively recited steps in claim 1, namely, "displaying a first frame ... with left precedence" and "displaying a second frame ... with right precedence." The Examiner cites to Sasaki's Figures 6-8 (Ans. 8), which show several examples of a sequence of 3D video frames, where each frame is comprised of left-view and right-view frames (Sasaki, i-fi-1157-159; Figs. 6-8). As shown in Figures 6A and 6B, for example, a first frame F3Dl begins with a first left-view frame in the set Fd, which is followed by a right-view frame in the set FRI. A second frame F3D2 begins with a right-view frame in the set FR2, which is followed by a left-view frame in the set FL2. In other words, Sasaki presents a succession of frames that alternately begin with left-view and right-view frames, i.e., with left precedence and right precedence. Thus, Sasaki discloses "displaying a first frame ... with left precedence" and "displaying a second frame ... with right precedence." Whether Sasaki's method results in modified perceived depths of any objects in the display does not bear on our finding because, as mentioned above, we do not give patentable weight to this intended feature of claim 1. We are, therefore, not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1, and claims 2-7 and 10-16 not specifically argued separately. Claims 8, 9, 17, and 18 Appellants contend: Kim makes no mention at all that the left-eye and right-eye image ordering is randomly determined. The Office Action suggests that if no left-eye and right-eye image ordering is selected by the user, then the processor displays frames after "freely" selecting 5 Appeal2015-005454 Application 13/215,186 an image ordering . . . . Contrary to the Office's position, Kim is silent regarding freely selecting an image order in the absence of a user selection. (App. Br. 9). Further, Appellants argue: [I]f a user does not change the configuration setting for "left-eye image ordering" or "right-eye image order," nothing in Kim teaches (or even suggests) that the system randomly selects an image ordering frame-by-frame, as claimed (or otherwise). Instead, Kim notes that a default setting for "left-eye image ordering" or "right-eye image ordering" is used. (Reply Br. 3). We agree with Appellants. Kim discloses a stereoscopic display system where the user may select one of the following items from a menu: "L/R" ("indicating a left-eye and then right-eye image ordering"); "R/L" ("indicating a right-eye and then left- eye image ordering"); "END 3D"; and "EXIT" (Kim, i-f 155; Fig. 13). Kim does not disclose a random mode of ordering left-eye and right-eye images if neither L/R nor R/L modes is selected. Rather, the 3D ordering selections presented to the user only include L/R and R/L, and Kim discloses "the L/R ordering is focused as a default in FIG. 13" (Kim, i-f 156). We are, therefore, constrained by the record to find the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claim 8, independent claim 17 which recites commensurate limitations, and dependent claims 9 and 18 for similar reasons. CONCLUSIONS Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 8, 9, 17, and 18, but did not err in rejecting claims 1-7 and 10-16. 6 Appeal2015-005454 Application 13/215,186 DECISION For the above reasons, the Examiner's rejection of claims 8, 9, 17, and 18 is reversed, and the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-7 and 10-16 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)(l). See 37 C.F.R. §§ 41.50(f), 41.52(b). AFFIRMED-IN-PART 7 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation