Ex Parte Grundhofer et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 27, 2019

14844165 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Mar. 27, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/844,165 09/03/2015
63658 7590 03/29/2019
Disney Enterprises, Inc.
c/o Dorsey & Whitney LLP
1400 W ewatta Street
Suite 400
Denver, CO 80202-5549
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Anselm Grundhofer
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.
P254291.US.Ol 3683
EXAMINER
MONSHI, SAMIRA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2422
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/29/2019 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):
Docketing-DV@dorsey.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ANSELM GRUNDHOFER and
DAVID ROBERT WYATT ROSE 1
Appeal2018-007016
Application 14/844, 165
Technology Center 2400
Before JASON V. MORGAN, HUNG H. BUI, and ADAM J. PYONIN,
Administrative Patent Judges.
MORGAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's Final
Rejection of claims 1-12 and 14--23. Claim 13 is canceled. Appeal Br. 16.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
1 Appellant is the applicant and real party in interest, Disney Enterprises,
Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of The Walt Disney Company. Appeal Br.
3.
Appeal2018-007016
Application 14/844, 165
Summary of disclosure
The Specification discloses "a method for intensity correction for
multiple projector systems" that "includes generating a plurality of pixel
maps for a plurality of projectors." Abstract.
Representative claims (key limitations emphasized)
1. A method of blending pixel intensity comprising:
generating, by a processor, a plurality of pixel maps for a
plurality of projectors based on at least one of an orientation of
the plurality of projectors and a projection surface, wherein
generating the plurality of pixel maps comprises:
receiving, by the processor, data corresponding to an
image of a structured light pattern projected by the
plurality of projectors onto the projection surface; and
mapping, by the processor, specific pixels of the
projectors to corresponding pixels of other projectors of
the plurality of projectors in the plurality of projectors to
generate a plurality of projector-to-projector look up
tables; and
adjusting, by the processor, an intensity of at least one
pixel of at least one of the plurality of projectors based, at
least in part, on the plurality of pixel maps.
11. A method of generating a substantially seamless image
with a plurality of overlapping projection images, comprising:
projecting, with a first projector, a first structured light pattern
on a projection surface;
receiving, by a processor, a first image corresponding to the
first structured light pattern;
projecting, with a second projector, a second structured light
pattern on the projection surface, wherein the second structured
light pattern at least partially overlaps the first structured light
pattern on the projection surface;
2
Appeal2018-007016
Application 14/844, 165
receiving, by the processor, a second image corresponding to
the second structured light pattern;
generating, by the processor, a set of pixel correspondences
between the first projector and second projector, based on the
first image and the second image; and
modifying a brightness of one or more pixels of at least one of
the first and second projector based, at least in part, on the set
of pixel correspondences, wherein the brightness of the one or
more pixels is modified based on a shortest distance between
the pixel and an edge of the one or more projection regions.
Rejection
The Examiner rejects claims 1-12 and 14--23 2 under 35 U.S.C.
§ I02(a)(l) as being anticipated by Culbertson et al. (US 2007/0291233 Al;
published Dec. 20, 2007) ("Culbertson"). Final Act. 4--14.
ANALYSIS
We agree with and adopt as our own the Examiner's findings as set
forth in the Answer and in the Action from which this appeal was taken, and
we concur with the Examiner's conclusions. We have considered
Appellant's arguments, but do not find them persuasive of error. We
provide the following explanations for emphasis.
CLAIMS 1-10 AND 18-23
Culbertson discloses a calibration unit that "identifies pixel locations
in each projector 112 that correspond to the same screen locations in the
screen domain as other pixel locations on one or more other projectors 112."
Culbertson ,r 148.
2 The statement of the rejection erroneously lists claims 1-23 even though
claim 13 was canceled. Final Act. 4.
3
Appeal2018-007016
Application 14/844, 165
In rejecting claim 1 as anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(l), the
Examiner finds that Culbertson's calibration discloses "mapping ... specific
pixels of the projectors to corresponding pixels of other projectors of the
plurality of projectors in the plurality of projectors to generate a plurality of
projector-to-projector look up tables." Final Act. 5 (citing Culbertson ,r 148,
Figs. 6D, 9A-B).
Appellant contends the Examiner erred because, rather than disclosing
a pixel mapping between projectors, "Culbertson requires a tedious process
where each projector image is separately analyzed to determine its
projection coordinates in the screen domain, then the screen domain
coordinates for each of the projectors are compared, and then the matching
coordinates in the screen domain are determined to be overlapping." Appeal
Br. 11. That is, Appellant argues "[ t ]he overlap of screen locations does not
provide a projector-to-projector mapping, but [at] most a projector to
screen overlap relationship." Reply Br. 3 (citing Culbertson ,r,r 65---67).
Appellant's arguments are unpersuasive because, as the Examiner
correctly finds, Culbertson's "identified corresponding pixel locations for
each projector 112 in the overlap regions in the projector domains
[discloses a] relationship between projectors." Ans. 4. Appellant's
arguments focus on Culbertson's use of triangle meshes used in the process
of calibrating each projector rather than on the corresponding pixel locations
identified as a result of the calibration. See Appeal Br. 9 (citing, e.g.,
Culbertson ,r,r 65---67). Moreover, despite Appellant's argument that
Culbertson merely discloses a "projector to screen overlap relationship"
(Reply Br. 3), Culbertson discloses identifying the overlapping regions of
projectors (see Culbertson Fig. 6D; ,r 148).
4
Appeal2018-007016
Application 14/844, 165
For these reasons, we agree with the Examiner that Culbertson
discloses "mapping ... specific pixels of the projectors to corresponding
pixels of other projectors of the plurality of projectors in the plurality of
projectors to generate a plurality of projector-to-projector look up tables," as
recited in claim 1. See Final Act. 5.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(l)
rejection of claim 1, and claims 2-10 and 18-23, which Appellant does not
argue separately. Appeal Br. 12.
CLAIMS 11, 12, AND 14--17
Similar to claim 1, claim 11 recites "generating ... a set of pixel
correspondences between the first projector and second projector." For the
reasons discussed above, we agree with the Examiner that Culbertson
discloses this recitation. See Final Act. 9.
Claim 11 further recites modifying a brightness of one or more pixels
based on a shortest distance between the pixel and an edge of the one or
more projection regions. The Examiner relies on Culbertson, which
discloses use of "at least two distances between a first pixel location in a
first frame 110A and edges of the first frame llOA" (Culbertson ,r 153) in
calibration, to disclose modifying a brightness based on a shortest distance
between the pixel and an edge in the manner claimed (Final Act. 9 ( citing
Culbertson ,r 153, Figs. 6E, 6G); see also Ans. 6 (citing Culbertson ,r,r 150,
154--56)).
Appellant contends the Examiner erred because "[ r ]equiring at least
two distances[] simply does not anticipate using a shortest distance." Reply
Br. 3. Culbertson illustrates, however, the use of all pixel to edge distances
in calibrating a projector. See Culbertson ,r 153, Fig. 9B; see also Ans. 6.
5
Appeal2018-007016
Application 14/844, 165
This includes the shortest distance. See id. Fig. 9B (distance d(l)(A)). The
disputed recitation is not limited to using only the shortest distance. Thus,
the use of the shortest distance and additional distances falls within the
scope of the disputed recitation. Therefore, we agree with the Examiner that
Culbertson discloses "modifying a brightness of one or more pixels ...
based on a shortest distance between the pixel and an edge of the one or
more projection regions," as recited in claim 11.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(l)
rejection of claim 11, and claims 12 and 14--1 7, which Appellant does not
argue separately. Appeal Br. 12.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-12 and 14--23.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.50(±).
AFFIRMED
6