Ex Parte Hagbi et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 24, 2017

13063724 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 24, 2017)

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.
13/063,724 12/09/2011 Netanel Hagbi P30735US1
(119-1184US1)
4989
61947 7590 04/26/2017
Ar>r>le - Rlank Rome.
EXAMINER
c/o Blank Rome LLP
717 Texas Avenue, Suite 1400
GE, JIN
HOUSTON, TX 77002 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2616
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/26/2017 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):
mbrininger @ blankrome. com
hou stonpatents @ blankrome .com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte NETANEL HAGBI, ORIEL Y. BERGIG, and JIHAD A. ELSANA
Appeal 2016-001235
Application 13/063,7241
Technology Center 2600
Before KRISTEN L. DROESCH, SCOTT B. HOWARD, and
ALEX S. YAP, Administrative Patent Judges.
DROESCH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants seek review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 1—37, all of the pending claims in the application.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
BACKGROUND
The disclosed invention relates to a method and system for
compositing an augmented reality (AR) scene, where AR content is
1 Appellants indicate the real party-in-interest is Flyby Media, Inc. App.
Br. 1.
Appeal 2016-001235
Application 13/063,724
embedded within an image according to one or more rules. Spec. 4:22—25,
Abstract.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Representative claim 1, reproduced from the Claims Appendix of the
Appeal Brief, reads as follows (disputed limitation in italics)'.
1. A system for compositing an augmented reality (AR)
scene, the system comprising:
(a) an extraction component, operationally connected to a
sensing device for capturing a real-world image, configured for:
(i) extracting an object from said real-world image into a
memory of a data-processing machine, wherein the object
defines how to geometrically construct a virtual model of the
object according to a predefined rule set;
(ii) geometrically constructing the virtual model from said
object, wherein geometrically constructing the virtual model
comprises generating the geometry and texture of the virtual
model based on an interpretation of the extracted object
according to the predefined rule set, and wherein geometrically
constructing the virtual model comprises modifying a property
of the virtual model, such that an appearance or behavior of the
virtual model upon rendering is different from a corresponding
appearance or behavior of the object in the real-world image; and
(iii) compositing AR content from said constructed virtual
model in order to augment said AR content on said real-world
image, thereby creating the AR scene.
REFERENCES AND REJECTIONS ON APPEAL
Claims 1—5, 7—12, 14—22, 30, 31, 33, 34, 36, and 37 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Bathiche et al. (US
2009/0167787 Al; July 2, 2009) (“Bathiche”) and Park et al. (MixedReality
Based Interactive 3D Story Composition Tool) (“Park”).
2
Appeal 2016-001235
Application 13/063,724
Claims 6 and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Bathiche, Park, and Vailaya et al. (US 2003/0219149 Al;
Nov. 27, 2003) (“Vailaya”).
Claims 23—25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Bathiche, Park, and Meisner et al. (US 2004/0131232 Al; July 8, 2004)
(“Meisner”).
Claims 26—28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Bathiche, Park, and Martins et al. (US 2003/0179218 Al; Sept. 25,
2003) (“Martins”).
Claims 29, 32, and 35 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Bathiche, Park, and Paolini (US 2007/0130020 Al; June
7, 2007) (“Paolini”).
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
arguments in the Appeal Brief2 3, the Examiner’s Answer, and Appellants’
arguments in the Reply Brief. We are persuaded by Appellants’ arguments.
We highlight and address specific findings and arguments below for
emphasis.
The Examiner finds that Bathiche teaches “extracting an object from
said real world image . . . wherein the object defines how to geometrically
construct a virtual model of the object according to a predefined rule set,” as
recited in claim 1. See Final Act. 5—6 (reproducing Bathiche ]Hf 24, 36, 39,
48, citing Bathiche Tflf 48—52, Fig. 2); Final Act. 2 (reproducing Bathiche
124); Ans. 2—3 (reproducing Bathiche Tflf 23—24, 36, 39, citing Bathiche
2 Refers to the Appeal Brief filed March 16, 2015.
3
Appeal 2016-001235
Application 13/063,724
Fig. 2); Ans. 5—6 (reproducing Bathiche Tflf 23—24, 36, 39, 53—54, citing
Bathiche Figs. 1, 2, 5). The Examiner explains “Bathiche et al. disclose[s]
extract activity context, user context, environmental context from object in a
captured image is employed to configure rendered data to build virtual
model and further disclose[s] the rendering can be based on predefined
policy (a predefined rule set).” Ans. 3^4 (citing Bathiche 23—24, Fig. 1).
The Examiner also explains “Bathiche et al. disclose[s] information gather
component 104 (Fig 1) including extract activity context, user context,
environment context as a extracted object from real object in a captured
image is employed to configure rendered data to build virtual model based
on this object.” Ans. 6—7 (citing Bathiche 23—24, 48—52, Figs. 1, 5).
The Examiner also finds that Park teaches “the object defines how to
geometrically construct a virtual model of the object according to a
predefined rule set,” as recited in claim 1. See Final Act. 2—3 (reproducing
Park section 2.1, citing section 2.3, Fig. 4); Ans. 4 (reproducing Park
sections 2.1, 3, citing Park Figs. 4, 6); Ans. 7 (reproducing Park sections 2.1,
3, citing Park Figs. 4, 6). The Examiner explains “Park et al. disclose[s] pre­
define the sets of properties, character, action for virtual model using
building blocks and further disclose geometrically construct a virtual model
include body and face of 3D model (mail, female, aged man) based on these
building blocks (object) from a captured image (these building blocks
(object) define a the sets of properties, character, action for virtual model)
and are used to build a virtual model)).” Ans. 4—5. The Examiner further
explains “Park et al. disclose[s] geometrically construct a virtual model
include body and face of 3D model (mail, female, aged man) based on these
building blocks (object) from a captured image (extract the building block
4
Appeal 2016-001235
Application 13/063,724
from the captured image to build a virtual model based on the information
from these building block).” Ans. 8 (citing Park section 2.3, Fig. 4).
Appellants contend that “[njeither Bathiche et al. nor Park et al.
discloses or suggests extracting an object from a real-world image in which
the extracted object ‘defines how to geometrically construct a virtual
model. . . according to a predefined rule set.” App. Br. 6; see App. Br. 6—8,
Reply Br. 3—5. Appellants further argue that “Bathiche et al. and Park et al.,
individually or in combination, also fail to disclose or render obvious that
the extracted object defines how to geometrically construct a virtual model
of the same object that is extracted.” App. Br. 8; see App. Br. 8—9, Reply
Br. 1-3.
We agree with Appellants’ arguments. The Examiner’s findings do
not demonstrate sufficiently that Bathiche teaches or suggests the extracted
activity context, user context, or environmental context defines how to
geometrically construct a virtual model of the object (i.e., the same object
extracted from the real-world image) based on the predefined policy. See
Final Act. 2, 5—6, Ans. 2—7. The Examiner’s findings also do not
demonstrate sufficiently that Park teaches or suggests the building blocks
define how to geometrically construct a virtual model of the building blocks
(i.e., the same building blocks) according to sets of properties, character, and
action. See Final Act. 2—3, Ans. 4—5, 7—8. As pointed out by Appellants,
Park teaches creating 3D models and properties for building blocks utilizing
Cosmo World and storing the 3D models and properties for the blocks in
vrml format, and rendering the 3D models and properties using OpenGL.
See Reply Br. 4 (citing Park p. 183 (section 2.1)).
5
Appeal 2016-001235
Application 13/063,724
For all of the foregoing reasons, Appellants persuade us the Examiner
erred in rejecting claim 1, and claims 2—5, 7—9, 18, 20, 30, and 31 dependent
therefrom, as unpatentable over Bathiche and Park. Appellants also
persuade us the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claims 10, 15—17,
and claims 11—14, 19, 21, 22, 33, 34, 36, and 37 dependent therefrom, as
unpatentable over Bathiche and Park for the same reasons as those
addressing claim 1. See App. Br. 11. As applied by the Examiner, the
teachings of Valaiya, Meisner, Martins, and Paolini do not remedy the
deficiencies of the teachings of Bathiche and Park. See Final Act. 30—37.
Therefore, for the same reasons as those addressing claim 1, we are
persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting dependent claims 6, 13, 23—29,
32, and 35 as unpatentable over Bathiche, Park, and the additional applied
prior art.
DECISION
We REVERSE the rejections of claims 1—37.
REVERSED
6