Ex Parte Ikeda et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 27, 2016

13558806 (P.T.A.B. May. 27, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/558,806 07/26/2012
52349 7590 06/01/2016
WENDEROTH, LIND & PONACK LLP,
1030 15th Street, N.W.
Suite 400 East
Washington, DC 20005-1503
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Wataru IKEDA
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.
2012_1018 4847
EXAMINER
BECK,LERON
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2487
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/01/2016 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):
ddalecki@wenderoth.com
eoa@wenderoth.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
ExparteWATARUIKEDA, TOMOKIOGAWA,
T AIJI SASAKI, and HIROSHI Y AHAT A
Appeal2014-007286
Application 13/558,806
Technology Center 2400
Before DEBRA K. STEPHENS, JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, and
KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, Administrative Patent Judges.
STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a Final Rejection of
claims 1 and 2. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
Appeal2014-007286
Application 13/558,806
STATEMENT OF THE fNVENTION
According to Appellants, the claims are directed to a playback device
for playing back three-dimensional (3D) and two-dimensional (2D) images
from a main-view video stream and a sub-view video stream (Abstract).
Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A receiving device for receiving data transmitted via a
broadcast or via a network,
wherein the data includes a main-view video stream and a
sub-view video stream,
the main-view video stream includes picture data of a main
view of a stereoscopic image,
the sub-view video stream includes picture data of a sub view
of the stereoscopic image,
the data further includes information that indicates that the
picture data of the main view of the stereoscopic image is
displayed as a two-dimensional image while a graphic is
displayed,
the receiving device comprises:
a video decoder operable to obtain the picture data
of the main view and the picture data of the sub view
by decoding the main-view video stream and the
sub-view video stream; and
an output unit operable to output the picture data of
the main view and the picture data of the sub view,
as a stereoscopic image, and
upon receiving the information, the output unit
outputs the picture data of the main view of the
2
Appeal2014-007286
Application 13/558,806
stereoscopic image as the two-dimensional image
while the graphic is displayed.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Soltan
Oshima
Toho
us 6,052, 100
US 2003/0053797 Al
US 2006/0176295 Al
REJECTIONS
Apr. 18, 2000
Mar. 20, 2003
Aug. 10, 2006
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of non-statutory
obviousness-type double patenting over co-pending Application No.
13/558,779, Oshima, and Toho (Final Act. 3-8).
Claim 1 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Oshima and Toho (Final Act. 8-10).
Claim 2 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Oshima, Toho, and Soltan (Final Act. 10).
We have only considered those arguments that Appellants actually
raised in the Briefs. Arguments Appellants could have made but chose not
to make in the Briefs have not been considered and are deemed to be
waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2012).
ISSUE 1
Non-Statutory Double Patenting: Claim 1
Appellants argue the Examiner erred in determining their invention as
recited in claim 1 is non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting (App.
Br. 12-13). The issue presented by the arguments is:
3
Appeal2014-007286
Application 13/558,806
Issue 1: Has the Examiner erred in finding the invention as recited is
non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting?
ANALYSIS
Appellants argue the non-statutory obviousness-type double
patenting rejection is "inapplicable to amended claim 1" because "claim 1 of
Application No. 13/558,779 recites that metadata is extracted from the data
that includes the main-view video stream, sub-view video stream, and a
graphics stream, and that a stereoscopic display of graphics is performed"
(App. Br. 12). Specifically, Appellants argue that the similarly recited
extracted metadata and stereoscopic display of graphics is not obvious
because "Application No. 13/558,779 still fails to disclose or suggest output
unit operable to output the picture data" (App. Br. 12-13).
We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments. The Examiner finds
the output to be an obvious variation of Application No. 13/558,779 in view
of Oshima and Toho (Final Act. 6-8; Ans. 8-10). We agree with the
Examiner's finding that the output of stereoscopic images, in Oshima, and
the output of two-dimensional image display with graphics, in Toho, is
obvious (Final Act. 6-8; Ans. 8-10).
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 1 under the judicially created doctrine of non-statutory obviousness-
type double patenting.
ISSUE 2
35 US.C. § 103(a): Claim 1
Appellants assert their invention is not obvious over Oshima and Toho
(App. Br. 3-11). The issue presented by the arguments is:
4
Appeal2014-007286
Application 13/558,806
Issue 2: Has the Examiner erred in finding the combination of
Oshima and Toho teaches or suggests:
the data further includes information that indicates that the
picture data of the main view of the stereoscopic image is
displayed as a two-dimensional image while a graphic is
displayed,
the receiving device comprises:
a video decoder operable to obtain the picture data of the
main view and the picture data of the sub view by decoding the
main-view video stream and the sub-view video stream; and
an output unit operable to output the picture data of the
main view and the picture data of the sub view, as a
stereoscopic image, and
upon receiving the information, the output unit outputs the
picture data of the main view of the stereoscopic image as the
two-dimensional image while the graphic is displayed,
as recited in claim 1?
ANALYSIS
We disagree with Appellants' conclusions and adopt as our own:
( 1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from
which this appeal is taken; and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in
the Answer in response to the Appeal Brief. With respect to the claims
argued by Appellants, we highlight and address specific findings and
arguments for emphasis as follows.
Appellants argue Oshima and Toho do not teach "the data further
includes information that indicates that the picture data of the main view of
the stereoscopic image is displayed as a two-dimensional image while a
graphic is displayed in a stereoscopic manner" and
5
Appeal2014-007286
Application 13/558,806
an output unit operable to output the picture data of the
main view and the picture data of the sub view, as a
stereoscopic image, wherein, upon receiving the information,
the output unit outputs the picture data of the main view of the
stereoscopic image as the two-dimensional image while the
graphic is displayed
(App. Br. 7-8)( emphasis added). According to Appellants, Toho merely
teaches a user rotation of an image updates and stores parameters for
displaying a two-dimensional graphic, to render different viewing angles of
the object; and the structure of Toho is "completely different from switching
between a two-dimensional display and a stereoscopic display of a video
stream" (App. Br. 8)( emphasis added). Further, Appellants argue Oshima,
like Toho, does not disclose or suggest "switching between outputting the
picture data of the main view and sub view, as a stereoscopic image, and
outputting the picture data ... as the two-dimensional image while the
graphic is displayed" (App. Br. 10). Appellants also argue "Oshima teaches
that the synchronization is performed between video data and audio data,
which is completely different from performing synchronization between a
video and a graphic, as required by claim 1." (App. Br. 10).
We are not persuaded. Appellants' claim 1 does not recite a graphic is
displayed in a stereoscopic manner; wherein, upon receiving the
information; or switching between outputting the picture data, as argued by
Appellants (see id. at 8-13). Nor does claim 1 recite "synchronization" (see
id. at 10). Thus, Appellants are arguing limitations not recited in the claims.
Therefore, we are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments.
Appellants additionally argue Oshima does not teach its
stereoscopic/progressive video arrangement information relates to display of
6
Appeal2014-007286
Application 13/558,806
picture data and a graphic, as required by claim 1; rather, Appellants
contend, Oshima teaches synchronization of video and audio data output
based on the stereoscopic/progressive video arrangement information (App.
Br. 9--10).
Appellants have not persuaded us that Toho's three dimensional
information is not graphic data (Ans. 5-8). We agree with the Examiner's
finding that the operability of an output unit to output both stereoscopically
and two-dimensionally, does not require a switch between the two outputs,
as argued by Appellants (Ans. 6; App. Br. 8-9). Therefore, Appellants are
arguing limitations not recited in the claim. Additionally, we further agree
with the Examiner's finding that Oshima's right and left stereoscopic data
can reasonably be interpreted as the main and sub views represented in claim
1 (Final Act. 8-9). As such, we are not persuaded the combination of Toho
and Oshima fails to teach the disputed limitations.
Appellants further argue Toho and Oshima are non-analogous art and
an ordinarily skilled artisan would not have been motivated to combine the
features of Oshima and Toho (App. Br. 8-9). According to Appellants,
Toho does not disclose or suggest a stereoscopic image or displaying a
graphic in a stereoscopic manner (id.). Appellants concede Toho teaches
representing a three-dimensional model by generating two-dimensional
image data and display parameters but contend Toho's invention is in a
completely different field of endeavor (id. at 4, 8). Appellants have not
proffered sufficient evidence or argument to persuade us Toho and Oshima
are non-analogous art; rather, we agree with the Examiner that both Toho
and Oshima are from the same field of endeavor (Ans. 5---6). Additionally,
the Examiner has set forth why an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been
7
Appeal2014-007286
Application 13/558,806
motivated to combine the teachings and suggestions of Toho and Oshima
(Final Act. 9--10) and Appellants have not proffered sufficient evidence or
argument to persuade us otherwise.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding the
combination of Oshima and Toho teaches or suggests the limitations as
recited in claim 1. Nor are we persuaded the Examiner improperly
combined the teachings and suggestions of Oshima and Toho. Therefore,
we sustain the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for obviousness
over Oshima and Toho.
ISSUE 3
35 USC§ 103(a): Claim 2
Appellants assert their invention is not obvious over Oshima, Toho,
and Soltan (App. Br. 11 ). The issue presented by the arguments is:
Issue 3: Has the Examiner erred in finding the combination of
Oshima, Toho and Soltan teaches or suggests "the output unit repeatedly
outputs a same type of picture data among the picture data of the main view
twice or more while the graphic is displayed," as recited in claim 2?
ANALYSIS
Appellants argue the combination of Oshima, Toho, and Soltan does
not teach the switching feature of independent claim 1, from which claim 2
depends (App. Br. 11 ). Appellants concede Soltan teaches an image frame
displayed as a three-dimensional image; however, Appellants argue the
three-dimensional imaging of aircrafts is "completely different from the
concept of claim 1" and the output of picture data as claimed (App. Br. 11 ).
8
Appeal2014-007286
Application 13/558,806
We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments. We agree with the
findings discussed above and sustain the Examiner's rejection of
independent claim 1. We further agree with the Examiner's finding that
Soltan is relied upon for the repetition of output recited in claim 2; and we
agree that Soltan teaches the image is displayed in each time period, which
is a reasonable interpretation of more than once, or "repeatedly," as recited
in the claim (Ans. 7-8).
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding the
combination of Oshima, Toho, and Soltan teaches or suggests the limitations
as recited in dependent claim 2. Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claim
2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for obviousness over Oshima, Toho, and Soltan.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection of claim 1 under non-statutory
obviousness-type double patenting as being obvious over conflicting
Application No. 13/558,779 is affirmed.
The Examiner's rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Oshima and Toho is affirmed.
The Examiner's rejection of claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Oshima, Toho, and Soltan 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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
9