Ex Parte ITO

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 7, 2017

13158824 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 7, 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.
13/158,824 06/13/2011 Yuichiro ITO AC-723-3102 1231
27562 7590 03/09/2017
NIXON & VANDERHYE, P.C.
901 NORTH GLEBE ROAD, 11TH FLOOR
ARLINGTON, VA 22203
EXAMINER
SULLIVAN, TYLER
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2487
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/09/2017 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):
PTOMAIL@nixonvan.com
pair_nixon @ firsttofile. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte YUICHIRO ITO
Appeal 2016-004707
Application 13/158,824
Technology Center 2400
Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, JEFFREY S. SMITH, and
TERRENCE W. McMILLIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2016-004707
Application 13/158,824
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the rejection of
claims 1—26, which are all the claims pending in the application. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Representative Claim
1. A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium
having stored therein an image display program for displaying a real
world image and a superimposed virtual object on a stereoscopic
display apparatus capable of providing a stereoscopic view, the
stereoscopic display apparatus including a computing system with at
least one processor circuit coupled to a memory device configured to
store outputs from a real camera for a right eye and a real camera for a
left eye, the image display program comprising instructions that cause
a computing system to:
recognize a predetermined shooting target in a real world
image, which is stored as real world image data on the memory
device, the real world image output from one real camera of the real
camera for a right eye and the real camera for a left eye, among real
world images respectively outputted from the real camera for a right
eye and the real camera for a left eye;
calculate a single position and a single orientation of the one
real camera of the real camera for a right eye and the real camera for a
left eye based on recognition of the predetermined shooting target in
the real world image, the calculated single position and the single
orientation indicating relative position and relative orientation
between the one real camera and the predetermined shooting target;
determine the position and the orientation of a right virtual
camera in a virtual space by using the calculated single position and
the calculated single orientation of the one real camera;
determine the position and the orientation of a left virtual
camera in the virtual space by using the calculated single position and
the calculated single orientation of the one real camera;
2
Appeal 2016-004707
Application 13/158,824
generate a right virtual space image indicating the virtual space
as it is looked at from the right virtual camera set in accordance with
the determined position and orientation thereof;
generate a left virtual space image indicating the virtual space
as it is looked at from the left virtual camera set in accordance with
the determined position and orientation thereof;
superimpose the generated right virtual space image onto the
real world image data outputted from the real camera for a right eye;
superimpose the generated left virtual space image onto the real
world image outputted from the real camera for a left eye; and
output superimposed images to the stereoscopic display
apparatus.
Prior Art
Thomas US 2005/0018045 A1 Jan. 27, 2005
Mashitani US 2005/0089212 A1 Apr. 28, 2005
Tooyama US 7,321,682 B2 Jan. 22, 2008
Maeda US 2008/0266386 A1 Oct. 30, 2008
Bannai US 7,532,224 B2 May 12, 2009
Davidson US 2009/0262108 A1 Oct. 22, 2009
Lange US 2010/0085423 A1 Apr. 8, 2010
Schooleman US 2011/0029903 A1 Feb. 3,2011
Matsui JP 2009-025918 Feb. 5, 2009
Examiner’s Rejections
Claims 1, 2, and 19—26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Matsui, Tooyama, Schooleman, Davidson, and
Mashitani.
Claims 3—8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Matsui, Tooyama, Schooleman, Davidson, Mashitani, and
Maeda.
3
Appeal 2016-004707
Application 13/158,824
Claims 9-16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Matsui, Tooyama, Schooleman, Davidson, Mashitani,
Maeda, and Lange.
Claims 17 and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Matsui, Tooyama, Schooleman, Davidson, Mashitani,
Maeda, Thomas, and Bannai.
ANALYSIS
We adopt the findings of fact made by the Examiner in the Final
Rejection and Examiner’s Answer as our own. We concur with the
conclusions reached by the Examiner for the reasons given in the
Examiner’s Answer. We highlight the following for emphasis.
Section 103 rejection of claims 1, 2, and 19—26
Claim 1 recites “calculate a single position and a single orientation of
the one real camera of the real camera for a right eye and the real camera for
a left eye . . . indicating relative position and relative orientation between the
one real camera and the predetermined shooting target.” Claim 1 also recites
determining the position and the orientation of a right virtual camera (and of
a left virtual camera) using the calculated single position and the orientation
of the one real camera. Appellant contends the references cited by the
Examiner1 do not teach calculating the position of a camera then setting the
position of two virtual cameras from that one position. Reply Br. 2.
1 In the event of further prosecution, the Examiner should consider whether
Kusuma (WO 2007/111570 A2, Oct. 4, 2007, cited by Appellant in an
information disclosure statement) also teaches the disputed limitations for
the reasons given in the corresponding European Search Report.
4
Appeal 2016-004707
Application 13/158,824
We interpret the claim term “the one real camera of the real camera
for a right eye and the real camera for a left eye2” as encompassing at least a
stereoscopic camera, or “one real camera,” with a right camera, or “real
camera for a right eye” and a left camera, or “real camera for a left eye.”
Matsui teaches a head mounted display 131 that includes real left
camera 132 and real right camera 133. Abstract. Thus, the head mounted
display 131 is “one real camera” within the meaning of claim 1. Masui
teaches taking an image of an object with each of the real left and right
cameras, and acquiring the position and orientation of each. || 27—33.
Matsui also teaches determining the position and orientation of a left virtual
camera using the position and orientation of the left real camera, and
determining the position and orientation of a right virtual camera using the
position and orientation of the right real camera. 34-42.
Cumulative to the Examiner’s findings, we highlight Matsui alone
teaches the limitations of claim 1, except for “calculate a single position and
a single orientation of the one real camera,” and the subsequent determine
steps “using the calculated single position and the calculated single
orientation.” We also highlight Paragraphs 2—5 of Appellant’s Specification
discloses the limitations of claim 1 are known in the prior art, except for
“calculate a single position and a single orientation,” and the subsequent
determine steps “using the calculated single position and the calculated
single orientation.”
2 The literal meaning of this claimed phrase makes little, if any, sense. In
the event of further prosecution, the Examiner should consider whether
claims 1—26 satisfy the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph.
5
Appeal 2016-004707
Application 13/158,824
Tooyama teaches real left and right cameras positioned at left (VPL)
and right (VPR) viewing positions of left and right eyes that capture images
IL1 and IL2. Col. 4,11. 4—14. Tooyama also teaches determining left and
right viewpoint positions of virtual cameras on the basis of a distance (DVB)
(or “relative position”) between the object and a central point (CP) between
the left and right viewing positions; a line-of-sight angle (or “relative
orientation”) of the central point to the object (SL); and a distance between
left and right viewing positions (DLR). Col. 4,11. 18—21; col. 10,1. 48—col.
11,1. 36; col. 12,11. 19-56; col. 13,11. 25-34; Figs. 10, 16. We find the
scope of the “single position” calculated for “the one real camera” as
claimed encompasses at least the distance DVB between the object and
central point CP as taught by Tooyama. We find the scope of the claimed
“single orientation” calculated for “the one real camera” encompasses at
least the line-of-sight angle taught by Tooyama.
The Supreme Court has recognized that “when a patent claims a
structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere
substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination
must do more than yield a predictable result.” See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex,
Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007). Replacing the position and orientation of
each of the left and right real cameras of Matsui with a single position and a
single orientation as taught by Tooyama, does no more than yield the
predictable result of setting the position and orientation of Matsui’s two
virtual cameras as a function of the single position and orientation of
Matsui’s “one real camera” headset.
Appellant contends Matsui does not teach calculating one of the
positions for the left and right camera and using that information to set the
6
Appeal 2016-004707
Application 13/158,824
positions of both left and right virtual cameras. Reply Br. 5. However,
Tooyama teaches determining a single “relative position” and a single
“relative orientation” of a “one real camera” stereoscopic device, and using
the single position and the single orientation to determine the position and
orientation for left and right virtual cameras, as discussed above and in cols.
10-13 of Tooyama. Appellant’s contention against Matsui alone does not
persuasively distinguish the claim over the combined teachings of Matsui
and Tooyama.
Appellant contends the assumed position of the eyes of a user is not a
calculated position of a real camera. Reply Br. 5. Appellant’s contention is
inconsistent with Tooyama, which teaches capturing left and right images
using digital cameras located at positions where a left eye and a right eye of
a viewer are assumed to be. Col. 4,11. 4—14; col. 10,11. 57—62; col. 11,11.
30-33; col. 12,11. 25-31.
Appellant contends Tooyama does not teach calculating the position
of one real camera. Reply Br. 5. Appellant’s contention is inconsistent with
calculating a central point of the headset 131 of Matsui as taught by Figure
10 of Tooyama.
Appellant contends Tooyama does not use one position to set the
position of two virtual cameras. Appellant’s contention is inconsistent with
Tooyama’s teaching of setting viewpoint positions of virtual cameras to
display left and right images on a screen based on the DVB. Col. 4,11. 18—
21; col. 10,11. 48-67; col. 11,11. 1-21; col. 11,1. 52 to col. 12,1. 9; Fig. 16.
Appellant contends the Examiner’s obviousness rationale does not
result in the claimed subject matter. Reply Br. 6—9. Appellant’s contention
is based on the premise that the combination of Matsui and Tooyama does
7
Appeal 2016-004707
Application 13/158,824
not teach setting the position and orientation of two virtual cameras using a
single calculated orientation and position of one real camera, which we find
unpersuasive as discussed above.
We sustain the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Appellant
does not provide arguments for separate patentability of claims 2, 19-23,
and 26, which fall with claim 1.
Appellant contends Schooleman does not teach “wherein only one of
the first and second real world images from among both of the first and
second real world images is used to determine the first and second poses of
respective first and second virtual cameras” as recited in claim 24. App. Br.
26—27. According to Appellant, Schooleman teaches determining a pose of
a recognition member which is not a real camera. App. Br. 26 (citing
Schooleman 1124). Appellant’s contention is inconsistent with the cited
paragraph of Schooleman which teaches a calculator unit receiving an image
from one or both of the left and right cameras, and determining from said
image(s) the pose of the recognition member relative to the cameras.
The Examiner also finds Paragraphs 158—162 of Schooleman teaches
this limitation. Ans. 24. Appellant does not persuasively show error in the
Examiner’s finding.
We sustain the rejection of claims 24 and 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Section 103 rejections of claims 3—16
Appellant presents arguments for the patentability of claims 3—8
similar to those presented for claim 1. App. Br. 28—29. We find Appellant’s
arguments unpersuasive for the reasons given in our analysis of claim 1.
We sustain the rejections of claims 3—16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
8
Appeal 2016-004707
Application 13/158,824
Section 103 rejection of claims 17 and 18
Appellant contends claim 17 sets forth selecting one of the left and
right cameras as the one real camera. App. Br. 29-30. However, claim 17
does not recite “selecting ‘one’ of the left and right cameras as the one real
camera.” (Emphasis omitted.) Claim 17 recites “select one of the real
camera for a right eye and the real camera for a left eye,” wherein “if the
selected real camera is the one of the real cameras . . . and if the selected real
camera is the other one of the real cameras . . . .3”
Appellant contends selecting a real camera as taught by Thomas does
not teach having that real camera be the “one real camera” that provides
position and orientation information used to set the position and orientation
of both virtual cameras. App. Br. 30—31. However, the combination of
Matsui and Tooyama teaches the “one real camera” that provides position
and orientation information for setting the positions and orientations of left
and right virtual cameras as discussed in our analysis of claim 1.
Appellant’s contention against Thomas individually does not distinguish the
claim over the combined teachings of the prior art.
We sustain the rejection of claims 17 and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1—26 are affirmed.
3 The literal meaning of claim 17 makes little, if any, sense. Further, “one of
the real camera,” “the one of the real cameras,” and “the other of the real
cameras” lack antecedent basis. The Examiner should determine whether
the claim satisfies the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph.
9
Appeal 2016-004707
Application 13/158,824
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). See
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f).
AFFIRMED
10