Ex Parte Katz et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 28, 2016

12879482 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 28, 2016)

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.
12/879,482 09/10/2010 Sheldon Katz 40189/02102(11-DIS-073) 7065
94470 7590 09/29/2016
DISNEY ENTERPRISES, INC.
c/o Fay Kaplun & Marcin, LLP
150 Broadway
Suite 702
New York, NY 10038
EXAMINER
HUANG, FRANK F
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2485
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/29/2016 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte SHELDON KATZ, GREGORY HOUSE and
HOWARD KENNEDY
____________

Appeal 2015-008190
Application 12/879,482
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before KRISTEN L. DROESCH, JENNIFER L. McKEOWN, and
JAMES W. DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judges.

McKEOWN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
decision to reject claims 1–30, 32, and 33. Claim 31 is withdrawn. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ invention relates “to virtual insertions into 3D video.”
Spec. ¶ 2. More specifically, the invention uses “[v]irtual camera models
enabl[ing] insertions to be reconciled relative to left and right channels of
the 3D video to maximize 3D accuracy and realism of the insertions.”
Abstract.
Appeal 2015-008190
Application 12/879,482

2

Claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed invention and reads as follows:
1. A method comprising:
detemining a first camera data parameter of a first camera
model based on at least a first channel of a 3D video;
determining a second camera data parameter of a second
camera model based on at least a relationship between the first
channel of the 3D video and a second channel of the 3D video;
generating a composite camera model by reconciling the
first camera data parameter of the first camera model and the
second camera data parameter of the second camera model; and
inserting an enhancement into the 3D video based on the
composite camera model.

THE REJECTION
The Examiner rejected claims 1–30, 32, and 33 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Kanbara et al., A Stereoscopic Video See-
through Augmented Reality System Based on Real-time Vision-based
Registration, IEEE, 2000, and Hoffmann (US 2008/0144924A1, published
June 19, 2008). Final Act. 4–13.1

ANALYSIS
Claims 1–30, 32, and 33
Based on the record before us, we are not persuaded the Examiner
erred in rejecting claims 1–30, 32, and 33 as unpatentable over Kanbara and
Hoffmann.

1 Throughout this opinion, we also refer to (1) the Final Action, mailed
Sept. 5, 2014 (“Final Act.”); (2) the Appeal Brief filed February 5, 2015
(“App. Br.”); (3) the Examiner’s Answer mailed July 8, 2015 (“Ans.”); and
(4) the Reply Brief filed Sept. 8, 2015 (“Reply Br.”).
Appeal 2015-008190
Application 12/879,482

3
Appellants contend the Examiner erred in finding Hoffmann teaches
the generation of a composite camera model. App. Br. 4–8. Specifically,
Appellants allege “[b]ecause Hoffman[n] does not disclose the construction
of a first camera model and a second camera model, Hoffman[n] does not
disclose or suggest the claim 1 recitation of ‘generating a composite camera
model’ by reconciling the data parameters of these camera models.” App.
Br. 4.
This argument, however, fails to consider the combination of
Hoffmann with Kanbara. As the Examiner explains, “Kanbara [] teaches the
detail of the camera model, and Hoffman[n] [] teaches the detail of the
reconciling the parameters of the existing camera through the detail of how
the camera are calibrated.” Ans. 16; see also Ans. 18 (“noting that
Hoffman[n] and Kanbara disclose updating the camera model of left/right
camera with the information from a calibration of left and right camera
based on the object tracking.”).
As such, Appellants’ argument solely addressing Hoffmann, without
considering the teachings of Kanbara, is unpersuasive. One cannot show
nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are
based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426
(CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir.
1986).
Appellants additionally argue “Hoffman[n] does not disclose or
suggest the ‘first camera data parameter of the first camera model and the
second camera data parameter of the second camera model,’ as recited in
claim 1.” App. Br. 8. More specifically, Appellants allege “the pitch and
roll angles of Hoffman[n] [,which the Examiner identifies as the first and
Appeal 2015-008190
Application 12/879,482

4
second camera data parameters,] are separate components used for
calibrating a stereo camera system and determining the distance of a
recorded object, but these angles are not reconciled to create the yaw angle.
(See id., ¶¶ 20, 24, 66–70, 87–91).” App. Br. 9; see also Reply Br. 3–4.
We find this argument unpersuasive. Specifically, the Examiner
identifies Hoffman uses “a rectangular camera coordinate system for
specifying the location and the position of the single-image cameras 16, 18,
in particular of the optical axes of the single-image cameras 16, 18, with
respect to one another,” with each of the pitch and roll angles representing a
rotation along the X-axis and the Z-axis, respectively. Ans. 20 (citing
Hoffman Fig. 2, ¶¶ 62, 67)(emphasis added). The Examiner explains that
Hoffmann reconciles each of the pitch and roll angles by updating the preset
values. Ans. 20–21; see also Hoffmann ¶¶ 85–86 (explaining that a
comparison of image correspondence between single-image cameras 16, 18
is used to update the present pitch and roll angle values).
Then, as the Examiner points out, the preset pitch and roll values are
used “in the subsequent evaluation of further recorded images, in particular
in the distance measurement with the aid of the of the recorded image pairs;
i.e. yaw angle determined by object tracking; i.e. correct preset yaw angle.”
Ans. 21. In other words, the reconciled pitch and roll angle values are used
to determine the yaw angle and, thus, Hoffmann, in view of Kanbara,
satisfies the recited generating a composite camera model by reconciling
limitation. We are not persuaded of error in these findings.
Finally, Appellants allege that it would not have been obvious to
combine Kanbara and Hoffmann because the proposed combination would
change the principle of operation of Kanbara. App. Br. 10–12. In particular,
Appeal 2015-008190
Application 12/879,482

5
Appellants contend that “Kanbara requires the creation of a matrix
representing the relationship between the real and virtual environments,”
whereas “Hoffman[n] discloses a method for determining a calibration
parameter of two cameras within a stereo camera in the real world.” App.
Br. 11 (citing Kanbara p. 257 and Hoffmann ¶¶ 13, 13). According to
Appellants, Hoffmann’s real-world camera calibration would “change the
operating principle of the Kanbara augmented reality method, because
Kanbara requires the calculation of the relationships between real-world and
virtual images for constructing a projection matrix.” App. Br. 12.
We disagree. As the Examiner explains, Hoffmann is directed to a
calibration method to correct parameters between camera models and
Kanbara describes calibrating the stereo cameras in advance by using
standard techniques. Ans. 22. Specifically, “[o]nly with the calibrated
camera from Hoffman, can Kanbara apply the correct model to generate the
augmented reality system.” Id. As such, we are not persuaded Kanbara’s
combination with Hoffmann would change the principle operation of
Kanbara.
Accordingly, for the reasons discussed above and by the Examiner,
we sustain the rejection of claims 1–30, 32, and 33 as unpatentable over
Kanbara and Hoffmann.

DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–30, 32, and 33.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

Appeal 2015-008190
Application 12/879,482

6
AFFIRMED