Ex Parte Kuroume et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 25, 2016

13181778 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 25, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/181,778 07 /13/2011
27562 7590 07/27/2016
NIXON & V ANDERHYE, P,C
901 NORTH GLEBE ROAD, 11 TH FLOOR
ARLINGTON, VA 22203
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Tomoaki KUROUME
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.
MEN-723-3140 5074
EXAMINER
BUTTRAM, ALAN T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2613
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/27/2016 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):
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 TOMOAKI KUROUME, TETSUY A SASAKI, and
EIICHI SHIRAKAWA 1
Appeal2014-008817
Application 13/181,778
Technology Center 2600
Before BRUCE R. WINSOR, JOHN F. HORVATH, and
AMBER L. HAGY, Administrative Patent Judges.
HAGY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 1-17, which are all of the pending claims. We
have jurisdiction over these claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm.
1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Nintendo Co., Ltd. (App.
Br. 3.)
Appeal2014-008817
Application 13/181,778
Introduction
According to Appellants, "the present invention relates to an
information processing system, an information processing apparatus, a
computer-readable storage medium having an information processing
program stored therein, and an information processing method, which are
related to sharing of images." (Spec. i-f 1.)
Exemplary Claim
Claim 1, reproduced below with the disputed limitation italicized, is
exemplary of the claimed subject matter:
1. An information processing system comprising a server for
managing image files of a planar view image file format and a
plurality of first information processing apparatuses each capable
of transmitting and/or receiving an image file via the server,
at least one of the first information processing apparatuses
compnsmg:
a first file transmitter configured to modifY
metadata of an image file of a multi-view image file format which
contains a multi-view image to metadata of an image file of a
planar view image file format, and transmit the image file having
the modified metadata to the server; and
at least one of the first information processing apparatuses
compnsmg:
a first display controller configured to, when an
image file of the planar view image file format that is received
from the server contains a multi-view image, perform multi-view
display on a first display device by using the multi-view image.
2
Appeal2014-008817
Application 13/181,778
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Brawn
Ramstad
Lee
US 2005/0185225 Al
US 2008/0279449 Al
US 2008/0310762 Al
REJECTIONS
Aug. 25, 2005
Nov. 13, 2008
Dec. 18, 2008
Claims 1, 3-5, and 8-17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Ramstad and Lee. (Final Act. 3-11.)
Claims 2 and 6-7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Ramstad, Lee, and Brawn. (Final Act. 11-13.)
ISSUE
(1) Whether the Examiner erred in finding the combination of
Ramstad and Lee teaches or suggests "a first file transmitter configured to
modify metadata of an image file of a multi-view image file format which
contains a multi-view image to metadata of an image file of a planar view
image file format, and transmit the image file having the modified metadata
to the server" and "a first display controller configured to, when an image
file of the planar view image file format that is received from the server
contains a multi-view image, perform multi-view display on a first display
device by using the multi-view image," as recited in independent claim 1.
(2) Whether the Examiner erred in finding the combination of
Ramstad, Lee, and Brawn teaches or suggests "wherein the first file
transmitter is further configured to change an extension of the image file in
the metadata of the image file of the multi-view image file format to an
3
Appeal2014-008817
Application 13/181,778
extension for the planar view image file format, and transmit the image file
to the server," as recited in dependent claim 2.
(3) Whether the Examiner erred in finding the combination of
Ramstad, Lee, and Brawn teaches or suggests "when an image file of the
planar view image file format that is received from the server contains a
multi-view image, modify metadata of the image file to metadata of the
multi-view image file format and store the image file," as recited in
dependent claim 7.
ANALYSIS
A. Claim 1: 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Ramstad and Lee
According to Appellants, their Application describes and claims a
solution to the situation wherein "certain web servers may have various
problems sharing images when receiving files in multi-view image file
format, such as, for example, automatically discarding individual images
included in a multi-view image format file." (App. Br. 11 (citing Spec.
i-f 117) (emphasis added).) In particular, according to Appellants:
The subject application describes a modified multi-view image
file format (e.g., a modified multipicture format file obtained by
assigning a JPEG extension while maintaining a substantial
structure as a multi-picture format) that, while regarded by the
web server as planar view (e.g., based on the file extension of the
file), is handled by the display controller as multi-view (e.g., by
looking not only at file extension, but also other information).
(App. Br. 11-12 (emphasis added) (citing Spec. i-fi-1119-121).) Appellants'
Specification further explains that a server that is able to handle only
"conventionally and commonly used file formats" will "regard the modified
multi-view image file format file as a planar view image file" (such as "a
4
Appeal2014-008817
Application 13/181,778
JPEG file"), but an apparatus that is capable of handling multi-view images
will "handle[] the modified multi-view image file format file as a file in
which the function of a multi-view image file format file is maintained."
(Spec. iTiT 93, 97.)
Appellants focus their arguments on appeal on the "first file
transmitter" and "first display controller" limitations of claim 1. (App. Br.
11-16; Reply Br. 1--4.) With regard to those limitations, the Examiner finds
Lee teaches "multi-view image format (i.e. 3D) and planar view format (i.e.
2D)." (Ans. 13.) The Examiner further finds Lee teaches a "3D image file
storing format" that "has compatibility respective to regeneration of a
conventional 2D image and a 3D image." (Id. (citing Lee iT 52) (emphases
added); see also Final Act. 2-7; Ans. 13-14.)
Appellants argue the Examiner's findings are in error because
"according to Lee, a 2D image file format (e.g., shown in FIG. 1, reproduced
below) is modified to a 3D image file format (e.g. shown in FIG. 2A, also
reproduced below) by adding a metadata area (e.g., metadata 203 is the
added area)." (App. Br. 13 (emphases added).) Appellants further argue:
[A]dding a metadata area to a file that is already in 2D image
format in order to include a 3D image in that file, as taught by
Lee, is patentably different from the modifYing of metadata of a
multi-view image format file to obtain a planar view image
format file, as required by claim 1.
(Id. (emphases added).)
Appellants' arguments do not persuade us of Examiner error. As the
Examiner finds, and we agree, Lee teaches a "3D image file storing format
... [that] has compatibility respective to regeneration of a conventional 2D
image and a 3D image." (Ans. 6 (citing Lee iTiT 50-54) (emphases added).)
In particular, Lee teaches "[a] method for generating and regenerating a 3D
5
Appeal2014-008817
Application 13/181,778
imagejUe, based on 2D image media standards" (Lee if 3, 14), wherein a 3D
image is captured and then stored in a:
[3D] file format formed in such a manner that a part of a 2D
image file format prescribed in International Standardization
Organization (ISO) 14496-12 is changed according to a
standardization activity regarding the multimedia application
format ofMPEG-A, wherein all generation and regeneration of
2D and 3D image files can be achieved by such a 3D file format.
(Lee if 9 (emphasis added).) Because Lee's file format is "based on 2D
image media standards," Lee's file format allows, as the Examiner finds and
we agree, "a typical regenerating device, which [cannot] regenerate a 3D
image" to receive this file format and "regenerate a 2D image." (Ans. 6
(citing Lee iii! 50-54).) Lee's file format also allows a display unit capable
of displaying a 3D image to take the same file and regenerate a 3D image.
(Id.) Thus, as the Examiner finds, and we agree, Lee teaches a "3D image
file storing format [that] has compatibility respective to generation of a
conventional 2D image and a 3D image." (Id. (emphasis added).)
Appellants' argument thus boils down to whether it is patentably
distinct to "modify metadata" of a 3D image file format to convert that file
to a 2D image file format, while retaining 3D information in that file, as
Appellants claim, as opposed to creating a file in the first instance that is in
a 2D image file format and that includes 3D information in the file, as taught
by Lee. In that regard, it is instructive to review the description in
Appellants' Specification, which states, for example:
As used herein, the term "modified multi-view image file format
file" refers to a file that is obtained by modifYing metadata of a
multi-view image file format file and that can be recognized by a
specific computer system as being in a planar view image file
format while having a recording mode as a multi-view image file
6
Appeal2014-008817
Application 13/181,778
format. ... Typically, one example of the "modified multi-view
image file format file" includes a "modified multi-picture format
file" or an image file which is in the data recording format of the
multi-picture format file while having the extension of its
filename modified from its original one (e.g., .MPO) to another
one (e.g., .JPG) which indicates another data recording format.
(Spec. i-f 29 (emphases added).) Thus, according to Appellants'
Specification, to "modify metadata of an image file of a multi-view image
... to metadata of an image file of a planar view file format," as recited in
claim 1, includes changing the file name of the multi-view image from
".MPO" to a file extension of a common planar (or 2D) file format-that is,
".JPG." Further according to Appellants, although the file is then stored as a
planar file, or .JPG, the file "maintain[ s] a substantial structure as a multi-
picture format," so that a display controller may handle the file "as multi-
view (e.g., by looking not only at file extension, but also other
information)." (Reply Br. 3.)
\Ve are not persuaded that it is patentably distinct over Lee to modify
a file (e.g. by changing its file extension) from a 3D image format to a
standard 2D file format, while retaining certain information to allow display
of the original 3D image, as Appellants contend (e.g. App. Br. 15), as
opposed to storing the 3D image in a standard 2D image file format in the
first instance while including information in that 2D image file to allow
display of the original 3D image as well as the 2D image, as taught by Lee
(e.g., Lee i-fi-18-14, 33, 50-54).
For the foregoing reasons, we are not persuaded of error in the
Examiner's finding the combination of Ramstad and Lee teaches or suggests
the limitations of claim 1. We, therefore, sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C.
7
Appeal2014-008817
Application 13/181,778
§ 103(a) rejection of independent claim 1, as well as dependent claims 3-5
and 8-17, not argued separately.
B. Claim 2: 35 USC§ 103(a) over Ramstad, Lee, and Brawn
Claim 2 depends from claim 1, and adds the limitation "wherein the
first file transmitter is further configured to change an extension of the
image file in the metadata of the image file of the multi-view image file
format to an extension for the planar view image file format." (App. Br. 22
(Claims App'x).) The Examiner finds, and we agree, Brawn teaches:
[an] imaging system ... [that includes] a computer that analyzes
electronic documents in various formats, such as text files, image
files, e-mails, word processing files, graphic files, database files,
and the like, and converts them to one or more known formats,
such as an image format. The EDD system 124 may perform the
conversions based on file-type extensions of the documents to be
converted, the properties of the files, or other characteristics,
such as information contained in the header or other relevant
portion of the document.
(Final Act. 11-12 (citing Brawn i-f 38).)
Appellants argue the Examiner's findings regarding claim 2 are in
error because:
performing conversions based on file-type extensions of the
documents to be converted, as taught in Brawn, does not provide
the teaching required by claim 2 that change an extension of the
image file in the metadata of the image file. For example,
whereas claim 2 requires that the file extension of the image
file is changed in the metadata, Brawn merely teaches
performing conversions between formats based upon the file
extension.
(App. Br. 19.)
8
Appeal2014-008817
Application 13/181,778
We are not persuaded of error in the Examiner's findings. Consistent
with the Examiner's findings, Brawn further discloses:
The EDD system 124 may convert image data from various other
formats into a single format, such as a JPEG or TIFF format.
The control system 114 may also convert other types of
electronic files, such as e-mails, word processing files,
spreadsheet files, graphics files, engineering files, and the like,
into a single format, such as an image format. The conversion
may be facilitated in any suitable manner, such as by initiating
conversion programs automatically according to file extensions
or other file type designators or criteria, such as file header data.
Thus, the EDD system 124 may receive an array of files in
different formats and generate a series of images, in a
manageable number of formats, representing the content of the
files. The images are suitably converted to a single image format
to facilitate review, coding, printing, and other uses.
(Brawn i-f 58 (emphases added).) Thus, an image's file-type (e.g., multi-
view/planar view or JPEG/TIFF) is reflected in both the image's file-type
extension and in the image's header data, both of which are metadata that
describe the data stored in the image file. A person of ordinary skill in the
art, at the time of Appellants' invention, would have known that when a file
is converted from a first format (e.g., JPEG) to a second format (e.g., TIFF)
as taught by Brawn, the metadata of the file (e.g., its header and file-type
extension) is changed to reflect the converted format.
We sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 2.
C. Claim 7: 3 5 U.S. C. § 103 (a) over Ramstad, Lee, and Brawn
Claim 7 depends from claim 1, and adds the limitation:
wherein the first information processing apparatus further
comprises one or more storage[ ]devices configured to, when an
image file of the planar view image file format that is received
from the server contains a multi-view image, modify metadata of
9
Appeal2014-008817
Application 13/181,778
the image file to metadata of the multi-view image file format
and store the image file.
(App. Br. 24 (Claims App'x).)
Appellants argue:
[A]s argued above in relation to claim 2, Brawn, for example, at
paragraph [0038], teaches performing conversions based on file-
type extensions of the documents to be converted, but does not
teach modifying the metadata of the planar view image file to
metadata of a multi-view image file before storing the received
image file, as required by claim 7.
(App. Br. 20.)
We are not persuaded of error in the Examiner's rejection.
Appellants' Specification discloses that "modifying the metadata of the
planar view image file to metadata of the multi-view image file" includes
"changing the extension of the modified stereoscopic view image file from
an extension for a planar view image format file (i.e., .JPG) to an extension
for a multi-view image format file (i.e., .MPO)." (Spec. i-f 124 (emphasis
added).) As noted above regarding claim 2, Brawn, consistent with the
Examiner's findings, teaches the system disclosed therein may "convert
image data from various other formats into a single format, such as a JPEG
or TIFF format," and further teaches "[t]he conversion may be facilitated in
any suitable manner, such as by initiating conversion programs
automatically according to file extensions or other file type designators or
criteria, such as file header data." (Brawn i-f 58 (emphasis added).)
Moreover, a person of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of Appellants'
invention, would have known that when a file is converted from a first
format (e.g., JPEG) to a second format (e.g., TIFF) as taught by Brawn, the
10
Appeal2014-008817
Application 13/181,778
metadata of the file (e.g., its header and file-type extension) is changed to
reflect the converted format.
We sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 7.
DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejections
of claims 1-1 7 are 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)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
11