Ex Parte Marks

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 21, 2016

13282369 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 21, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/282,369 10/26/2011
16051 7590 11/23/2016
MPG, LLP and SONY
710 Lakeway Drive, Suite 200
Sunnyvale, CA 94085
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Richard Marks
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.
SONYP022C 4535
EXAMINER
YANG, ANDREW GUS
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2614
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/23/2016 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):
sonydocket@mpiplaw.com
mpdocket@mpiplaw.com
scea_patent_ docket@Playstation. Sony. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte RICHARD MARKS
Appeal2015-003782
Application 13/282,369
Technology Center 2600
Before: CARLA M. KRIVAK, CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., and
JOHN R KENNY, Administrative Patent Judges.
KENNY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 1-
18, which constitute all pending claims in the application. Final Act. 1; App.
Br. 14. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
Appeal2015-003782
Application 13/282,369
CLAIMED INVENTION
The claimed invention relates to a real-time interactive computer
environment using a three-dimensional camera. Spec. 1. Claim 1 is
illustrative and, with its disputed limitations italicized, reads:
1. A computer implemented method having access to
memory, the method providing a real-time three-dimensional
interactive environment, comprising the operations of:
obtaining depth values indicating distances from one or
more physical objects in a physical scene to a depth sensing
device,
the depth sensing device being adjustable to extend or
reduce a setting of a particular depth range defined by a plane
so that objects between the particular depth range and the depth
sensing device are processed by the depth sensing device, and
objects beyond the particular depth range are not
processed by the depth sensing device, wherein the particular
depth range establishes active detection capabilities of the depth
sensing device, as depth values of objects placed through the
particular depth range and toward the depth sensing device are
detected and
depth values of objects placed beyond the particular depth
range are not detected, wherein the objects placed beyond the
particular depth range are not physically detected by the depth
sensing device when configured for the particular depth range,
and
the objects placed through the particular depth range are
rendered and displayed in a virtual scene based on geometric
characteristics of the object itself.
2
Appeal2015-003782
Application 13/282,369
Nguyen
Woodfill
Williamson
Wilson
Ono
REFERENCES
us 6,072,494
US 6,215,898 Bl
US 2002/0158873 Al
US 2004/0189720 Al
US 7 ,570,281 B 1
REJECTIONS
June 6, 2000
Apr. 10, 2001
Oct. 31, 2002
Sep.30,2004
Aug. 4, 2009
Claims 1--4, 7-10, and 13-16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over the combination of Wilson, Ono, and Nguyen.
Final Act. 2.
Claims 5, 11, and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Wilson, Ono, Nguyen, and Woodfill.
Final Act. 7.
Claims 6, 12, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Wilson, Ono, Nguyen, and
Williamson. Final Act. 8.
ANALYSIS
Claims 1--4, 7-10, and 13-16
The Examiner relies on Ono in combination with Wilson as teaching
or suggesting the disputed limitations in claim 1. Final Act. 4-5. Appellant
argues that these references fail to teach or suggest the disputed limitations
because (i) Wilson detects objects inside and outside of an engagement
volume, (ii) Ono's data processing method captures all depths in an image
and, therefore, fails to not detect depths beyond a particular depth range, (iii)
Ono does not physically detect depths, and (iv) Ono changes the depth
3
Appeal2015-003782
Application 13/282,369
length of its partial searching range until a main subject is found. App. Br.
8-14. We are not persuaded by these arguments.
First, as Appellant acknowledges, the Examiner does not rely on
Wilson for teaching or suggesting the claimed depth range. App. Br. 8; Ans.
2. Therefore, whether Wilson detects objects inside and outside of an
engagement volume is of no consequence for the involved rejections.
Second, claim 1 's disputed limitation of "depth values of objects
placed beyond the particular depth range are not detected" does not exclude
data processing methods that capture all depths in an image. As the
Examiner finds, the Specification discloses a method of capturing a depth
for every pixel within an image. Spec. 12 ("a z-value is captured for each
pixel of the scene;" "depth values are often referred to as z-values."), 16.
The disclosed method excludes depths that exceed the disclosed maximum
depth range, and gives the pixels with such depths the maximum depth
value. Id. at 12. The Specification further describes this method as not
detecting depth values beyond the maximum depth value. Id ("a maximum
detecting range is defined beyond which depth values will not be detected.").
Therefore, in light of the Specification, claim 1 's disputed limitation of
"depth values of objects placed beyond the particular depth range are not
detected" encompasses methods that capture all depths in an image and then
exclude depths that exceed a maximum. As the Examiner finds, Ono, with
its partial searching range, excludes depths that exceed a set range. Final
Act. 4; Ono 8:42---65 ("sliding excludes objects at different depths from a
searching target.") Accordingly, the disputed limitation encompasses Ono's
method.
4
Appeal2015-003782
Application 13/282,369
In addressing the disputed limitation, Appellant argues that limitations
from the Specification cannot be imported into the claims. Reply Br. 2--4.
The argument is not persuasive because the Specification is used to construe
the claim limitation "depth values of objects placed beyond the particular
depth range are not detected," rather than import a limitation from the
Specification. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2005)
(en bane) ("the specification 'is always highly relevant to the claim
construction analysis. Usually, it is dispositive; it is the single best guide to
the meaning of a disputed term.'"), quoting Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic,
Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996).
Third, we are not persuaded by Appellant's argument that Ono does
not disclose the limitation of "wherein the objects placed beyond the
particular depth range are not physically detected by the depth sensing
device when configured for the particular depth range" because Ono does
not perform physical detection. App. Br. 12; Reply Br. 6. The Examiner
does not rely upon Ono for expressly teaching physical detection. Ans. 5---6.
The Examiner combines Ono with Wilson, which discloses physical
detection, to satisfy the disputed limitation. Id. at 2-3, 5---6, citing Wilson i-fi-1
4 7, 61, 81. In other words, Wilson teaches the physical capture of depth
values and Ono teaches the requisite exclusion of values beyond a maximum
depth; the combination, therefore, teaches or suggests the disputed
limitation. Id.; Ono 8:42---65.
Fourth, we are not persuaded by Appellant's argument that Ono does
not disclose the depth range limitation of claim 1 because Ono changes the
depth length of its partial searching range until a main subject is found.
App. Br. 12-14; Reply Br. 6-7. Similarly, we are not persuaded by
5
Appeal2015-003782
Application 13/282,369
Appellant's contention that the disputed limitations require the maximum
depth range is not adjusted based on the contents of an image. Reply Br. 6-
7. Claim 1 recites no limitations requiring the maximum depth range never
changes nor that it is not change based on the content of the image.
Performing a partial search with a particular maximum depth would satisfy
the plain meaning of the involved limitations even if a subsequent partial
search at another maximum depth were to occur.
Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claim 1 and of claims 2--4, 7-
10, and 13-16, not separately argued. App. Br. 8-14.
Claims 5, 6, 11, 12, 17, and 18
Appellant presents the same arguments for claims 5, 6, 11, 12, 17, and
18 as for claim 1. App. Br. 14. Therefore, we sustain the rejections of
claims 5, 6, 11, 12, 17, and 18.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's rejections of claims 1-18.
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
6