Ex Parte Miller et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 21, 201612963585 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 21, 2016) Copy Citation 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. 12/963,585 12/08/2010 Thomas Miller SONYP109 3145 16051 7590 MPG, LLP and SONY 710 Lakeway Drive, Suite 200 Sunnyvale, CA 94085 12/23/2016 EXAMINER WANG, JIN CHENG ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2618 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/23/2016 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): sony docket @ 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 THOMAS MILLER and GEORGE WEISING Appeal 2015-008191 Application 12/963,5851 Technology Center 2600 Before JOHN A. EVANS, CARL L. SILVERMAN, and JOYCE CRAIG, Administrative Patent Judges. CRAIG, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10-12, 15, 16, 18—20, and 22—24, which constitute of all the claims pending in this application.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. 1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Sony Computer Entertainment America LLC. App. Br. 4. 2 Claims 3, 6, 9, 13, 14, 17, and 21 have been canceled. Final Act. 2. Appeal 2015-008191 Application 12/963,585 INVENTION Appellants’ invention relates to enabling an augmented reality character to maintain and exhibit awareness of an observer. Abstract. Claim 1 is illustrative and reads as follows: 1. A method for causing a virtual character to demonstrate awareness of a user's position or activity, the method comprising, detecting a position of a portable device, the portable device being substantially colocational with the user, the portable device including a camera and a display; capturing a first image stream of a real-world scene at the camera; generating a second image stream based on the first image stream, the second image stream comprising an augmented reality scene formed by inserting a virtual character into the real- world scene as captured in the first image stream, the virtual character configured to perform an action indicating awareness of the position or activity of the user; displaying the second image stream on the display of the portable device; wherein the action indicating awareness comprises adjusting a view direction, in the augmented reality scene, of the virtual character; wherein the detection of the position of the portable device comprises identification of anchors within the first image stream, the anchors being tracked during movement of the portable device; wherein the adjustment of the view direction of the virtual character is in the direction of the position of the portable device and is defined by turning of the virtual character from a current view direction to an adjusted view direction facing the portable device. 2 Appeal 2015-008191 Application 12/963,585 REJECTIONS Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 16, and 18—20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Bertolami et al. (US 2010/0287485 Al; published Nov. 11, 2010) (“Bertolami”), Merkli et al. (US 2008/0194323 Al; published Aug. 14, 2008) (“Merkli”), Altberg et al. (US 2008/0262911 Al; published Oct. 23, 2008) (“Altberg”), and Horri et al. (US 8,411,091 B2; issued Apr. 2, 2013) (“Horri”). Claims 10-12, 15 and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Bertolami, Altberg, and Horri. Claims 23 and 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Bertolami, Merkli, Altberg, and Horri. ANALYSIS We have considered Appellants’ arguments, but do not find them persuasive of error. We agree with and adopt as our own the Examiner’s findings of facts and conclusions as set forth in the Answer and in the Action from which this appeal was taken, to the extent consistent with our analysis below. We provide the following explanation for emphasis. Claims 1, 2, 4, 10—12, 15, 16, 18—20, 22, and 22 Appellants contend the Examiner erred in findings that the cited portions of Bertolami teach or suggest performance of an action indicating awareness of the position of the user, comprising adjusting a view direction of the virtual character in the augmented reality scene, as claim 1 requires. App. Br. 13. Appellants argue that, in Bertolami, “it is the image of the character for presentation that is adjusted, not the character’s view direction in the virtual environment.” Id. at 13. In Appellants’ view, in Bertolami, 3 Appeal 2015-008191 Application 12/963,585 “the view direction of the virtual character in the augmented reality scene does not change, only the perspective from which such a view direction is being presented.” Reply Br. 3. Appellants’ arguments do not persuade us of Examiner error. The plain language of claim 1 does not require that the adjustment of the view direction towards the portable device “change the relationship of the view direction to other elements (whether real or virtual) that compose the augmented reality scene,” as Appellants contend. See Reply Br. 3^4; see also App. Br. 13. Claim 1 recites “an augmented reality scene formed by inserting a virtual character into the real-world scene as captured in the first image stream,” and “adjusting a view direction, in the augmented reality scene, of the virtual character.” We give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the Specification as they would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Am. Acad. ofSci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The Examiner found that the term “view direction” recited in claim 1 is broad enough to encompass the virtual character’s orientation in Bertolami. See id. at 7. We observe that Appellants’ disclosure does not specifically define “view direction.” Moreover, Appellants present no persuasive explanation or evidence that the Examiner’s interpretation of the term is overly broad, unreasonable, or inconsistent with the Specification. See Reply Br. 3—6. Thus we agree with the Examiner's reasonable interpretation of “view direction.” Applying this interpretation, we agree with the Examiner’s finding that changing the orientation of the virtual character in the augmented reality scene in Bertolami teaches or suggested 4 Appeal 2015-008191 Application 12/963,585 the limitation “adjusting a view direction, in the augmented reality scene, of the virtual character.” Ans. 5—7. Moreover, Appellants attack Bertolami individually, even though the Examiner relied on the combination of Bertolami, Merkli, Altberg, and Horri in rejecting claim 1. See Final Act. 19—21; In reMouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1332-33 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (citing In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981)) (“The test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those having ordinary skill in the art.”). Appellants argue in a conclusory manner that the teachings of Merkli, Altberg, and Horri fail to disclose the claimed adjustment of the view direction of the virtual character as claimed, but Appellants present no persuasive explanation or evidence to rebut the Examiner’s findings with regard to those references in combination with Bertolami. Rule 41.37 “require[s] more substantive arguments in an appeal brief than a mere recitation of the claim elements and a naked assertion that the corresponding elements were not found in the prior art.” In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011). For these reasons, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in finding that the combination of Bertolami, Merkli, Altberg, and Horri teaches or suggests the limitations of claim 1. Accordingly, we sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of independent claim 1, as well as the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of independent claims 10, 16, and 22, which Appellants argue are patentable for similar reasons. App. Br. 16—17. We also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of dependent claims 2, 4, 11, 12, 15, 18—20, and 23, for which Appellants make no additional arguments. Id. at 16—18. 5 Appeal 2015-008191 Application 12/963,585 Claim 5 Claim 5 depends from claim 1 and adds the limitation “wherein the performance of an action indicating awareness occurs automatically, without requiring a command from the user.” App. Br. 21. Appellants contend, because the cited prior art does not teach or suggest “the performance of the action indicating awareness as claimed,” the cited art does not teach that such an action indicating awareness occurs automatically. App. Br. 16. Appellants refer to and rely on the arguments made for claim 1. Id. For the reasons discussed above with regard to claim 1, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 5. Claim 7 Claim 7 depends from claim 1 and adds the limitation “continuously updating the adjustment of the view direction of the virtual character in the direction of the position of the portable device, as the portable device moves in three-dimensional space.” App. Br. 21. Appellants argue that, “as Bertolami teaches that a character may face towards or away from a user depending upon their location, Bertolami does not teach or suggest continuously updating the virtual character's view direction to be in the direction of the portable device as claimed.” Id. at 16—17. We are not persuaded of Examiner error. Appellants do not persuasively explain why Bertolami’s teaching that a character may face towards or away from a user depending upon their location means Bertolami does not teach or suggest the disputed limitation. The Examiner found that the view orientation of the virtual character 264 of Bertolami continuously follows the device user’s view orientation, as shown in FIG. 2, “as the orientation of the real world objects in the augmented reality image is 6 Appeal 2015-008191 Application 12/963,585 dependent upon the user’s position or activity.” Ans. 14. Appellants’ conclusory argument is not sufficient to rebut the Examiner’s findings. Appellants’ further contention that neither Merkli nor Altberg suggests the disputed limitation is also unpersuasive. See id. at 17. Rule 41.37 “require[s] more substantive arguments in an appeal brief than a mere recitation of the claim elements and a naked assertion that the corresponding elements were not found in the prior art.” Lovin, 652 F.3d at 1357. Accordingly, we are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 7, and we sustain the rejection. Claim 8 Claim 8 depends from claim 7 and adds the limitation “wherein the adjustment of the view direction of the virtual character includes adjustment of a head or eyes of the virtual character so as to look in the direction of the portable device.” App. Br. 21. Appellants contend neither Bertolami nor Altberg teaches the additional limitation. App. Br. 17. We do not find Appellants’ arguments persuasive. The Examiner found that the virtual character in Figure 2 of Bertolami has a head and eyes and that the character’s eyes and move to look in the direction of the portable device. See Ans. 7. Appellants have not presented persuasive explanation or evidence to rebut the Examiner’s findings. Accordingly, we are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 8, and we sustain the rejection. Claim 24 Claim 24 depends from claim 23 and adds the limitation “wherein when the direction of the camera is towards an object in the augmented reality scene other than the virtual character, then the view direction of the 7 Appeal 2015-008191 Application 12/963,585 virtual character is adjusted towards the object in the augmented reality scene.” App. Br. 25. Appellant contends in a conclusory manner that none of the cited prior art references suggests the view direction of the virtual character being adjusted based on the direction towards which the camera is directed. App. Br. 18. Rule 41.37, however, “require[s] more substantive arguments in an appeal brief than a mere recitation of the claim elements and a naked assertion that the corresponding elements were not found in the prior art.” Lovin, 652 F.3d at 1357. Accordingly, we are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 24, and we sustain the rejection. DECISION We affirm the decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10-12, 15, 16, 18-20, and 22-24. 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 8 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation