Ex Parte Ota

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 4, 2016

12873077 (P.T.A.B. May. 4, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/873,077 08/31/2010
37123 7590 05/05/2016
FITCH EVEN TABIN & FLANNERY, LLP
120 SOUTH LASALLE STREET
SUITE 1600
CHICAGO, IL 60603-3406
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Takaaki Ota
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.
7114-95588-US 4614
EXAMINER
PEREZ FUENTES, LUIS M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2481
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
05/05/2016 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 T AKAATI OT A
Appeal2014-008100
Application 12/873,077
Technology Center 2400
Before THU A. DANG, LARRY J. HUME, and
JAMES W. DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judges.
DANG, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 1-17 and 21-26. Claims 18-20 have been
canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm.
A. INVENTION
According to Appellant, the disclosed and claimed invention relates to
"multiview display of content" (Spec., 1 11. 9-11 ).
Appeal2014-008100
Application 12/873,077
B. ILLUSTRATIVE CLAHvI
Claim 1 is exemplary:
1. A method comprising:
receiving a first content and a second content;
applying a first depth to the first content;
applying a second depth to the second content; and
compositing the first content and the second content to
generate a single 3-Dimensional (3-D) composite content,
wherein the composite content is configured to be displayed on
a 3-D display; and
wherein the composite content is configured to be played
back such that the first content and the second content are
displayed simultaneously, and wherein the composite content is
further configured to be played back such that one of the first
content and the second content is displayed appearing in focus
and the second one of the first content and the second content is
displayed appearing out of focus based on a selection of one of
the first content and the second content.
C. REJECTIONS
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner as evidence in rejecting the
claims on appeal is:
Wang
Paquette
Sasaki
US 2010/0103318 Al
US 7,817,166 B2
US 2011/0013890 Al
Apr. 29, 2010
Oct. 19, 2010
Jan. 20, 2011
Claims 1-8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over the teachings of Paquette and Wang.
Claims 9-17, and 21-26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the teachings of Paquette and Wang, in further view of
Sasaki.
2
Appeal2014-008100
Application 12/873,077
II. ISSUE
The principal issue before us is whether the Examiner erred in finding
that the combination of Paquette and Wang teaches or would have suggested
"applying a first depth to the first content; applying a second depth to the
second content;" and "compositing the first content and the second content
to generate a single [3-D] composite content ... ," wherein" ... one of the first
content and the second content is displayed appearing in focus and the
[other] appearing out of focus based on a selection of one of the first content
and the second content" (claim 1) (emphasis added).
III. FINDINGS OF FACT
The following Findings of Fact (FF) are shown by a preponderance of
the evidence.
Paquette
1. Paquette discloses displaying stereo content in a windowing
environment (col. 2, 11. 20-50). In examples of stereo content display
methods, content is written to two frame buffers, one each including
content for display to the left and right eye (col. 1, 11. 18--43). A
mechanism, such as stereo shutter glasses or polarization filters, is used
in conjunction with the frame buffers to direct the content in each buffer
to the appropriate eye (id.). The viewing mechanism, upon detection of
a signal value, causes the appropriate eye to receive the display
information (id.). An external hardware device may be used to directly
control operation of the viewing device (id.).
2. In an embodiment, a stereo assembly buffer for each display device in
the system is created (col. 4, 11. 32---62). The content of all windows and
3
Appeal2014-008100
Application 12/873,077
attached drawing surfaces is mapped to drawing layers, wherein, for
stereo content, left eye content is mapped to drawing layers for the left
eye, and right eye content is mapped to drawing layers for the right eye
(id.). An optional transformation may be applied to windows and
attached surfaces for the right eye based on the window ordering (id.).
As an example, affine transformations may be applied to window
content that is supposed to be on top and, in the right-eye view, moved
slightly to the left so that it appears in front (id.).
3. The windowing system can determine whether stereo processing is
required, wherein monocular processing is performed when no stereo
content is being displayed, while stereo processing is performed as
appropriate (col. 4, 1. 64 to col. 5, 1. 6).
IV. ANALYSIS
Appellant argues that Paquette' s "locus of stereo content processing"
and "the ability to support transparency ... and the ability to reliably support
blue-line technologies in a windowed environment" do not disclose a display
where "one of the first content and the second content is displayed appearing
in focus" and the other one of "the first content and the second content is
displayed appearing out of focus," as required by claim 1 (App. Br. 11-13).
Further, according to Appellant, "no portion of Paquette discloses or
suggests displaying one of the first content and the second content in focus
and the second one of the first content and the second content out of focus
'based on a selection of one of the first content and the second content' as
recited in independent claim 1" (App. Br. 13-14).
4
Appeal2014-008100
Application 12/873,077
Appellant also argues that Paquette does not disclose or suggest
"applying a first depth to the first content" and "applying a second depth to
the second content," as recited in claim 1 (App. Br. 14--16). Finally,
Appellant argues that the proposed combination does not disclose or suggest
"compositing the first content and the second content to generate a single 3-
Dimensional (3-D) composite content, wherein the composite content is
configured to be displayed on a 3-D display," as required by claim 1 (App.
Br. 16-18).
We have considered all of Appellant's arguments and evidence
presented. However, we disagree with Appellant's contentions regarding the
Examiner's rejections of the claims. We agree with the Examiner's findings,
and find no error with the Examiner's conclusion that the claims would have
been obvious over the combined teachings.
As a matter of claim interpretation, we give the claims their broadest
reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification. See In re Morris,
127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997). While we interpret claims broadly
but reasonably in light of the specification, we nonetheless must not import
limitations from the specification into the claims. See Phillips v. A WH
Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en bane) (citations omitted).
We first look to the Specification to determine whether any specific
definition has been given to any of the relevant claim terms. With respect to
the claim limitation "appearing in focus and the [other] appearing out of
focus based on a selection of one of the first content and the second content"
(claim 1 ), the Specification states that "in some embodiments, when the user
selects which content to focus on, that content will be perceived in
focus ... while the other content will perceived as ... out of focus" (Spec., 8, 11.
5
Appeal2014-008100
Application 12/873,077
3-5). The determination of which image to display "in focus" may result in
one or more layers as being presented "on top" of the other (Spec., 8,
11. 9-15). However, the Specification does not explicitly limit the selection
to one being made by a user, and that embodiment is therefore considered
exemplary. We therefore conclude that the broadest reasonable
interpretation of this claim limitation includes any selection that places one
content in focus and one content out of focus to the user.
With respect to the claim limitation "applying a first depth to the first
content; applying a second depth to the second content" (claim 1 ), the
Specification offers several examples. "In one embodiment, the depth
assignment is performed ... such that each of the first content and second
content may form a different layer of a 3D displayable image" (Spec., 6,
11. 10-12). Depth is also discussed as comprising an "assigned depth"
(Spec., 6, 11. 17-18), as "parallax values" (Spec., 6, 11. 22-27), as "weight"
(Spec. 6, 11. 28-29), and/or as a "transparency value" (Spec., 6 1. 31-7 1. 1 ).
Again, however, these discussions of an application of depth to a first
content and a second content are given as exemplary embodiments.
Accordingly, we conclude that the broadest reasonable interpretation of
claim 1 merely requires that any type of depth be applied to each of a first
content and a second content.
We agree with the Examiner's finding that Paquette discloses and
suggests the ability to select one content as in focus and another content as
out of focus (Ans. 9). In particular, Paquette discloses that an external
hardware device may allow for the operation of a display device that
displays stereo content (FF 1 ). Further, the system of Paquette discloses a
determination of whether stereo or monocular content is presented to the
6
Appeal2014-008100
Application 12/873,077
display, and adjusts the presentation of the one or more content as necessary
(FF 3). Finally, Paquette discloses that stereo and/or monocular content may
be included in a plurality of windows on a display, wherein transformations
may be applied to one or more of the contents such that they display in focus
to the user based on the position of the windows (FF 2). Given that the
Specification, as discussed above, includes "transparency," "assigned
depth," and "layer of 3D displayable image" as embodiments of ways to
determine depth and which layer is presented as "on top" to the user, we
agree with the Examiner's finding that a selection is made, at least, by the
system of Paquette, which determines which of one or more contents is
presented as in focus to the user.
We further agree with the Examiner's finding that Paquette discloses
and suggests that a "first depth is applied to a first content" and that a
"second depth is applied to a second content" (App. Br. 9). In particular,
Paquette discloses that left eye content (i.e., a first content) is mapped to a
layer for the left eye and that right eye content (i.e., a second content) is
mapped to a layer for the right eye (FF 2). Further, an optional
transformation may be performed on one or more contents based on window
position from front to back (id.). Specifically, an affine transformation may
be performed such that one of the one or more contents appears in front (id.).
Finally, we agree with the Examiner that Paquette discloses and
suggests "compositing the first content and the second content to generate a
single 3-Dimensional (3-D) composite content, wherein the composite
content is configured to be displayed on a 3-D display" (App. Br. 9).
Specifically, Paquette discloses that a left eye content and right eye content
are displayed to a user at different levels, such that, with the use of a
7
Appeal2014-008100
Application 12/873,077
mechanism such as stereo shutter glasses or polarization filters, appropriate
content is displayed to each eye in a stereo image (FF 1 ). Further, Paquette
discloses that first and second content may be mapped to left eye and right
eye layers such that stereo content is displayed to the user (FF 2).
We note that Appellant argues, with respect to several of the claim
limitations, that the Examiner has not met the appropriate burden for
establishing that the claim limitations necessarily result from the prior art in
rejecting the claim based on inherency (App. Br. 13-14, 15-16, 17). The
Examiner has not, however, relied on inherency in rejecting the claims, and
we agree with the Examiner's finding that Paquette discloses or at least
suggests the claim features discussed above.
Appellant has not provided additional substantive argument regarding
claims 11 and 17 other than to note the rejections are erroneous for similar
reasons as that of claim 1 (App. Br. 18-19). Similar argument is presented
with respect to claims 2-10, 12-16 and 21-16, which depend from claims 1,
11 or 17 (id.). For the reasons discussed above, we also affirm the rejections
of claims 2-8 over Paquette and Wang, and the rejections of claims 9, 10,
12-16 and 21-26 over Paquette and Wang, in further view of Sasaki.
V. CONCLUSION AND DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's rejections of claims 1-17 and 21-26 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
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