Ex Parte Shikata et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 4, 201612835607 (P.T.A.B. May. 4, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 12/835,607 07/13/2010 Daisuke SHIKATA 21254 7590 05/05/2016 MCGINN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW GROUP, PLLC 8321 OLD COURTHOUSE ROAD SUITE 200 VIENNA, VA 22182-3817 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. PA21256US 1598 EXAMINER AN,SHAWNS ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2483 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 DAISUKE SHIKATA, JUN JI HAYASHI, and SATO SHI Y ANAGIT A 1 Appeal2015-000488 Application 12/835,607 Technology Center 2400 Before JEAN R. HOMERE, JASON V. MORGAN, and MICHAEL J. ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judges. ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 12 and 14--26, which are all of the pending claims in the application. App. Br. 1. Claims 1-11and13 have been canceled. Final Act. 2. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). We AFFIRM. Appellants 'Invention The claimed invention is directed to a stereoscopic camera capable of 3D processing using two or more images. Spec. Abstract. The amount of 1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Fujifilm Corporation. App. Br. 1. 1 Appeal2015-000488 Application 12/835,607 disparity between the two or more images (called "parallax") can vary, which may affect whether that portion of the picture should be displayed in 3D or 2D. Id. i-f 6, Abstract. Representative Claim Claim 12 is representative and reproduced below with the key limitation emphasized: 12. A stereoscopic imaging device, comprising: two photographing units for obtaining two images through photographing from different positions; a three-dimensional processing unit for generating a stereoscopic image from the two images; a display unit capable of a two-dimensional display and a stereoscopic display; an input unit for receiving an instruction to change a parallax level; a display control unit for changing stereoscopic display of the stereoscopic image into two-dimensional display of the two images overlapped with each other at least while the instruction to change the parallax level is made when the stereoscopic image is stereoscopically displayed as a live view image, two- dimensionally displaying the two images with changing the parallax level of the images in a response to the instruction to change the parallax level, and changing the two-dimensional display into the stereoscopic display when a predetermined period of time has elapsed after the instruction to change the parallax level is stopped; a first determining unit for determining whether the parallax level has been changed to reach a predetermined control limit value; and a second determining unit for determining whether the instruction to change the parallax level has been stopped, wherein the display control unit continues to change the parallax level until an affirmative determination is made by one of the first determining unit and the second determining unit. 2 Appeal2015-000488 Application 12/835,607 Rejections Claims 12, 17-19, and 21-24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Orimoto et al. (US 7, 102,686 Bl; Sept. 5, 2006) in view of Okamoto et al. (US 2008/0158346 Al; July 3, 2008). Final Act. 4. Claims 14, 16, 20, 25, and 26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Orimoto in view of Okamoto and Matsumoto et al. (US 6,384,859 Bl; May 7, 2002). Final Act. 7, 8. Claim 15 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Orimoto in view of Okamoto and in further view of Park et al. (US 8,045,070 B2; Oct. 25, 2011). Final Act. 11. ISSUE Did the Examiner err in finding Okamoto teaches or suggests "a first determining unit for determining whether the parallax level has been changed to reach a predetermined control limit value," as recited in claim 12? ANALYSIS We have only considered those arguments that Appellants actually raised in their briefs. Arguments that Appellants could have made but chose not to have not been considered and are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2013). Claims 12 and 14-26 In rejecting independent claim 12, the Examiner relies exclusively on Okamoto for teaching or suggesting "a first determining unit for determining whether the parallax level has been changed to reach a predetermined control limit value." Ans. 4. 3 Appeal2015-000488 Application 12/835,607 Appellants contend the Examiner erred because in Okamoto, the "limit value of parallax level is determined based on whether the object ... is correctly stereoscopically displayed." App. Br. 8 (citing Okamoto i-f 140, Fig. 8). Appellants interpret the cited portion of Okamoto to mean that the disclosed limit value of the parallax level is "changeable," whereas in the claimed invention "the limit value is a fixed value." App. Br. 9. However, Appellants have not sufficiently supported this interpretation nor sufficiently addressed the Examiner's opposite conclusion. Both Appellants and the Examiner cite paragraph 140 of Okamoto (Ans. 4; App. Br. 8), which explains that in Figure 8 of Okamoto, "parallax with a distant mountain does not suit for a stereoscopic effect" and hence "only the front flower is recorded as a stereoscopic image." Okamoto i-f 140. Thus, we find that Okamoto teaches parallax is used to determine the quality of stereoscopic effect. The Examiner concludes it would have been obvious that in Okamoto, "[t]he User, along with an edit control input unit, would determine whether or not the parallax level has been changed to reach a fixed control limit value, which is substantially the same as the fixed desired range where beautiful stereoscopic vision can be obtained." Ans. 4. Put another way, the Examiner concludes that images with "beautiful stereoscopic vision" will tend to fall within the same fixed range of parallax, and therefore it would have been obvious that Okamoto's test for determining whether there is sufficient stereoscopic effect would be to compare the parallax of a given image (or part of an image) to that fixed range. See Ans. 4, 12; see also Okamoto i-fi-1 140, 32, 217. For example, Okamoto stating that "parallax with a distant mountain does not suit for a stereoscopic effect" (Okamoto i-f 140) 4 Appeal2015-000488 Application 12/835,607 would indicate that the parallax of the mountain foll outside the fixed range. The claimed "control limit value" then would be either end of this fixed range. Appellants have not persuasively dissuaded us from the Examiner's conclusion. Appellants' primary argument is that the limit value in Okamoto must be "changeable," but Appellants have not provided sufficient evidence to support that finding. We agree that the parallax may vary for different objects within a given image, such as the mountain having a different parallax than the flower in Figure 8 of Okamoto (see Okamoto i-f 140), but that says nothing about whether the limit value is changeable. Appellants also contend that the prior art references are "unrelated and would not have been combined as alleged by the Examiner" and that "there is no motivation or suggestion ... to urge the combination." App. Br. 9. However, we agree with the Examiner's finding that the prior art references are "very much related in the art of stereoscopic imaging." Ans. 13; Okamoto Abstract; Orimoto Abstract. We find that Appellants have not provided sufficient evidence supporting their arguments. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent claim 12, as well as independent claims 19 and 20, which Appellants argue are patentable for similar reasons, and dependent claims 14--18 and 21-26, which stand with their respective independent claims. See App. Br. 8-11; 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2013). DECISION For the reasons above, we affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 12 and 14--26. 5 Appeal2015-000488 Application 12/835,607 TIME TO RESPOND No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(±). AFFIRMED 6 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation