Ex Parte Shikata et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 19, 2016

13095259 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 19, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/095,259 04/27/2011
27562 7590 09/21/2016
NIXON & V ANDERHYE, P,C
901 NORTH GLEBE ROAD, 11 TH FLOOR
ARLINGTON, VA 22203
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Hiromasa SHIKATA
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-723-3071 2255
EXAMINER
BELA!, NAOD W
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2481
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/21/2016 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 HIROMASA SHIKA TA, SHIRO MO URI, and SHIN JI OKANE
Appeal2015-003091 1
Application 13/095,259
Technology Center 2400
Before JEAN R. HOMERE, CAROLYN D. THOMAS, and
ADAM J. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOMERE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner's final rejection of claims 1-25, which constitute all of the claims
pending in this appeal. Claims App'x. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Nintendo Co., Ltd. App. Br.
3.
Appeal2015-003091
Application 13/095,259
Appellants' Invention
Appellants' invention is directed to a method and system for taking,
with a virtual stereo camera (53), an image of an object (50) in a 3D space to
thereby stereoscopically display the image in a 3D space. Spec. i-f 50, Fig. 8.
In particular, a stereoscopic view ratio is determined as the ratio of the
stereoscopic view distance (distance of the camera to a reference plane at
which no parallax was generated when the image was taken) to the objet
distance (distance of the camera to the object). Id. Subsequently, the ratio is
utilized to adjust a camera parameter setting thereby causing the display
device to display a stereoscopically viewable image generated during the
image taking stage. Id. i-fi-1 99-101.
Illustrative Claim
Independent claim 1 is illustrative, and reads as follows:
1. A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having stored
therein a display control program which, when executed by a computer of a
display control apparatus for taking, by using a virtual stereo camera, an
image of a virtual three-dimensional space in which a predetermined object
is positioned, and for causing a display device to perform a stereoscopically
viewable display of the image of the virtual three-dimensional space, causes
the computer to perform operations comprising:
setting a stereoscopic view ratio which is a ratio of a stereoscopic
view reference distance to an object distance, wherein the object distance
represents a distance from a point of view position of the virtual stereo
camera to the predetermined object, and the stereoscopic view reference
distance represents a distance from the point of view position of the virtual
stereo camera to a reference plane corresponding to a position at which a
2
Appeal2015-003091
Application 13/095,259
parallax is not generated when the image of the virtual three-dimensional
space is taken by the virtual stereo camera;
setting, based on the stereoscopic view ratio, a camera parameter
which is a parameter associated with the virtual stereo camera;
generating, based on the set camera parameter, a stereoscopically
viewable image which represents the virtual three-dimensional space the
image of which is taken by the virtual stereo camera; and
causing the display device to display the generated stereoscopically
viewable image.
Onozawa
Oto
Mashitani
Genova
Prior Art Relied Upon
US 2011/0058019 Al
US 2012/0026158 Al
US 8,131,064 B2
US 2012/0176473 Al
Rejections on Appeal
Mar. 10, 2011
Feb.2,2012
(filed Jan. 25, 2011)
Mar. 6, 2012
(filed Dec. 22, 2010)
July 12, 2012
(filed Jan. 7, 2011)
Claims 1, 3-5, 17, and 19-25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over the combination of Genova and Oto.
Claim 2 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Genova, Oto, and Mashitani.
Claims 6-16 and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Genova, Oto, and Onozawa.
3
Appeal2015-003091
Application 13/095,259
ANALYSIS
We consider Appellants' arguments seriatim, as they are presented in
the Appeal Brief, pages 10-22, and the Reply Brief, pages 2-7.2
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants'
arguments. We are unpersuaded by Appellants' contentions. Except as
otherwise indicated hereinbelow, we adopt as our own the findings and
reasons set forth in the Examiner's Answer in response to Appellants'
Appeal Brief. Ans. 14--21. However, we highlight and address specific
arguments and findings for emphasis as follows.
Regarding the rejection of claim 1, Appellants argue that the
combination of Genova and Oto does not teach or suggest setting a
stereoscopic view ratio of a stereoscopic view reference distance to an object
distance. App. Br. 13-17, Reply Br. 3---6. In particular, Appellants argue
although Oto discloses an expression d = rI(l-S/z) defining a relationship
between a degree of parallax (d), a perspective parameter (r), and a ratio of
the distance S [from a reference view position to a virtual screen] to the
distance z [from the reference view position to the object], the distance S
does not teach or suggest the claimed distance from the reference camera
position to the parallax-zero plane. Reply Br. 3 (citing Oto Fig. 1, and i-f 31 ).
Accordingly, Appellants submit the Examiner errs in finding that Oto's
2 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner, we
refer to the Appeal Brief (filed July 7, 2014), the Reply Brief (filed January
20, 2015) and the Answer (mailed November 19, 2014) for their respective
details. We have considered in this Decision only those arguments
Appellants actually raised in the Briefs. Any other arguments Appellants
could have made but chose not to make in the Briefs are deemed to be
waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2012).
4
Appeal2015-003091
Application 13/095,259
disclosure of the S/z ratio teaches the claimed stereoscopic view ratio, which
is subsequently used in setting the camera parameter. Id. at 5. This
argument is not persuasive.
At the outset, we note the claim defines the stereoscopic view
reference distance as the distance from the point of view position of the
virtual stereo camera to a reference plane corresponding to a position at
which no parallax is generated when the image of the virtual 3D space is
taken by the camera. We consider herein the scope and meaning of the
claim limitation "reference plane" or "parallax zero plane," which must be
given its broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with Appellants'
disclosure, as explained in In re Morris:
[T]he PTO applies to the verbiage of the proposed claims the
broadest reasonable meaning of the words in their ordinary usage as
they would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, taking
into account whatever enlightenment by way of definitions or
otherwise that may be afforded by the written description contained in
the applicant's specification.
In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See also In re
Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (stating that "claims must be
interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow."). In particular,
Appellants' Specification states the following:
As shown in FIG. 8 to FIG. 10, a reference plane (parallax zero
plane) is defined for the virtual three-dimensional space the image of
which is taken by the virtual stereo camera 53 as described above.
The reference plane is defined at a position at which no parallax is
generated when the image of the virtual three-dimensional space is
taken by the virtual stereo camera 53. The game apparatus 10
performs control so as to position the reference plane on the surface
of the screen of the upper LCD 22. Therefore, an object positioned on
the reference plane is reproduced as if the object exists on the surface
5
Appeal2015-003091
Application 13/095,259
of the screen of the upper LCD 22. An object positioned in front of
the reference plane (on the virtual stereo camera 53 side from the
reference plane) is reproduced as if the object exists at a position in
front of the screen of the upper LCD 22, and an object positioned on
the far side from the reference plane is reproduced as if the object
exists on the far side from the screen of the upper LCD 22.
Spec. i-f 101 (emphasis added).
Consistent with the cited portion of Appellants' Specification, we
broadly but reasonably construe the "stereoscopic view reference distance"
as the distance from the point of view position of the virtual stereo camera to
a reference plane positioned on the surface of a display screen associated
therewith. Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner that Oto's disclosure of
the distance S from the point of view of the camera to the virtual screen, Sv,
teaches the claimed stereoscopic view reference distance. Ans. 15-16 (citing
Oto i-fi-131-35); see also Oto i-f 7 ("The virtual screen Sv corresponds to a
display screen of a stereoscopic display device for stereoscopic display in a
real space."). Likewise, we agree with the Examiner that Oto' s S/z ratio
teaches the claimed stereoscopic view ratio. Id. Additionally, we agree with
the Examiner that Oto' s disclosure of using the value of S to set the left eye
and the right eye of the stereoscopic camera teaches or suggests setting a
camera parameter based on the stereoscopic view ratio. Id. at i-fi-136-37.
Therefore, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting claim
1.
Regarding the rejection of claim 4, Appellants argue the Examiner
erred in finding Oto's disclosure of "determining [an] area of the virtual 3D
space information collected on the movement, deformation, size, and shape
of each object (i-f20, i-f30) based on which camera parameters for determining
6
Appeal2015-003091
Application 13/095,259
the area in which the virtual 3D is generated" does not teach or suggest
"changing the stereoscopic view ratio when the first determining determines
that the state of the predetermined object is subject to the predetermined
change." Reply Br. 6. This argument is not persuasive because it fails to
identify an error in the Examiner's finding. Appellants are reminded that
merely reciting the claim limitations and findings relied upon by the
Examiner in the rejection is not a responsive argument. Such a response to
the Examiner's findings is insufficient to persuade us of Examiner error, as
mere attorney arguments and conclusory statements that are unsupported by
factual evidence are entitled to little probative value. In re Geisler, 116 F.3d
1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997); see also In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705
(Fed. Cir. 1984); Ex parte Belinne, No. 2009-004693, slip op. at 7-8 (BPAI
Aug. 10, 2009) (informative); see also In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357
(Fed. Cir. 2011) ("[W]e hold that the Board reasonably interpreted Rule
41.37 to require 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."); cf In re Baxter Travenol Labs.,
952 F.2d 388, 391 (Fed. Cir. 1991) ("It is not the function of this court to
examine the claims in greater detail than argued by an appellant, looking for
[patentable] distinctions over the prior art.") Accordingly, we sustain the
rejection of claim 4.
Regarding the rejection of claim 19, Appellants argue the claim
requires determining both the object distance and the stereoscopic view
reference distance from the point of view of the virtual camera, whereas
Oto' s distances z and Z (as replied upon by the Examiner in the Final
Action) are not determined from the same position, Reply Br. 6-7. This
7
Appeal2015-003091
Application 13/095,259
argument is not persuasive because, as previously observed by Appellants,
the Examiner relies in the Answer upon Oto' s distances S and z, which are
determined from the same position. Ans. 17 (citing Oto i-f 6, and Fig. 1 ).
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 19.
Regarding claims 2, 3, 5-18, and 20-25 because Appellants reiterate
substantially the same arguments as those previously discussed for
patentability of claims 1, 4, and 19 above, claims 2, 3, 5-18, and 20-25 fall
therewith. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
DECISION
For the above reasons, we affirm the Examiner's rejections of claims
1-25.
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