Ex Parte SHIKATA et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 4, 2016

12835607 (P.T.A.B. May. 4, 2016)

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