Ex Parte Sobel

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 8, 2011

10911463 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 8, 2011)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________

Ex parte IRWIN SOBEL
_____________

Appeal 2009-008154
Application 10/911,463
Technology Center 2600
______________

Before, JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO, ROBERT E. NAPPI, and
MARC S. HOFF, Administrative Patent Judges.

NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL1

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, or for filing a request for rehearing,
as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 41.52, begins to run from the “MAIL DATE”
(paper delivery mode) or the “NOTIFICATION DATE” (electronic delivery
mode) shown on the PTOL-90A cover letter attached to this decision.

Appeal 2009-008154
Application 10/911,463

This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the final
rejection of claims 1-30. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of these claims.

INVENTION
The invention is directed to a method, computer readable medium,
and system for using virtual cameras to provide extensive coverage of an
object. See Spec. 3. Claim 1 is representative of the invention and is
reproduced below:
1. A method for providing extensive coverage of an object
using virtual cameras, comprising:
tracking a moveable object in a reference coordinate system
to determine an object based coordinate system that is tied to
said object;
collecting at least one replacement image from at least one
video sequence of said object acquired from at least one
reference viewpoint to form a subset of replacement images of
said object, wherein said reference viewpoint is fixed in said
reference coordinate system but moves around said object in
said object based coordinate system;
determining a position of said reference viewpoint in said
object based coordinate system for a particular point in time;
and
storing said subset of replacement images of said object in an
electronic storage system for subsequent incorporation into a
rendered view of said object to create an illusion of said object
and another object occupying a virtual environment, wherein
said objects are remote from each other in a physical
environment and wherein said reference viewpoint’s position
enables, at least in part, said subsequent incorporation into said
rendered view.

2
Appeal 2009-008154
Application 10/911,463

REFERENCES
Xian US 6,327,584 B1 Dec. 4, 2001

Thomas US 2005/0018045 A1 Jan. 27, 2005
(filed Mar. 12, 2004)

Sawhney US 7,085,409 B2 Aug. 1, 2006
(filed Oct. 16, 2001)

REJECTIONS AT ISSUE
Claims 1-8, 10-19, 21-28, and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Thomas in view of Sawhney. Ans. 4-
12.
Claims 9, 20, and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Thomas in view of Sawhney and Xian. Ans. 13-14.

ISSUE
Appellant argues on pages 9-23 of the Appeal Brief that the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-8, 10-19, 21-28, and 30 is in error.
Appellant selects claim 1 as representative of the group comprising claims 1-
8, 10-19, 21-28, and 30. App. Br. 22. Appellant argues that neither Thomas
nor Sawhney discloses “an object based coordinate system that is tied to said
object.” App. Br. 10; Reply Br. 2.
Thus, with respect to claims 1-8, 10-19, 21-28, and 30, Appellant’s
contentions present us with the following issue: Did the Examiner err in
finding that Thomas in view of Sawhney discloses an object based
coordinate system that is tied to said object?
3
Appeal 2009-008154
Application 10/911,463

Appellant also argues on page 23 of the Appeal Brief that the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 9, 20, and 29 is in error. Appellant argues
that claims 9, 20, and 29 are allowable for the same reasons as its
independent claim. App. Br. 23.
Thus, with respect to claims 9, 20, and 29, Appellant’s contentions
present us with the same issue as claim 1.

ANALYSIS
Appellant’s arguments have not persuaded us of error in the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 1. Claim 1 recites determining “an object
based coordinate system that is tied to said object.” Appellant argues that
neither Thomas nor Sawhney discloses this limitation and, as a result,
neither discloses “said reference view point is fixed in said reference
coordinate system but moves around said object in said object based
coordinate system; determining a position of said reference view point in
said object based coordinate system for a particular point in time.” App. Br.
10. We disagree.
The Examiner finds that from Thomas’ teachings one of skill in the art
would understand that a rotating object is rotating around its own center of
origin, and thereby its own coordinate system, with a reference coordinate
system that is stationary. Ans. 15-16. If this were not the case, objects
would not be able to move within the reference coordinate system. Ans. 16.
As a result, from the point of view of the object, the reference viewpoint
appears to be rotating around the object, and the position of the reference
viewpoint, at a particular point in time, can be determined in the object
4
Appeal 2009-008154
Application 10/911,463

based coordinate system. Ans. 16. Thus, the Examiner concludes, Thomas
discloses a fixed reference view point within a reference coordinate system
that moves around an object. In response to these findings by the Examiner,
Appellant merely argues that the Examiner is relying on impermissible
hindsight (Reply Br. 1) without addressing the Examiner’s findings. Instead,
Appellant makes several statements in regards to what Appellant believes
Thomas teaches based upon portions of Thomas not cited by the Examiner
in the Examiner’s rejection. Reply Br. 2. As these statements are not
directed to the Examiner’s specific findings, we are not persuaded by these
statements. Thus, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 and claims
2-8, 10-19, 21-28, and 30 that have been grouped with claim 1.
As Appellants’ arguments directed to the rejection of 9, 20, and 29
present the same issues as discussed above with respect to independent
claims 1, 15, and 21, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 9, 20,
and 29.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in finding that Thomas in view of Sawhney
discloses an object based coordinate system that is tied to said object.

SUMMARY
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-30 is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136 (a)(1)(iv).

5
Appeal 2009-008154
Application 10/911,463

AFFIRMED

ELD

HEWLETT PACKARD COMPANY
P.O. BOX 272400, 3404 E. HARMONY RD.
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ADMINISTRATION
FORT COLLINS, CO 80527-2400
6