Ex Parte Suzuki et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 3, 2018

13927635 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 3, 2018)

United States Patent and Trademark Office
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
13/927,635 06/26/2013 Toshiaki SUZUKI RYM-723-3781 7718
27562 7590 01/05/2018
NIXON & VANDERHYE, P.C.
901 NORTH GLEBE ROAD, 11TH FLOOR
ARLINGTON, VA 22203
EXAMINER
TESHOME, KEBEDE T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2697
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/05/2018 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 TOSHIAKI SUZUKI and AKIHIRO UMEHARA1
Appeal 2017-008380
Application 13/927,635
Technology Center 2600
Before HUNG H. BUI, JON M. JURGOVAN, and
DAVID J. CUTITTAII, Administrative Patent Judges.
CUTITTA, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1 and 3—21.2 We have jurisdiction over this appeal under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
1 Appellant is the Applicant, Nintendo Co., Ltd., which, according to the
Appeal Brief, is the real party in interest. See Appeal Br. 3.
2 Claim 2 is cancelled. See Appeal Br. 22.
Appeal 2017-008380
Application 13/927,635
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
According to Appellant, the claimed invention relates to displaying a
part of a panoramic image captured at a point on a map. See Spec. I.3 More
specifically, the invention relates to “updating partial images in response to
different operation inputs to move the image from one position to another.”
See Appeal Br. 5.
Exemplary Claims
Claims 1, 13, 14, and 15 are independent. Claims 1, 5, 17, and 21 are
exemplary of the claimed subject matter and are reproduced with disputed
limitations emphasized below:
1. A display controller comprising at least one
processor, the display controller configured to:
detect an attitude of a terminal device;
control a display device to display a first partial image that
is clipped in response to the detected attitude from a first
panoramic image corresponding to a first position;
determine a direction in which the first position is moving
towards a second position;
responsive to a first operation input to instruct a
calibration of the displayed image, update an image displayed
on the display device from the first partial image to a second
partial image that is clipped from the first panoramic image, the
3 Throughout this Opinion, we refer to the following documents: (1)
Appellant’s Specification, filed June 26, 2013 (“Spec.”); (2) the Final Office
Action (“Final Act.”), mailed June 27, 2016; (3) the Appeal Brief (“Appeal
Br.”), filed December 8, 2016; (4) the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.”), mailed
March 24, 2017; and (5) the Reply Brief (“Reply Br.”), filed May 15, 2017.
2
Appeal 2017-008380
Application 13/927,635
center of the second partial image corresponding to the
determined direction; and
responsive to a second operation input to identify the
second position or the direction from the first position towards
the second position, update an image displayed on the display
device from the second partial image to a third partial image that
is clipped from a second panoramic image corresponding to the
second position, the second operation input being different from
the first operation input.
5. The display controller according to claim 4, wherein
the relationship is determined based on a pathway on a map.
17. The display controller according to claim 1, wherein
the second partial image is clipped and calibrated in response to
the determined direction from the panoramic image.
21. The display controller according to claim 1, wherein
when a pathway is traced on a surface of the display device, the
display device sequentially displays panoramic images in a
direction along the pathway.
Appeal Br. 22, 23, 27, 28.
REFERENCES
The Examiner relies upon the following prior art in rejecting the
claims on appeal:
Endo et al. (“Endo”)
Ohashi et al. (“Ohashi”)
Piemonte et al. (“Piemonte”)
Williamson et al.
(“Williamson”)
US 2003/0142115 Al
US 2012/0262492 Al
US 2013/0083055 Al
US 8,493,408 B2
July 31, 2003
Oct. 18,2012
Apr. 4,2013
July 23,2013
3
Appeal 2017-008380
Application 13/927,635
REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 3—6, and 13—20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Ohashi and Piemonte. Final Act. 4—
21.
Claims 7—9, 11, 12, and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Ohashi, Piemonte, and Endo. Final
Act. 21-26.
Claim 10 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over the combination of Ohashi, Piemonte, and Williamson. Final Act. 26—
27.
Our review in this appeal is limited only to the above rejections and
issues raised by Appellant. We have not considered other possible issues
that have not been raised by Appellant and which are, therefore, not before
us. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2015).
ISSUES
1. Whether the Examiner errs in finding claim 1 is obvious over the
combination of Ohashi and Piemonte?
2. Whether the Examiner errs in finding claim 5 is obvious over the
combination of Ohashi and Piemonte?
3. Whether the Examiner errs in finding claim 17 is obvious over the
combination of Ohashi and Piemonte?
4. Whether the Examiner errs in finding claim 21 is obvious over the
combination of Ohashi, Piemonte, and Endo?
4
Appeal 2017-008380
Application 13/927,635
ANALYSIS
Issue 1 — Claims 1, 3, 4, 6—16, and 18—20
With respect to claim 1, we disagree with Appellant’s contentions and
we adopt as our own: (1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner
in the Final Office Action from which this appeal is taken (Final Act. 4—10)
and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer in
response to Appellant’s Appeal Brief (Ans. 3—6). We concur with the
findings and conclusions reached by the Examiner with respect to claim 1,
and we highlight the following for emphasis.
The Examiner finds claim 1 is obvious over the combination of
Ohashi and Piemonte. Final Act. 4—8.
Appellant disputes the Examiner’s factual findings. Specifically,
Appellant argues Piemonte does not teach
responsive to a first operation input to instruct a calibration of
the displayed image, update an image displayed on the display
device from the first partial image to a second partial image that
is clipped from the first panoramic image, the center of the
second partial image corresponding to the determined direction,
as recited in claim 1, because “[e]ven assuming for sake of argument that
Piemonte zooms the image when moving forward, Piemonte does not update
a first partial image to a second partial image that is centered, upon receiving
a calibration instruction.” Appeal Br. 16; see also Ans. 3^4.
We are unpersuaded. Piemonte teaches using graphical user
interfaces (GUIs) for navigating panoramic imagery. Piemonte 11.
Piemonte’s Figures IB and 1C show an exemplary GUI for navigating
panoramic imagery, as reproduced below.
5
Appeal 2017-008380
Application 13/927,635
rg. ic
Figures IB to 1C of Piemonte shows a transition of the GUI as an
observer or user moves down West Broadway.
We agree with the Examiner that Piemonte teaches the disputed
limitation when Piemonte’s GUI, shown in Figure IB, transitions to the GUI
shown in Figure 1C, representing the user’s path down West Broadway. See
Final Act. 6—7 (citing Piemonte Figures 1A—C, Tflf 15—18).
6
Appeal 2017-008380
Application 13/927,635
Namely, Piemonte’s Figure 1C teaches the second partial image (image of
GUI 101) is clipped from the same panoramic image as the first partial
image and the center of the second partial image corresponds to the
determined direction, as shown by the arrow representing the user’s path
down West Broadway and located at the center of the image shown in GUI
101.
Appellant further argues “Piemonte is not updating a first partial
image to a second partial image that is centered, upon receiving a calibration
instruction.” Reply Br. 3^4. We are unpersuaded because Appellant does
not address the Examiner’s finding that Piemonte’s updating of the partial
image teaches calibration is consistent with the description of calibration in
Appellant’s Specification. Ans. 3 (citing Piemonte 15—18; Spec. 147).
Next, Appellant relies on attorney argument, rather than persuasive
evidence or explanation, to conclude that Piemonte does not “update an
image from a second partial image to a third partial image that is clipped
from a second panoramic image corresponding to a second position.”
Appeal Br. 16. Such argument is accorded little weight in the absence of
persuasive evidence or explanation in support of the conclusion. It is well
settled that mere attorney arguments and conclusory statements, which 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 Pearson, 494
F.2d 1399, 1405 (CCPA 1974) (attorney argument is not evidence). We
agree with the Examiner’s finding that Piemonte teaches “responsive to a
second operation . . . update an image displayed on the display device from
the second partial image to a third partial image that is clipped from a
7
Appeal 2017-008380
Application 13/927,635
second panoramic image corresponding to the second position,” as recited in
claim 1. See Final Act. 2—3 (citing Piemonte H 14—18, Fig. 1C).
As discussed, Appellant has not shown error in the Examiner’s factual
findings or conclusion of obviousness from the proffered combination.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of
independent claim 1 as well as the rejection of independent claims 13, 14,
and 15, which are argued for similar reasons as independent claim 1. See
Appeal Br. 16. Dependent claims 3, 4, 6—12, 16, and 18—20, are not argued
separately and so the rejection of these claims are sustained for the reasons
given for their respective independent claims. See Appeal Br. 13—20.
Issue 2 — Claim 5
Appellant argues Piemonte does not define a relationship between
panoramic images based on a pathway on the map, as required by claim 5,
because “Piemonte, at best, correlates a point on a map with a panoramic
image.” Appeal Br. 17.
We are unpersuaded. The Examiner finds, and we agree, that in
Piemonte “the panoramic images displayed are translations of the pathway
on the map.” Ans. 5 (citing Piemonte Figures 1 A—C, H 6, 14). As an
additional example, we note Piemonte describes “[pjhysically moving the
device through space provides translation data that can be used to move up
or down a virtual street or other navigation actions,” i.e., tracing a path via
device translation. Piemonte 13. Piemonte further discusses navigating
panoramic imagery based on the translation of the device. Piemonte 113.
For this reason, we sustain the rejection of dependent claim 5.
8
Appeal 2017-008380
Application 13/927,635
Issue 3 — Claim 17
Appellant argues Piemonte does not clip and then calibrate the image,
as required by claim 17. Appeal Br. 18.
The Examiner clarifies the grounds of the rejection in the Answer,
identifying that Piemonte’s discussion of the user’s +Y translation is relied
upon to teach the limitation, in conjunction with the Examiner’s finding that
updating of the partial image by Piemonte is consistent with the description
of calibration in Appellant’s Specification. Ans. 3, 6 (citing Piemonte
1115—18, Fig. IB, Spec. 147). We agree with the Examiner and note that
Appellant does not address the Examiner’s clarifications provided in the
Answer. See Reply Br. 7. For this reason, we sustain the rejection of
dependent claim 17.
Issue 4 — Claim 21
Appellant argues “Endo does not indicate that a user can trace a path
on a surface of a display device and then a series of panoramic images are
sequentially displayed based on the traced pathway.” Reply Br. 8.
Specifically, Appellant argues “Endo only shows a map portion having
different paths and does not at all indicate that a user can trace a path on the
display so that the images shown on the display will sequentially change to
correspond to the location on the path.” Appeal Br. 20.
We agree with the Examiner’s finding that Endo teaches a path, i.e.,
“[a] line segment interconnecting branch points” (Endo 161), storing
panorama images at sites along the path (Endo 1 60), and an advancable path
calculation unit 4 to calculate an advancable path for generation of images
(Endo 1 64). See Ans. 7—9. We agree with Appellant, however, that the
9
Appeal 2017-008380
Application 13/927,635
Examiner has not demonstrated that Endo teaches a user can trace a path on
a surface of a display device and then sequentially display panoramic images
based on the traced pathway.
Accordingly, we are persuaded of Examiner error and do not sustain
the rejection of claim 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Ohashi, Piemonte, and Endo.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, and 3—20 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
We reverse the Examiner’s decision rejecting claim 21 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-IN-PART
10