Ex Parte Turner et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 22, 2017

12650800 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 22, 2017)

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.
12/650,800 12/31/2009 Tara Handy Turner P191590.US.01 7917
63658 7590
Disney Enterprises, Inc.
c/o Dorsey & Whitney LLP
1400 Wewatta Street
Suite 400
Denver, CO 80202-5549
EXAMINER
LIU, ZHENGXI
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2611
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/24/2017 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):
Docketing-DV @ dorsey.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte TARA HANDY TURNER, MATTHEW F. SCHNITTKER,
ROBERT M. NEUMAN, EVAN M. GOLDBERG, and
JOSEPH W. LONGSON
Appeal 2017-000727
Application 12/650,800
Technology Center 2600
Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, BETH Z. SHAW, and MICHAEL M.
BARRY, Administrative Patent Judges.
SHAW, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1—11 and 13—29, which are the only claims currently
pending in this application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
INVENTION
The invention is for displaying depth and volume information and for
choreographing stereoscopic depth information between 3-D images. See
Spec. 11.
Appeal 2017-000727
Application 12/650,800
Claim 1, which is illustrative, reads as follows, with disputed
limitations in italics'.
1. A system for visualization and editing of one or more scenes,
with each scene comprising a plurality of a stereoscopic frames
comprising:
one or more computing devices in communication with a
display, the computing devices coupled with a storage medium storing
a plurality of stereoscopic images, each of the stereoscopic images
corresponding to at least one frame and including depth and volume
information for a plurality of layers for the plurality of stereoscopic
images;
a visualization and editing interface for choreographing
stereoscopic depth information between the plurality of stereoscopic
frames stored on the storage medium and displayed on the display, the
visualization and editing interface configured to:
provide at least one editing control that provides for
editing of the depth and volume information for a first layer and
a second layer of the plurality of layers, wherein the editing
control is configured to:
receive a first user instruction to modify a first depth
value for a first layer;
modify the first depth value based on the first user
instruction;
modify a second depth value for a second layer based on
the first user instruction',
receive a second user instruction to modify a first volume
value for a first object within the first layer;
modify the first volume value based on the second user
instruction; and
modify a second volume value for a second object
based on the second user instruction.
REJECTIONS AT ISSUE
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 2, 4—10, 13, 14, 16, 17, 19, 20, 24,
25, and 27—29 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Harman
(US 2002/0118275 Al; published Aug. 29, 2002), Brimelow (“New tutorial
2
Appeal 2017-000727
Application 12/650,800
on parallax 3D effects”), Takahashi et al. (US 5,537,528; issued July 16,
1996), and Tam et al. (“3D-TV Content Generation: 2D-To-3D
Conversion”). Final Act. 9-45.
The Examiner rejected claims 3, 11, 15, 18, and 20-22 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Harman, Brimelow, Takahashi,
Tam, and Simpson (US 2005/0271303 Al; published Dec. 8, 2005). Final
Act. 45—50.
The Examiner rejected claim 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Harman, Brimelow, Takahashi, Tam, and Cash et al. (US
2004/0015424 Al; published Jan. 22, 2004). Final Act. 50-51.
The Examiner rejected claim 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Harman, Brimelow, Takahashi, Tam, and Engle
(“Beowulf 3D: A Case Study”). Final Act. 51—52.
ANALYSIS
Appellants argue that the Examiner’s rejections are in error. App. Br.
11—23; Reply Br. 2—6. We have reviewed Appellants’ arguments in the
Appeal Brief, the Examiner’s rejections, and the Examiner’s response to
Appellants’ arguments. For the reasons set forth below, we are not
persuaded of Examiner error.
Claim 1
Appellants argue the Examiner erred in finding the combination of
Harman, Brimelow, Takahashi, and Tam teaches or suggests “modify[ing] a
second depth value for a second layer based on the first user instruction,” as
recited in claim 1. App. Br. 16—18. In particular, Appellants argue that in
Harman, each layer is individually assigned a depth value by a separate
3
Appeal 2017-000727
Application 12/650,800
input, and thus Harman does not teach using a single user input to modify
depth values for multiple layers. App. Br. 18. Appellants argue that Tam
also fails to teach this limitation because Tam merely generates different
perspectives of the same image with the depth value remaining constant and
unchanged between the views. App. Br. 17.
As the Examiner finds, and we agree, the combination of Harman,
Brimelow, and Takahashi “teaches a GUI-based framework for updating
depth related information of a layer-based 3D scene comprising a plurality
of frames.” Ans. 8. The Examiner finds Harman teaches modifying a
second depth value for a second layer based on a user instruction. Final Act.
13 (citing Harman 140). The Examiner also finds that Tam teaches the
depth information of any object, including the layers in the layer-based 3D
scene, are updated according to imaging basic principles, articulated in
Figure 1 and equation 1 of Tam. Ans. 8. The Examiner explains that Tam
discloses that one may calculate depth values based on focal length, just as
Appellants’ Specification teaches in general that focal length can be used to
calculate depth values. Id. at 9—10 (citing Tam, 1870; Spec. 172). The
Examiner also points out that the Specification itself fails to provide further
details on how the depth values are changed according to a changed focal
length. Id. at 11.
The Examiner relies on Tam to illustrate that a change to focal length
may correspondingly update a depth value for multiple layers at once. Ans.
9—11. Although Appellants argue that in claim 1, a user “can make a single
adjustment to a single layer of a frame and that single adjustment is used to
affect other layers within the frame as well as other layers in other frames”
and that “a change to one layer is applied holistically to additional, non-
4
Appeal 2017-000727
Application 12/650,800
edited layers,” we are not persuaded that claim 1 is so narrow. Rather, claim
1 merely recites “modify a second depth value for a second layer based on
the first user instruction.” Although Appellants argue that “nowhere does
Harman disclose using a single user input to modify depth values for
multiple layers” and that it would not be “possible to modify Harman to do
so because every object is selected individually, and separate input is
required from the user,” we are not persuaded by this characterization of
Harman. App. Br. 18. Rather, contrary to Appellants’ characterization of
Harman as teaching that depth values “require[] individual entry on a per
object or per layer basis by a user through ‘manual depth definition’” (Reply
Br. 11 (citing Harman 140)), Harman explains that the “depth of an object
or objects may be determined either manually, automatically or semi-
automatically.” Harman If 39. Also, a user may assign an object to have a
range of depths that varies over time, object location, or based on motion.
Harman 141. Moreover, Harman also gives an example of selecting depth
characteristics and then applying them to a newly created depth layer along
with modifying the original layer. Harman 179; Ans. 11. Thus, an
ordinarily skilled artisan would understand Harman to teach modifying
depth values on more than one layer based on a single instruction.
Appellants provide insufficient evidence showing the Specification or
claims limit “the first user instruction” such that, under a broad but
reasonable interpretation, it is not encompassed by Harman and Tam’s
teachings of modifying a depth value for a second layer based on a single
instruction.
Appellants argue the rejections are improper because they fail to
consider the claimed invention as a whole. App. Br. 21. In particular,
5
Appeal 2017-000727
Application 12/650,800
Appellants argue that the Examiner improperly crossed out sub-elements in
the claim and failed to interpret the full context of the claims. Id. at 21—22.
However, we find that the Examiner sufficiently explains how the Examiner
properly considered and analyzed the full scope of the claims as well as the
prior art. Ans. 12—14.
Appellants also argue that the combination of Harman and Brimelow
is based on improper hindsight and is conclusory. App. Br. 23. We find this
unpersuasive. The Examiner finds that one skilled in the art would have
been motivated to combine Harman and Brimelow, which both involve 3-D
image technology, because the combination would make it easier to edit
information. Final Act. 18; Ans. 16. The Examiner explains that Brimelow
teaches the use of graphical user interfaces to edit information. Id. We
agree with the Examiner that one skilled in the art would have combined
Harman’s 2-D and 3-D image conversion and encoding techniques with
Brimelow’s graphical user interfaces for 3-D images because it would make
it easier to edit information about the 3-D images. See id. In the absence of
sufficient evidence or a line of technical reasoning to the contrary, we find
the Examiner’s findings are reasonable, and we find no reversible error.
Moreover, “[t]he combination of familiar elements according to
known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield
predictable results.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416
(2007). “If a person of ordinary skill can implement a predictable variation,
§103 likely bars its patentability.” Id. at 417.
For these reasons, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1.
6
Appeal 2017-000727
Application 12/650,800
Claim 23
Appellants argue that Cash is not analogous art because it is not in the
same field of endeavor as the invention and it is not reasonably pertinent to
the problem solved by the inventor. App. Br. 20. The Examiner finds,
however, that Cash is reasonably pertinent to a particular problem with
which the Appellants were concerned. Ans. 12. In particular, the Examiner
applies Cash to show an “apply to all” feature of a graphical user interface
(GUI) recited in claim 23. Id. The Examiner finds that the “apply to all”
feature is a general teaching of a feature used in GUIs. Id. We agree with
the Examiner that Cash’s general teachings related to GUIs are reasonably
pertinent to the problem of applying information to each feature in a GUI
and, thus, Cash qualifies as analogous art. Accordingly, we sustain the
rejection of claim 23.
Remaining Pending Claims
With respect to claim 26, Appellants argue that Engle does not cure
the deficiencies of the references discussed above with respect to claim 1.
App. Br. 21. Because Appellants have not presented separate patentability
arguments for claim 26 or have reiterated substantially the same arguments
as those previously discussed above, as well as for the remaining pending
claims, they all fall for the same reasons as claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. §
41.37(c)(l)(iv).
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1—11 and 13—29 is
affirmed.
7
Appeal 2017-000727
Application 12/650,800
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