Ex Parte Yamane et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 15, 2018

14631313 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 15, 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.
14/631,313 02/25/2015 Tomoyoshi YAMANE LB-723-4126 1299
27562 7590 03/19/2018
NIXON & VANDERHYE, P.C.
901 NORTH GLEBE ROAD, 11TH FLOOR
ARLINGTON, VA 22203
EXAMINER
WU, YANNA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2611
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/19/2018 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 TOMOYOSHI YAMANE and HIROTOSHIISHIBAI
Appeal 2017-009365
Application 14/631,3131
Technology Center 2600
Before MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, BARBARA A. BENOIT, and
PHILLIP A. BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.
BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1—3 and 5—12, which constitute all of the claims pending
in this application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
1 Appellants’ Brief (“App. Br.”) identifies Nintendo Co., Ltd., as the real
party in interest. App. Br. 3.
Appeal 2017-009365
Application 14/631,313
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are generally directed to generating distributed, augmented
reality environments that allow computing devices in different locations to
capture their real world environment in order to generate a common space.
The common space allows for a virtual object to be placed within the real
world environment captured separately by each device in a different
location. Spec. Tflf 9-11. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the
claimed subject matter:
1. An information processing system including at least
a first information processing apparatus and a second
information processing apparatus capable of communicating
with the first information processing apparatus,
each of the first information processing apparatus and the
second information processing apparatus comprising one or
more processors,
the one or more processors of the first information
processing apparatus configured to:
as first captured image acquisition, acquire a first
captured image captured by a first image capturing
apparatus;
as first reference recognition, recognize a first
reference for placing a first virtual object in the first
captured image;
as first placement information setting, set first
placement information for placing the first virtual object
based on the first reference;
as first transmission, transmit the first placement
information to the second information processing
apparatus; and
as first display control, place the first virtual object
in the first captured image based on the first reference and
the first placement information and display the first
captured image on a first display apparatus,
the one or more processors of the second
information processing apparatus configured to:
2
Appeal 2017-009365
Application 14/631,313
as first acquisition, acquire the first placement
information transmitted from the first information
processing apparatus;
as second captured image acquisition, acquire a
second captured image obtained by capturing, using a
second image capturing apparatus, a place different from
a place captured by the first image capturing apparatus;
as second reference recognition, recognize a second
reference for at least placing the first virtual object in the
second captured image; and
as second display control, place the first virtual
object in the second captured image based on the second
reference and the first placement information and display
the second captured image on a second display apparatus,
wherein the first placement information is information
indicating a position and a direction at and in which the first
virtual object is placed in the first captured image based on the
first reference, and is also information indicating a position and
a direction at and in which the first virtual object is placed in the
second captured image based on the second reference, using the
same information.
App. Br. 24—25 (Claims Appendix).
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Matsuda
Weising
Yoon
US 2012/0032955 A1 Feb. 9, 2012
US 2014/0002359 A1 Jan. 2, 2014
US 2015/0052221 A1 Feb. 19, 2015
REJECTIONS
Claims 1—3, 5, 6, and 10-12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Weising and Matsuda. Final Act. 4—27.
3
Appeal 2017-009365
Application 14/631,313
Claims 7—9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Weising, Matsuda, and Yoon. Final Act. 28—34.
ISSUE
Has the Examiner erred in finding the cited prior art teaches or
suggests placement information transmitted from a first device to a second
device such that “the first placement information ... is also information
indicating a position and a direction at and in which the first virtual object is
placed in the second captured image based on the second reference, using
the same information,” (hereinafter “the disputed limitation”) as recited in
claim 1?
ANALYSIS
In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner relies primarily on Weising.
Relevant here, the Examiner finds Weising generally teaches the sharing of
motion and position information among devices. Ans. 6 (“Weising discloses
motion and position information are shared with each other”) (citing
Weising 149). The Examiner further finds that “Weising also teaches the
motion and position of the device are relative information and are relative to
the reference point in the player’s space.” Ans. 6 (citing Weising 141).
Taken together, the Examiner finds, these teachings demonstrate “Weising
teaches a device transmitting to another device its own relative position
information.” Ans. 6. Against this background, the Examiner finds the
example of a dual-location virtual ping-pong game depicted in Weising’s
teaches the disputed limitation:
4
Appeal 2017-009365
Application 14/631,313
In the example of FIG. 5 . . . the motion and position of left and
right device are relative information. They are used in a virtual
environment to indicate the position and motion of an avatar
relative to the reference point of the display device. When the
relative position and motion of the left device is shared with the
right device, this information is used by the right device to place
the left paddle in the virtual reality of the right device. The right
device has only one reference point. In the right device displayed
virtual reality, all the position and motion of an entity (paddles
and ping-pong ball) are relative to the right device’s reference
point.
Ans. 7.
Appellants contend the Examiner has erred because “[i]n Weising,
each device creates its own virtual space based on its own reference point (to
synchronize the device).” App. Br. 16—17. Acknowledging that each device
in Weising’s dual-location ping-pong game “does create a relative
information (relative to a reference point) in its own space, along with
absolute position information,” Appellants argue the cited portion of
Weising “is silent as to a device transmitting to another device its own
relative position information.” App. Br. 17. Appellants further argue that
even if Weising did teach sharing of relative position information between
devices, any such teaching would be insufficient to render the claims
obvious because the claim recites that information must “indicate] a
position and a direction at and in which the first virtual object is placed in
the second captured image based on the second reference.” App. Br. 17
(quoting claim 1) (emphasis omitted). According to Appellants, the
placement information sent to the second device must indicate where to
place a virtual object within the second device’s display based on the
reference point of the second device. App. Br. 17—18.
5
Appeal 2017-009365
Application 14/631,313
We are persuaded by Appellants’ argument. The description of the
dual-location ping-pong game provided by Weising is a high level
description and does not include details regarding the specific data that is
passed between and among the devices. Although Weising teaches that
“each device keeps track of the motion and position of the device,” and that
“[t]his information is shared with the other device,” (Weising 149), there is
no indication that the shared information includes information that indicates
positioning and motion “based on the second reference,” as required by
claim 1. Rather, Weising is silent regarding the precise nature of the motion
and position information generated and shared by each device, other than to
make clear that the motion and position of each device is determined “with
respect to [its own] reference point.” Weising 141. As such, we agree with
Appellants that in the scenario depicted in Weising’s Figure 5, each device
“only transmits (first) position information related to its own environment,”
and “does not transmit information that is also related to the environment of
the second (e.g., right) device, as required by claim 1.” App. Br. 19.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1, nor of claims 2, 3,
and 5—9 which depend therefrom. For the same reason, we also do not
sustain the rejections of independent claims 10—12 which also include the
disputed limitation.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—3 and 5—12.
REVERSED
6