Katz, Sheldon et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 26, 2019

12879482 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Dec. 26, 2019)

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.
12/879,482 09/10/2010 Sheldon Katz 40189/02102(11-DIS-073) 7065
94470 7590 12/26/2019
DISNEY ENTERPRISES, INC.
c/o Fay Kaplun & Marcin, LLP
150 Broadway
Suite 702
New York, NY 10038
EXAMINER
HUANG, FRANK F
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2485
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/26/2019 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):
fhall@fkmiplaw.com
mmarcin@fkmiplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte SHELDON KATZ, GREGORY HOUSE, and
HOWARD KENNEDY
____________

Appeal 2019-000936
Application 12/879,482
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before KRISTEN L. DROESCH, JENNIFER L. McKEOWN, and
JAMES W. DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judges.

McKEOWN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
decision to reject claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 10–25, 29, 30, and 33–37. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

1 Disney Enterprises, Inc. (“Appellant”) is the applicant as provided in
37 C.F.R. § 1.46 (2017) and is identified as the real party in interest. App.
Br. 2.
Appeal 2019-000936
Application 12/879,482

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant’s disclosed and claimed invention relates to “virtual
insertions into 3D video.” Spec. ¶ 1.
Claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed invention and reads as follows:
1. A method comprising:
determining a first camera data parameter of a first
camera model associated with a first channel of a 3D
video, wherein the first camera model describes the field
of view of the first channel;
determining a second camera data parameter of a
second camera model associated with a second channel of
the 3D video, wherein the second camera model describes
the field of view of the second channel,
wherein determining the first camera data
parameter and second camera data parameter is
based on a search analysis of at least the first
channel,
wherein the search analysis is based on
voxels corresponding to at least the first channel
and,
wherein the search analysis is constrained
within a region of at least the first channel that is
less than the field of view of at least the first channel
and the region is based on a relationship between
the first channel and the second channel of 3D
video;
generating a composite camera model by
reconciling the first camera data parameter of the first
camera model and the second camera data parameter of
the second camera model; and
inserting an enhancement into the 3D video based
on the composite camera model.

REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Appeal 2019-000936
Application 12/879,482

3
Name Reference Date
Hoffmann US 2008/0144924 A1 June 19, 2008
Masayuki Kanbara et al., A Stereoscopic Video See-through Augmented
Reality System Based on Real-time Vision-based Registration, IEEE,
(2000).

REJECTION
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 10–25, 29, 30, and 33–37
under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Kanbara and
Hoffmann. Final Act. 3–21.
ANALYSIS
Based on the record before us, we are persuaded that the Examiner
erred in rejecting claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 10–25, 29, 30, and 33–37 as unpatentable
over Kanbara and Hoffmann.
The Examiner relies on Hoffmann and Kanbara combined as teaching
a “search analysis [] constrained within a region. . .” and that “the region is
based on a relationship between the first channel and the second channel of
3D video.” Final Act. 7–8. The Examiner explains that Hoffmann’s object
tracking satisfies the limitation of constraining the region of the search
analysis. See Ans. 21–22; Final Act. 10. For example, once the object is
detected in the first image, “the following object detection and tracking can
be ‘tracked by using the results – extracted regions – obtained in the
previous frame’, i.e. search around the region of the object.” Ans. 21. The
Examiner combines Hoffmann’s object tracking with Kanbara’s search
analysis based on a relationship between the first and second channel.
Ans. 22. Namely, Kanbara matches “left and right images in the first frame
Appeal 2019-000936
Application 12/879,482

4
[] to determine the stereo pair of markers between the current left and right
images.” Ans. 22 (emphasis omitted).
Appellant, however, asserts “Kanbara’s stereo matching has no
correlation to a region within which a search is constrained.” Reply Br. 4.
According to Appellant, Kanbara uses stereo matching to identify markers,
but only after a search on the entirety of both images of the stereo pair.
Reply Br. 4 (citing Kanbara, p. 257 § 3.1.1). In other words, the first search
is not based on the relationship between the first and second channels
because the relationship is not determined until after the search is performed.
Appellant also maintains that the second search, i.e. tracking the stereo
paired markers, is also not “based on a relationship between a first and
second channel” because the second search area is “based on the results of a
search conducted on a previous frame.” Reply Br. 4.
We find Appellant’s argument unpersuasive. Kanbara describes a
first search on the entirety of the pair of images to identify blue markers.
The coordinates are then determined based on analysis of the pair of images.
Then, a second search, limited to the region of the markers, is performed
based on the previously identified coordinate of the markers. As such,
although we agree that Kanbara’s first search is not based on a relationship
between the first and second channel, the second search is based on the
matched location of the markers, i.e., a relationship between the two
channels. Merely asserting that the search is “based on the results of a
search conducted on a previous frame” fails to consider the Examiner’s
finding that Kanabara’s identification of the blue marker location is the
relationship between the first and second channel. Therefore, based on the
record before us, we find Appellant’s arguments unpersuasive.
Appeal 2019-000936
Application 12/879,482

5
Nevertheless, we are persuaded by Appellant’s argument that the
combination of Hoffmann and Kanbara fails to teach or suggest “a search
analysis…based on voxels corresponding to at least the first channel.”
Appeal Br. 9–10; Reply Br. 6–7. In particular, Appellant maintains that the
Examiner fails to demonstrate a correlation between a search and a voxel.
Reply Br. 7.
We agree. We understand a voxel to be a three dimensional pixel,
e.g., a pixel with volume, that is represented with x, y, and z coordinates.
See, e.g., Reply Br. 6 (noting that “[a] ‘voxel’ is term of art that represents
an element of an image with defined characteristics. A person having
ordinary skill in the art would understand that a voxel is a 3D pixel with
particular coordinates within an image. (See Specification, ¶¶[0031]-
[0032].).”). Kanbara describes searching in subsequent frames (where the
blue marker has already been located in the first frame) based on the position
of the marker in the previous frame and then performing stereo matching.
See, e.g., Kanbara, p. 258. In other words, Kanbara teaches searching based
on the coordinates for the blue marker in the previous 2D left and right
images and subsequently stereo matching the pairs, not searching based on
the previously matched pairs. As such, we are persuaded that the Examiner
fails to sufficiently show that Kanbara teaches or suggests a search analysis
based on voxels corresponding to at least the first channel.
Accordingly, based on the record before us, we reverse the rejection
of claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 10–25, 29, 30, and 33–37 as unpatentable over Kanbara
and Hoffmann.
Appeal 2019-000936
Application 12/879,482

6
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 2, 5, 6,
10–25, 29,
30, 33–37
103 Hoffmann, Kanbara 1, 2, 5, 6,
10–25, 29,
30, 33–37

REVERSED