Peter Tsang

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Feb 18, 2021

2019005819 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 18, 2021)

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.
13/809,981 01/14/2013 Peter Wai Ming Tsang 2958.006A 9704
23405 7590 02/18/2021
HESLIN ROTHENBERG FARLEY & MESITI PC
5 COLUMBIA CIRCLE
ALBANY, NY 12203
EXAMINER
SUN, HAI TAO
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2616
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/18/2021 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte PETER WAI MING TSANG
Appeal 2019-005819
Application 13/809,981
Technology Center 2600
Before JEAN R. HOMERE, ADAM J. PYONIN, and
DAVID J. CUTITTA II, Administrative Patent Judges.
PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 and 5–20. Final Act. 2. Claims 2–4 have
been canceled. Appeal Br. 16. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 Herein, “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as
the City University of Hong Kong. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2019-005819
Application 13/809,981

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
The claimed subject matter relates to “a method of converting a
single, static picture into a plurality of images, each synthesizing the
projected image of a 3D object scene along a specific viewing direction,” in
order to “be rendered and displayed on a monitor, for example, a 3D
autostereoscopic monitor.” Spec. ¶ 6. Claims 1 and 5–20 are pending;
claims 1, 13, and 16 are independent. Appeal Br. 16–19. Claim 1 is
reproduced below for reference (emphasis added):
1. A method of generating a plurality of multi-view images
of a scene, the method comprising:
obtaining a single two-dimensional source image of a
scene, the source image comprising a plurality of source pixels
(20);
automatically generating at least two multi-view images
(28) of the scene from less than all of the plurality of source
pixels, each of the at least two multi-view images having a
different viewing direction for the scene;
integrating (64) the at least two multi-view images (60),
prior to displaying, by combining an entirety of each of the at
least two multi-view images into a single integrated image of
the scene (62); and
displaying, after the integrating, the single integrated
image on a three-dimensional multi-view autostereoscopic
display.

Appeal 2019-005819
Application 13/809,981

3
References and Rejections
The Examiner relies on the following prior art:
Name Reference Date
Geshwind US 4,925,294 May 15, 1990
Isono US 5,315,377 May 24, 1994
Geshwind ’573 US 6,590,573 B1 July 8, 2003
Nomura US 2006/0192776 A1 Aug. 31, 2006
Tam US 2007/0024614 A1 Feb. 1, 2007
Perlin US 2008/0024598 A1 Jan. 31, 2008
Liu US 2009/0185759 A1 July 23, 2009
Lipton US 2010/0103249 A1 Apr. 29, 2010
Bamji US 2011/0285910 A1 Nov. 24, 2011

Claims 1, 10, 12–14, 16, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Geshwind, Isono, Liu, and Lipton.
Final Act. 11.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Geshwind, Isono, Liu, and Lipton, and further in view of Perlin. Final
Act. 29.
Claims 5, 7, 17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Geshwind, Isono, Liu, and Lipton, and further in view of
Nomura. Final Act. 30.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Geshwind, Isono, Liu, Lipton, Nomura, and further in view of Bamji.
Final Act. 33–34.
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Geshwind, Isono, Liu, Lipton, Nomura, and further in
view of Geshwind ’573. Final Act. 34.
Appeal 2019-005819
Application 13/809,981

4
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Geshwind, Isono, Liu, and Lipton, and further in view of Tam. Final
Act. 36.

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s
arguments. Arguments Appellant could have made but chose not to make
are deemed forfeit. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). We disagree with
Appellant that the Examiner erred and adopt as our own the findings and
reasons set forth by the Examiner, to the extent consistent with our analysis
below. We add the following primarily for emphasis.

Independent Claim 1
First, Appellant argues the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 is in error:
“Isono does not teach the automatically generating aspect of claim 1,
because (i) there is no single integrated image (instead, separate images are
overlaid at display), and (ii) any alleged ‘integrating’ is not done prior to
displaying.” Appeal Br. 12.
We do not find this argument to be persuasive of reversible error in
the rejection. We note the integrated image and prior to displaying claim
requirements do not form part of the “automatically generating” limitation.
The Examiner relies on Liu—not Isono—for teaching “integrating . . . prior
to displaying.” See Ans. 33 (“Isono is not used to reject ‘integrating images
prior to displaying’”); Final Act. 6, 13, 14; Liu Fig. 4 (depicting synthesizing
an image from 4 images), ¶ 6 (“synthesize the virtual view”); see also
Appeal Br. 10 (“the final Office Action admits such on page 6, instead
Appeal 2019-005819
Application 13/809,981

5
relying on Liu”). Appellant’s argument regarding “integrating” and “prior
to” does not show the Examiner errs with respect to the “automatically
generating” limitation.
Second, Appellant argues “[t]he images generated in Liu include
portions of the actual images, whereas the claimed multi-view images are
entirely made up.” Appeal Br. 12.
We do not find this argument to be persuasive of reversible error in
the rejection. We agree with the Examiner that “‘multi-view images are
entirely made up’ is not included in limitations of claim 1.” Final Act. 5.
Appellant has not shown the claimed “generating at least two multi-view
images,” in light of the Specification, requires generating images wholly
different from the source image.2 See, e.g., Spec. ¶ 36 (“For the rest of the
pixels that are not selected by the Significance Estimator, they will be
duplicated in all the multi-view images.”). Moreover, the Examiner relies
on the combination of references for teaching the multi-view images, as
claimed. See Final Act. 3 (“In paragraph [0009], Liu teaches synthesizing,
i.e. integrating, an image with multi-view images,”), 4 (“Lipton discloses
‘combining an entirety of each of the at least two multi-view images’ in Fig.
3 and paragraph [0070].”), 7 (“Isono discloses ‘multi-view images’ in Fig. 4,
col. 4, lines 25–30, col. 11, lines 60–67 and col. 12, lines 1–5.”).
Appellant’s argument against Liu individually does not show the Examiner

2 Separately, we note Appellant has not explained what “entirely made up,”
and “portions of the original image” mean, in the context of computer
processing of images stored (and thus copied) in digital memory. Appeal
Br. 9; see Spec. ¶ 45.
Appeal 2019-005819
Application 13/809,981

6
errs in citing to Liu combined with Isono and Lipton for teaching the
disputed limitation.
Third, Appellant argues, “Liu uses stereoscopic imaging, which
requires separate left and right eye images, and, therefore, cannot and does
not teach integrating images.” Final Act. 12.
We do not find this argument to be persuasive of reversible error in
the rejection. We agree with the Examiner that Liu teaches integrating, as
claimed, because “Liu teaches integrating four references images into an
intended image.” Final Act. 4; Liu Figs. 3, 4, ¶ 41 (“[T]o obtain an image
from the viewpoint 204 to watch the object 200, usually an image
interpolation corresponding to the four reference images is used.”).
Moreover, the Examiner relies on the combination of Liu and Lipton for
teaching the recited integrating. See Final Act. 4, 15; Liu Figs. 3, 4; Lipton
¶ 94 (“The generated image view 1208 is the image resulting from adding
the left and right-eye image data.”). Appellant’s argument against Liu
individually does not show the Examiner errs in citing to Liu combined with
Lipton for teaching the disputed limitation.
Fourth, Appellant argues “[o]ne skilled in the art would not combine
Isono, Liu or Lipton with Geshwind, because: i. they are different image
types; that they are all broadly ‘images’ is not enough; and ii. combining any
of Isono, Liu or Lipton with Geshwind would usurp the purpose of
Geshwind.” Appeal Br. 12.
We do not find this argument to be persuasive of reversible error in
the rejection. Appellant has not shown one of ordinary skill would be
discouraged from combining the teachings of Geshwind, Isono, Liu, and
Lipton in the manner claimed, merely because they discuss various image
Appeal 2019-005819
Application 13/809,981

7
types. Similarly, that Geshwind “starts and requires frames from a pre-
existing two-dimensional motion picture” does not suggest that Geshwind’s
teachings would not be applicable to the images obtained in Isono, Liu, and
Lipton. Contra Appeal Br. 11. Rather, the Examiner has determined that an
artisan of ordinary skill would combine the various three-dimensional
display teachings of the cited references. See Final Act. 10; In re Nievelt,
482 F.2d 965, 968 (CCPA 1973) (“Combining the teachings of references
does not involve an ability to combine their specific structures.”); KSR Int’l
Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421 (2007) (“A person of ordinary skill is
also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.”). We find the
Examiner’s analysis to be reasonable, as combining the cited references’
various teachings on three-dimensional image processing is the combination
of familiar elements according to known methods, yielding predictable
results. See Final Act.10, 13–16.
In the Reply Brief, Appellant presents new arguments, including that
“Lipton cannot teach or suggest combining an entirety of each generated
multi-view image into a single integrated image for display” (Reply Br. 5),
“Isono is inconsistent with and, therefore, improperly cited against the
integrating aspect of claim 1” (Reply Br. 7), “aspects of at least some of the
various motivations to combine the references are at best unclear” (Reply
Br. 8), and “neither Geshwind nor Isono use stereoscopic images” (Reply
Br. 9). We do not see good cause, on the record before us, for why these
arguments were not raised in the opening brief. Accordingly, Appellant’s
Reply Brief arguments are forfeited. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.41(b)(2).
Appeal 2019-005819
Application 13/809,981

8
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of
independent claim 1. We similarly sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
claims 13 and 16, which are not separate argued. See Appeal Br. 10.

Dependent Claim 5
Appellant argues the Examiner’s rejection of claim 5 is in error:
Claim 5 recites that the automatically generating comprises, for
each of the at least two multi-view images (28), generating a
disparity (24) for each of the at least some of the plurality of
source pixels.
Against the disparity of claim 5, the final Office Action cites to
Nomura at paragraph 0182. However, the disparity in Nomura
is a determined disparity of “... the extent of disparity of the
right-eye image from the left eye image as a reference.”
Appellant submits this is simply different than generating a
disparity for each pixel of the multi-view images.
Appeal Br. 14.
We are not persuaded the Examiner errs. Appellant’s bare assertion
that Nomura’s teachings are “simply different than” the claim requirements
does not rise to the level of separate argument. See In re Lovin, 652 F.3d
1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[W]e hold that the Board reasonably
interpreted Rule 41.37 to require more substantive arguments in an appeal
brief than a mere recitation of the claim elements and a naked assertion that
the corresponding elements were not found in the prior art.”). Further, we
find reasonable the Examiner’s determination that Nomura teaches
generating a disparity, as claimed, because “Nomura teaches calculating the
parallax quantity 0 in the range for permitting the comfortable stereoscopic
view based on the disparity between the left and right images. The disparity
may be calculated first.” Ans. 37; Nomura ¶ 182. We sustain this rejection,
Appeal 2019-005819
Application 13/809,981

9
and the rejection of claims 17 and 19, which are not separately argued. See
Appeal Br. 13.

Dependent Claim 11
Appellant argues the Examiner’s rejection of claim 11 is in error:
Claim 11 depends from claim 10 and ultimately claim 1, and
recites that, as part of automatically generating the multi-view
images, identifying the source pixels using edge detection.
Against claim 11, the final Office Action cites to Tam at
paragraph 0045. However, Tam is directed to generating a
depth map for a two-dimensional source image in part by using
edge detection, whereas the edge detection in claim 11 is used
of identifying source pixels from which the multi-view images
will be generated.
Appeal Br. 14.
Appellant argues against Tam, individually, whereas the Examiner
finds the limitations of claim 11 to be obvious in view of the combination of
cited references. See Final Act. 36, 37. Particularly, the Examiner cites to
Isono for identifying source pixels (Final Act. 16, with respect to parent
claim 10), and relies on Tam merely for the “edge detection” technique
(Ans. 38). See Isono 10:5–15; Tam ¶ 45. Appellant does not challenge the
Examiner’s combination; accordingly, we are not persuaded of error in the
obviousness rejection of dependent claim 11.

CONCLUSION
We are not persuaded the Examiner errs in finding claims 1, 5, 11, 13,
16, 17, and 19 to be obvious in view of the cited references. Appellant does
not present separate substantive arguments for the remaining claims. Thus,
we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejections of claims 1 and 5–20.
Appeal 2019-005819
Application 13/809,981

10

DECISION SUMMARY
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 10, 12–
14, 16, 18,
20
103(a) Geshwind, Isono,
Liu, Lipton
1, 10, 12–
14, 16, 18,
20

15 103(a) Geshwind, Isono,
Liu, Lipton, Perlin
15
5, 7, 17, 19 103(a) Geshwind, Isono,
Liu, Lipton,
Nomura
5, 7, 17, 19
6 103(a) Geshwind, Isono,
Liu, Lipton,
Nomura, Bamji
6
8, 9 103(a) Geshwind, Isono,
Liu, Lipton,
Nomura,
Geshwind ’573
8–9
11 103(a) Geshwind, Isono,
Liu, Lipton, Tam
11
Overall
Outcome
1, 5–20

TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED