Satoru OSAKO et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

May 14, 2021

2019005921 (P.T.A.B. May. 14, 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.
13/469,690 05/11/2012 Satoru OSAKO AC-723-3431 6068
27562 7590 05/14/2021
NIXON & VANDERHYE, P.C.
901 NORTH GLEBE ROAD, 11TH FLOOR
ARLINGTON, VA 22203
EXAMINER
CHANG, DANIEL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2487
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/14/2021 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 SATORU OSAKO and SHIGERU MIYAMOTO
Appeal 2019-005921
Application 13/469,690
Technology Center 2400
Before ALLEN R. MACDONALD, CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., and
MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, Administrative Patent Judges.
STRAUSS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL1
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant2 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 3–24 and 28–34. See Final Act. 1.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).

1 We refer to the Specification, filed May 11, 2012 (“Spec.”); Final Office
Action, mailed June 27, 2018 (“Final Act.”); Advisory Action, mailed
September 13, 2018 (“Advisory Act.”); Appeal Brief, filed February 15,
2019 (“Appeal Br.”); Examiner’s Answer, mailed June 3, 2019 (“Ans.”);
and Reply Brief, filed August 5, 2019 (“Reply Br.”).
2 Appellant refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant
identifies the real party in interest as NINTENDO CO., LTD. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2019-005921
Application 13/469,690
2
We AFFIRM.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellant’s claimed subject matter relates to displaying a virtual
space (e.g., virtual game environment) on a portable display (e.g., a
handheld game device) in response to movement of the device and providing
images of the virtual space using multiple virtual cameras See, e.g., Spec.
¶¶ 2–7. Claim 1, reproduced below with bracketed labels added and
formatting altered, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. An information processing system for displaying a view of a
panoramic video on a portable display and a stationary display,
the information processing system comprising:
[(I)] electronic memory configured to store the panoramic
video captured and recorded in advance, the
panoramic video including a plurality of frames that
are each a panorama image of a real world;
[(II)] a first user-manipulable control and a second user-
manipulable control;
[(III)] at least one housing that includes the first user-
manipulable control and the second user-manipulable
control, the at least one housing including at least one
wireless transceiver configured to communicate with
another computing device;
[(IV)] at least one sensor disposed in the at least one
housing, the sensor configured to detect a physical
quantity that is based on movement, attitude, or
movement and attitude of the at least one housing;
[(V)] a processing system that includes at least one hardware
processor, the processing system configured to:
[(1)] prior to a display process, calculate, using the
detected physical quantity, a current attitude of the
at least one housing and set the calculated current
attitude as a reference attitude of the at least one
housing;
Appeal 2019-005921
Application 13/469,690
3
[(2)] locate a first virtual camera at a predetermined
position in a three-dimensional virtual space and
link an initial attitude of the located first virtual
camera to the reference attitude of the at least one
housing;
[(3)] locate a virtual model in the three-dimensional
virtual space, the virtual model surrounding the
predetermined position of the location of the first
virtual camera, the virtual model including a
surface that is orientated towards the first virtual
camera;
[(4)] perform, for each one of the plurality of frames of
the panoramic video, the display process based on
the reference attitude of the at least one housing
and the initial attitude of the first virtual camera:
(a) automatically read the whole panorama image of a
selected frame of the plurality of frames of the
panoramic video stored on the electronic memory,
(b) map the read whole panorama image of the
selected frame onto the surface that is orientated
towards the predetermined position where the first
virtual camera is located, wherein a fixed position
in the whole panorama image of each one of the
plurality of frames is mapped to a fixed position in
the model on the surface,
(c) calculate, based on an updated physical quantity
detected by the sensor, a change amount for an
updated attitude of the at least one housing and
correspondingly adjust the attitude of the first
virtual camera by the change amount,
(d) generate an image of the virtual space by using the
first virtual camera, which is located at the
predetermined position, in accordance with how
the whole panorama image of the selected frame
has been mapped to the surface of the model,
(e) generate another image of the virtual space by
using a second virtual camera in accordance with
how the whole panorama image of the selected
frame has been mapped to the surface of the model
Appeal 2019-005921
Application 13/469,690
4
and output the generated another image to the
stationary display, wherein the second virtual
camera is located at the predetermined position
and an attitude of the second virtual camera is not
adjusted even when the attitude of the first virtual
camera is adjusted in (c), wherein the attitude of
the second virtual camera is set to the initial
attitude of the first virtual camera at a start of the
display process, and
(f) output the generated image to the portable display
for display thereon, wherein the processing system
is configured to automatically repeat (a)-(f) of the
display process for each one of the plurality of
frames to thereby display a video with views of the
panoramic video on the portable display.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Iwata US 6,327,020 B1 Dec. 4, 2001
Best US 7,445,549 B1 Nov. 4, 2008
Richards US 2001/0056574 A1 Dec. 27, 2001
Miyamoto US 2002/0165028 A1 Nov. 7, 2002
Foote US 2003/0063133 A1 Apr. 3, 2003
Foo US 2006/0074553 A1 Apr. 6, 2006
Cohen US 2008/0144968 A1 June 19, 2008
Kornmann US 2010/0045667 A1 Feb. 25, 2010
Chen US 2013/0121525 A1 May 16, 2013

REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 3, 4, 13–16, 19, 23, 24, 28, and 30–34 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Best, Kornmann, and
Richards. Final Act. 5–33.
Appeal 2019-005921
Application 13/469,690
5
Claims 5–8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Best, Kornmann, Richards, and Miyamoto. Final Act. 33–
36.
Claim 9 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Best, Kornmann, Richards, Miyamoto, and Foo. Final
Act. 36–37.
Claims 10 and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Best, Kornmann, Richards, Miyamoto, and Foote. Final
Act. 37–39.
Claim 12 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Best, Kornmann, Richards, Miyamoto, Foo, and Foote.
Final Act. 39–40.
Claims 17 and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Best, Kornmann, Richards, and Iwata. Final Act. 41–43.
Claim 20 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Best, Kornmann, Richards, and Foote. Final Act. 43–44.
Claim 21 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Best, Kornmann, Richards, and Chen. Final Act. 44–45.
Claim 22 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Best, Kornmann, Richards, Chen, and Foote. Final Act.
45–46.
Claim 29 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Best, Kornmann, Richards, and Cohen. Final Act. 46–47.

Appeal 2019-005921
Application 13/469,690
6
STANDARD OF REVIEW
We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues
identified by Appellant, and in light of the arguments and evidence produced
thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential).
OPINION
We have considered in this Decision only those arguments Appellant
actually raised in the Briefs. Arguments not made are waived. See
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2018).
To the extent consistent with our analysis herein, we adopt as our own
the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in (1) the action from
which this appeal is taken, (2) the Examiner’s Advisory Action, and (3) the
Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellant’s Appeal Brief, and concur
with the conclusions reached by the Examiner. We highlight the following
for emphasis, addressing Appellant’s contentions of Examiner error seriatim
in the order presented in Appellant’s Appeal Brief.
Independent Claims 1, 24, and 30–32
The Examiner finds the combination of Best, Kornmann, and
Richards teaches or suggests the subject matter of claim 1. Final Act. 5–33.
Of particular relevance to this appeal, the Examiner finds images from
simulated point of view camera 173 of Best’s multiple-player game system
teaches a display process that generates an image of the virtual space by a
first virtual camera as recited by the first portion of claim limitation
(V)(4)(d). Final Act. 7 (citing Best, col. 14, ll. 54-62, Fig. 15). Addressing
the latter portion of claim limitation (V)(4)(d), the Examiner finds
Kornmann’s navigation system using a mobile device such a smart
Appeal 2019-005921
Application 13/469,690
7
cellphone to navigate through a three dimensional environment (e.g., a
model of the Earth) using a virtual camera 202 teaches generating an image
of the virtual space by using the first virtual camera in accordance with how
the whole panorama image of the selected frame has been mapped to the
surface of the model. Final Act. 12 (citing Kornmann ¶¶ 36, 37).
The Examiner further finds both Best’s point of view camera 188
(Final Act. 7–8 (citing Best, col. 17–19, ll. 8–10, Fig. 22)) and Kornmann’s
“[m]obile device 100 having view 102, [that] sequentially captures rendered
three dimensional environment images from the perspective of a virtual
camera” (Final Act. 12 (citing Kornmann ¶¶ 36, 37) teach generating
another image of the virtual space using a second virtual camera as recited
by the initial portion of claim limitation (V)(4)(e). Similarly to claim
limitation (V)(4)(d), the Examiner again applies Kornmann for teaching that
the image of limitation (V)(4)(e) is likewise generated in accordance with
how the whole panorama image of the selected frame has been mapped to
the surface of the model. Id. Finally, the Examiner finds Best’s display of a
different view on monitor 34 and the independent control of simulated point
of view cameras 173, 175, and 188 teach or suggest the remainder of claim
limitation (V)(4)(e) including:
output the generated another image to the stationary display,
wherein the second virtual camera is located at the
predetermined position and an attitude of the second virtual
camera is not adjusted even when the attitude of the first virtual
camera is adjusted in (c), wherein the attitude of the second
virtual camera is set to the initial attitude of the first virtual
camera at a start of the display process.
See Final Act. 8 (citing Best, col. 7, ll. 8–56, cols. 17–19, ll. 8–10, Figs. 7,
21–23).
Appeal 2019-005921
Application 13/469,690
8
In determining Best teaches or suggests collocating the first and
second virtual cameras at a predetermined position, the Examiner finds
Best’s player character 17 viewing a cave entrance using virtual camera 173
would deploy robot character 155 with virtual camera 175 to enter and
explore the cave. Advisory Act. 2. The Examiner explains, at the moment
robot character 155 is deployed “the player character 17 and robot character
155 are located at the same position, which is the entrance to the cave.” Id.
Concerning the requirement that the second virtual camera maintain an
initial attitude of the first virtual camera even when the first virtual camera is
adjusted, the Examiner reasons that, while a player is controlling one virtual
camera, other virtual cameras remain at a constant position and attitude thus
teaching the corresponding claim limitation. Final Act. 2–3. According to
the Examiner “[t]hus, it can be said that the second camera will remain at the
position throughout the claimed display process in the scenario that the
player is operating and controlling the first camera.” Id. at 3.
Addressing combinability of the references, the Examiner determines
it would have been obvious to modify Best’s system to incorporate
Kornmann’s image mapping because “both prior art [references are]
analogous to the field of displaying of texture mapped pictures upon a
portable display device that allows a user to navigate through a three
dimensional environment upon a mobile device with a small display size
with ease by changing an orientation of a mobile device.” Id. at 12–13.
Appellant contends the rejection of independent claims 1, 24, 30, 31,
and 32 is improper for the following reasons.
First Appellant contends, although disclosing two virtual cameras,
“Best does not contain teachings for how the two virtual cameras are
Appeal 2019-005921
Application 13/469,690
9
positioned throughout the panoramic display process.” Appeal Br. 20.
Directing attention of Figs. 23, 23a (reproduced below), Appellant argues
virtual camera 173 of player controlled character 17 and virtual camera 175
of robot 155, rather than being collocated, are separately controlled wherein
“the purpose of those separate cameras is to NOT to be in the same place.”
Id. at 22.

Figures 23 and 23a of Best depicting a cross-sectional
view of a cave tunnel in which a robot camera 173 is
focused on a hidden object 171 that is not observable
from an external point of view (Fig. 23) and a player-
controlled character entering the cave tunnel (Fig. 23a).
See Best, col. 18, ll. 33–68, col. 19, ll. 1–9.
Appellant directs attention to the claim requirement for “locating separate
virtual cameras at the same position for each frame of a panoramic video.”
Appeal Br. 22. According to Appellant, “there is no inherent requirement
Appeal 2019-005921
Application 13/469,690
10
that, based on the disclosure in Best, that the cameras must have operated in
[the argued] manner.” Id.
The Examiner responds, directing attention to Best’s disclosure of a
scenario of animated character 17, being too large to crawl into cave tunnel
176, activates land-crawling robot 155 to explore into the cave. Ans. 47–48.
The Examiner finds virtual camera 173 associated with animated character
17 and virtual camera 175 of robot 155 are collocated at the mouth of (or
entrance to) cave tunnel 176. Ans. 48. The Examiner further directs
attention to Best’s description of two players who each select the same point
of view for viewing the same character will observe the same image, this
second scenario also teaching or suggesting collocated virtual cameras. Id.
(citing Best, col. 9, ll. 49–55). The Examiner concludes as follows:
Therefore Best teaches or suggests the claim feature of, “locate
a first virtual camera at a predetermined position in a three-
dimensional virtual space,” and “(e) generate another image of
the virtual space by using a second camera ... wherein the
second virtual camera is located at the predetermined position,”
recited in claim 1, and the feature of, “generate another image
of the virtual space by using a second virtual camera [ . . . ]
wherein the second virtual camera is located at the position of
the first virtual camera,” as recited in claim 24.
Id.
Appellant’s contention is unpersuasive of reversible Examiner error.
Although, as argued by Appellant, Best’s Figure 22 depicts robot character
some distance into the cave tunnel 176 and positioned away from player
character 17 (Appeal Br. 24), there is no indication that is where the robot
character would first appear upon initially being activated. Instead, it is
reasonable that the robot character would initially appear at or near the
Appeal 2019-005921
Application 13/469,690
11
entrance to or mouth of cave tunnel 176 to allow exploration of the entire
length and extent of the cave tunnel beginning at the entrance rather than
midway into the cave tunnel. See, e.g., Best col. 18, ll. 53–56 (“[C]haracter
17 is displayed . . . as standing at the entrance to cave 176, while robot 155
explores the cave.”).
Furthermore, Appellant does not direct attention to any special
meaning attributable to the disputed limitation that would define what is
required for virtual cameras to be considered as located at the argued same
position. For example, Appellant does not explain why Best’s virtual
cameras positioned at the entrance to cave tunnel 176 are not at the same
position and collocated at the cave entrance. Thus, under a broad but
reasonable interpretation of the disputed limitation, because both Best’s
virtual camera 173 associated with animated character 17 and virtual camera
175 of robot 155 are located at the mouth of (or entrance to) cave tunnel
176, here, Best teaches locating separate virtual cameras at the same
position. We further find Best’s disclosure of multiple players selecting the
same point of view (Best col. 9, ll. 49–55), is reasonably understood as
having virtual cameras located at the same viewing vantage place, further
teaches or suggests collocating the virtual cameras at a predetermined
position.
We also find unpersuasive Appellant’s argument that “Applicant's
claims do not merely require positioning two virtual cameras at the same
position ‘if by chance’ as is taught in Best. Instead, the claims specifically
require that the virtual cameras are positioned in the specifically claimed
manner for ‘each one of the plurality of frames of the panoramic video.’”
Reply Br. 5. Best’s “if by chance” refers to a situation wherein “two players
Appeal 2019-005921
Application 13/469,690
12
select substantially the same point of view for viewing the same character,
both LCD 22 screens will show substantially the same image at substantially
the same time, even though no image or picture data was transmitted
between the two systems.”(Best col. 9, ll. 49–53). Thus, Best teaches that
the virtual cameras are collocated at the same predetermined position
selected by the players.
Appellant’s argument that orienting cameras towards the same object
fails to disclose placing cameras at the same attitude (id.) is also
unpersuasive of Examiner error. Although, as argued by Appellant, cameras
located at different positions may not have the same attitude, collocated
cameras imaging the same object as taught by Best reasonably would be
understood to have the same attitude.
We are also unpersuaded “a person of ordinary skill in the art would
NOT have modified Best to operate [such that] the robot character and the
player character are at the same position” because to do so would be
confusing for the user. Appeal Br. 25. As discussed above and consistent
with the Examiner’s findings, it is reasonable to expect that the robot
character would be activated at or near the entrance to the cave tunnel where
the player character is also positioned. See Ans. 49. In contrast, other than
attorney argument, Appellant provides insufficient evidence that having both
characters collocated would result in user confusion. Furthermore, as also
discussed above, in addition to a user deploying a robot, Best discloses two
players selecting substantially the same point of view for viewing the same
character. See Ans. 49 (citing Best, col. 9, ll. 49–55). Thus, rather than
modifying Best as suggested by Appellant, Best discloses collocated virtual
cameras.
Appeal 2019-005921
Application 13/469,690
13
Appellant further contends the applied prior art fails to teach “that the
first and second cameras in the claim are at the same position throughout the
repeated processing of [(V)(4)](a)-(f).” Appeal Br. 26. According to
Appellant, Best’s disclosure of collocated players viewing the same virtual
space fails to teach the limitation, arguing as follows.
Best thus merely suggest[s] that if two players select the same
point of view of a virtual space, then substantially the same
images will be displayed. But Applicant’s claims do not merely
require positioning two virtual cameras at the same position “if
by chance” as is taught in Best. Instead, the claims specifically
require that the virtual cameras are positioned in the specifically
claimed manner for “each one of the plurality of frames of the
panoramic video.”
Reply Br. 5.
Appellant’s argument is unpersuasive of reversible Examiner error.
Claim 1 recites a panoramic video including a plurality of frames, i.e., two
or more frames. Claim 1’s (V)(4)(f) limitation recites, in part, “wherein the
processing system is configured to automatically repeat [steps] (a)–(f) of the
display process for each one of the plurality of frames to thereby display a
video with views of the panoramic video on the portable display.” Thus, the
broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim element is that, for at least
two frames, the first and second virtual cameras are collocated. As
explained by the Examiner, one skilled in the art would have understood this
to happen in the Best system when a player was not moving the second
virtual camera. Ans. 52. We take notice that full video frame rates, i.e., the
number of frames displayed per unit time, are typically in the tens per
second. See, e.g., Frame rate Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Frame_rate (last visited May 10, 2021). Thus, unless the second virtual
Appeal 2019-005921
Application 13/469,690
14
camera is in rapid, continuous motion such that it is only collocated with the
first virtual camera for single frame (e.g., a split second for full frame
video), it would be expected that, for some plural number of frames, the first
and second virtual cameras remain collocated.
We also unpersuaded by Appellant’s argument that, rather than
supporting a conclusion that Best teaches or suggests having two cameras
remain at the same position throughout the recited display process, the
Examiner’s reasoning teaches away from such a conclusion. Appeal Br. 26.
In particular, Appellant argues it would be antithetical to have cameras
capable of moving independently of each other but require that they remain
in the same position. Id. However, this argument assumes that both
conditions must exist simultaneously. Instead, one skilled in the art would
have understood that, for some period of time (i.e., for at least two video
frames) the two virtual cameras may be collocated (e.g., such as at the
beginning of a scene) and, afterwards, one or both moved by a user. Thus,
Appellant’s argument is not commensurate in scope with the claim which
does not require that the cameras remain at the same position for all time.
We are also unpersuaded of reversible error based on Appellant’s
contention that the Examiner’s finding “Nowhere in the claims is there a
recitation regarding that the second camera remains at the predetermined
position throughout the claimed display process” is erroneous. Appeal Br.
27 (quoting Final Act. 2; citing Advisory Act. 2). Although the Examiner is
strictly correct to the extent the claims do not recite in haec verba the argued
“throughout” language (and thereby Appellant’s argument is not
commensurate in scope with the argued claim), we recognize the recitation
that “the second virtual camera is located at the predetermined position and
Appeal 2019-005921
Application 13/469,690
15
an attitude of the second virtual camera is not adjusted even when the
attitude of the first virtual camera is adjusted in (c)” taken together with the
repetition of steps specified by claim element (f) requires the second virtual
camera be at the predetermined position for at least two frames. Because we
find Best teaches or suggests these limitations for the reasons discussed
above, the Examiner has addressed what appears to be the intent of
Appellant’s argument despite Appellants use of wording that differs
somewhat from that recited by claim 1. Thus, any misinterpretation of
Appellant’s argument constitutes, at most, harmless error.
Appellant’s further contends as follows.
If Best[, which does not describe frames of a panoramic video,]
does not teach that that the first and second cameras are at the
same predetermined position for each one of the plurality of
frames of the panoramic video[], then how can Richards
provide the missing teachings when it doesn’t even discuss
using two virtual cameras - much less [virtual cameras] that are
positioned in the specifically claimed manner?
Appeal Br. 31 (emphasis added).
The Examiner responds, explaining Richards is only relied upon for
teaching a plurality of panoramic video frames and repetition of the display
process for each of a plurality of frames. Ans. 59; see Final Act. 13-15. The
Examiner finds “Best teaches that the first and second cameras in the claim
are at the same position throughout the repeated processing of steps (a)-(f).”
Ans. 58. Thus, according to Examiner
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the
art at the time of the invention to modify the system disclosed
by Best to incorporate and implement the plurality of
panoramic video frames of Richards . . . , to produce an
enhanced spatial television-like viewing experience where the
Appeal 2019-005921
Application 13/469,690
16
viewer is able to control both the viewing direction and relative
position of the viewer with respect to the movie action as
Richards recites in Paragraph [0002]. It is noted that one cannot
show nonobviousness by attacking references individually
where the rejections are based on combinations of references.
Id. at 59 (citing In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871).
Appellant’s contention is unpersuasive of reversible Examiner error.
Best teaches the first and second cameras are at the same predetermined
position for some period of time, e.g., until one is moved. Richards describes
video frames, i.e., a graphic display with image frames periodically updated
at full video rates. Thus, we find, the combination of Best’s timing
requirement for positioning virtual cameras in combination with Richard’s
representation of images using periodically generate frames of images
teaches or suggests the argued requirement that the first and second virtual
cameras both be located at the same predetermined position for a plurality of
frames.
Appellant next argues the prior art fails to disclose that the attitudes of
the second virtual camera is set to the initial attitude of the first virtual
camera at a start of the display process and is maintained in that position
during the display process as required by claim limitation (V)(4)(e). Appeal
Br. 32. The Examiner finds Best teaches setting and maintaining the attitude
of a second virtual camera as required by describing that both virtual
cameras 173 of player 17 and virtual camera 175 of robot 155 are oriented to
provide a view into the entrance to cave 176 and 175. Ans. 60.
Alternatively, the Examiner finds Best’s discussion “of two players selecting
substantially the same point of view for viewing a same character, with both
LCD screens displaying the same image contents of their virtual cameras
Appeal 2019-005921
Application 13/469,690
17
because the spatial coordinates and orientation of the characters are the
same” suggests the disputed limitation. Id. at 60–61.
Appellant’s contention is unpersuasive of reversible Examiner error.
We find Best’s disclosure of collocated virtual cameras that provide an
image of a particular scene, such as an entrance to a cave (Best, col. 18, ll.
33–62) or an image of the same character from the same point of view (Best,
col. 9, ll. 43–56) at least suggests the cameras are set to the same attitude
and, therefore, that one is set to the attitude of the other.
We further note that, whether physical (i.e., real) and manually
operated by a real person, or virtual and providing a view of a computer-
generated artificial environment as might be experienced by a virtual
instantiation of a player (e.g., an avatar), cameras are used by being located
and placed into a position suitable for capturing a desired view or image of
the world, whether the world is real or virtual. Likewise, having multiple
cameras at a location that are similarly positioned to capture a particular
image is simply how cameras are typically and well known to be used.
Absent a system for synchronizing positioning of multiple cameras, it would
further be expected that one camera might be repositioned while another
camera would remain stationary. Thus, in the present appeal, we find the
disputed limitation is, in effect, an intended use of the claimed apparatus.
However, a recitation directed to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is
intended to be used does not distinguish the claimed apparatus from the prior
art if the prior art has the capability to so perform (see MPEP § 2114 and Ex
parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (BPAI 1987)). Thus, for this additional
reason, Appellant does not persuade us the argued virtual camera positioning
and attitude limitations distinguish over the applied art of record.
Appeal 2019-005921
Application 13/469,690
18
Appellant belatedly argues for the first time in the Reply Brief that the
Examiner has improperly combined different embodiments of Best in
finding the reference teaches the disputed limitations of the independent
claims. Reply Br. 2–3. Appellant fails to show good cause for this new
argument, and as such, Appellant’s belated argument is deemed waived as
untimely. 37 C.F.R. § 41.41(b)(2) (2016). See In re Hyatt, 211 F.3d 1367,
1373 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (noting that an argument not first raised in the brief to
the Board is waived on appeal); Ex parte Nakashima, 93 USPQ2d 1834,
1837 (BPAI 2010) (explaining that arguments and evidence not timely
presented in the principal Brief, will not be considered when filed in a Reply
Brief, absent a showing of good cause explaining why the argument could
not have been presented in the Principal Brief); Ex parte Borden,
93 USPQ2d 1473, 1477 (BPAI 2010) (informative) (“Properly interpreted,
the Rules do not require the Board to take up a belated argument that has not
been addressed by the Examiner, absent a showing of good cause.”).
Therefore, we do not address Appellant’s contention further. Moreover,
Appellant fails to explain why the alleged “embodiments” are mutually
exclusive alternatives rather than features incorporated in implementing
Best’s multi-player game system.
For the reasons discussed above, we are unpersuaded by Appellant’s
arguments that the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claims 1, 24, and
30–32. Accordingly we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of those claims.
Claim 3
Claim 3 recites “[t]he information processing system according to
claim 1, wherein an initial view direction of the first virtual camera is
directed to the fixed position of the mapped whole panorama image.” The
Appeal 2019-005921
Application 13/469,690
19
Examiner finds Richards teaches the additional limitations of claim 3. Final
Act. 15 (citing Richards ¶¶ 12–13). Appellant contends “there is nothing in
paragraphs 12–13 of Richards, or Richards more generally that relates to
directing ‘an initial view direction of the first virtual camera’ to the ‘the
fixed position of the mapped whole panorama image.’” Appeal Br. 34. The
Examiner responds, finding Richard’s page key code that instructs virtual
television (VTV) processor to generate a static map wherein a “virtual
camera is oriented to a fixed position of the plurality of fixed positions in the
model of the surface when the system displays panoramic video” teaches the
limitations of claim 3. Ans. 62.
Appellant’s argument is unpersuasive of reversible Examiner error.
We agree with the Examiner’s finding that Richards teaches directing a view
direction of a virtual camera to a fixed position of a panorama image.
Appellant does not provide sufficient evidence or otherwise explain why any
special meaning should be attributed to the argued initial view direction.
Thus, under a broad but reasonable interpretation, an initial view direction
includes a direction of the first virtual camera at an arbitrary “first” one of
the recited plurality of frames. Therefore, we agree with the Examiner in
finding that the combination of Best, Kornmann, and Richards teaches or
suggests the subject matter of claim 3. See Final Act. 15, Ans. 62–63.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 3.
Claim 14
Claim 14 recites “[t]he information processing system according to
claim 1, wherein the virtual model is a closed space model.” The Examiner
finds Kornmann’s disclosure that a “[v]iew specification defines virtual
camera’s viewable volume within a three-dimensional space, known as a
Appeal 2019-005921
Application 13/469,690
20
frustum, as closed space model” teaches or suggests a virtual model is a
closed space model. Final Act. 17 (citing Kornmann ¶ 44). Appellant
argues, as follows:
[A] camera’s viewable volume within a three-dimensional
space is not a “close space model.” Indeed, it is not a model at
all but is, as explained by Kornmann, the portion of the virtual
space that is viewable by the camera. A portion of the virtual
space is not a model and is certainly not a closed model as is
required by dependent claim 14.
Appeal Br. 17.
The Examiner responds, finding as follows:
In Paragraph [0044], Kornmann teaches of a virtual camera’s
viewable volume within a three-dimensional space, being a
frustum, which is a truncated pyramid. The truncated pyramid,
or frustum, is a square pyramid model with its top cut off,
resulting in two bases with a volume in between the two bases.
Because the truncated pyramid is a model containing a volume
of space, it is therefore a closed space model.
Ans. 63. The Examiner concludes Kornmann teaches the disputed closed
space model. Id.
We find Appellant does not persuasively explain why Kornmann’s
motion model 314 that constructs a view specification defining a virtual
camera’s viewable volume as a frustum containing a closed space fails to
teach or suggest the recited closed space model. In so finding we note mere
attorney argument 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); In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705 (Fed.
Cir. 1984). Attorney argument is not evidence. In re Pearson, 494 F.2d
1399, 1405 (CCPA 1974). Nor can such argument take the place of
Appeal 2019-005921
Application 13/469,690
21
evidence lacking in the record. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 14.
Claim 23
Claim 23 reads as follows:
23. The information processing system according to claim 1,
wherein the processing system is further configured to:
as part of the display process:
(g) determine that an input provided via manipulation of
the first user-manipulable control or the second user-
manipulable control matches a predetermined operation; and
(h) responsive to the determination, invert a line-of-sight
direction of the first virtual camera.
The Examiner finds user manipulation of Best’s user joystick 20 of
control unit 185 is recognized by processor 50 as a predetermined operation,
i.e., interpreted by the control unit as player input for controlling point-of-
view perspective cameras. Final Act. 20–21. The Examiner further finds
Best’s description of moving a point of view camera around an object so that
it can be displayed “from many different points of view and directions”
teaches or suggests inverting a line-of-sight direction. Id. at 21.
Appellant argues, as follow.
There are multiple problems with this reasoning/hypothetical.
First, there is no disclosure in Best of inverting a line of sight
. . . . Second, there is a marked difference between manually
turning around to providing an input, seeing if that input
matches a predetermined input, and then inverting the line-of-
sight direction. For example, there is a difference between
making two left turns to (somehow) inverting the direction you
are going in response to determination that a “predetermined
input” being detected.
Appeal Br. 35–36.
Appeal 2019-005921
Application 13/469,690
22
The Examiner responds, explaining that Best’s various angles are
understood to include 180 degrees “which is a complete inversion of an
original line of sight for virtual camera 175.” Ans. 64. Appellant replies,
arguing “[a] user periodically adjusting the line-of-sight direction of the first
virtual camera does not meet this feature as such usage is not ‘responsive’ to
a determination that an input that matches a predetermined operation has
been provided.” Reply Br. 7.
Appellant’s argument is unpersuasive of reversible Examiner error.
During examination of a patent application, pending claims are given their
broadest reasonable construction consistent with the specification. In re Am.
Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Under the
broadest reasonable interpretation standard, claim terms are given their
ordinary and customary meaning as would be understood by one of ordinary
skill in the art in the context of the entire disclosure. In re Translogic Tech.,
Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Construing claims broadly
during prosecution is not unfair to the applicant because the applicant has
the opportunity to amend the claims to obtain more precise claim coverage.
Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d at 1364.
We find in Best that user input by the manipulation of joystick 20 is
interpreted by processor 50 as a control input for the movement of point-of-
view perspective cameras thereby teaching the requirement of determining
that an input provided via manipulation of the first user-manipulable control
. . . matches a predetermined operation, i.e., control movement of a camera.
Best’s disclosure of moving around an object reasonably includes moving to
an opposite side of the object, thereby inverting a line-of-sight of the object
as also claimed. To the extent that Appellant argues recitation of
Appeal 2019-005921
Application 13/469,690
23
“responsive to the determination, invert a line-of-sight direction of the first
virtual camera” indicates a requirement for an immediate response to invert
the camera’s line-of-sight direction, such argument is not commensurate in
scope with claim 23. See Reply Br. 7. Instead, under a broad but reasonable
interpretation, because, as a result of a player’s manipulation of a virtual
camera position, the recited result is achieved, Best reasonably teaches or
suggests inverting a line-of-sight direction of a virtual camera in response to
a determination, in this case, that a joystick is being manipulated to move a
position of the camera. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
claim 23.
Claim 7
Claim 7 reads as follows:
7. The information processing system according to claim 5,
wherein information of an image-capturing direction,
which corresponds to an image-capturing direction of the first
virtual camera, is displayed on the map image on the stationary
display.
The Examiner finds the limitation of claim 7 is taught by Miyamoto’s
disclosure of a “forward movement of character[s] in the common game
screen (map image) indicat[ing] the image-capturing direction corresponding
to first virtual camera’s viewpoint, as indicated in paragraph [0063] where
three-dimensional space extending forward one's character is displayed upon
portable game screen].” Final Act. 35 (citing Miyamoto ¶¶ 62–66, Figs. 2–
3). Appellant argues the rejection is improper because “the claim does not
require features relating to forward movement, it requires features for ‘in
[an] image direction of the first virtual camera.’ The direction of movement
Appeal 2019-005921
Application 13/469,690
24
of an object is different from the image-capturing direction of a virtual
camera.” Appeal Br. 36–37. The Examiner responds, explaining as follows.
In Paragraph [0062]-[0066] and Fig. 3, Miyamoto shows a
stationary map image that is displayed on the CRT 300 display.
This map image includes icons, notably circle C, which is
information about the image-capturing direction of the virtual
camera. By observing the movement progression of icon C as
shown in Figs. 4a, then 4b, and then 4c, one of ordinary skill in
the art knows that the movement of icon C in the stationary
map image indicates the image-capturing direction
corresponding to the first virtual camera’s viewpoint, as
indicated in paragraph [0063] where the three-dimensional
space extending forward of a player's character is displayed
upon the portable game screen.
Ans. 65. Appellant replies, arguing, contrary to the Examiner’s finding,
“There is no reference or information on any of the displayed images in
Fig. 3 that provides ‘information of an image-capturing direction, which
corresponds to an image-capturing direction of the first virtual camera’ as is
required by claim 7.” Reply Br. 7.
Appellant’s contention is unpersuasive of reversible Examiner error.
Miyamoto describes the following:
[T]he three-dimensional space based on a viewpoint (first
viewpoint) viewing from a rear oblique upper position of one’s
character is displayed on the LCD 20 of the portable game
machine 100. Specifically, the three-dimensional space
extending forward one’s character is displayed on the individual
game screen.
Miyamoto ¶ 63. Appellant does not direct attention to a definition of the
type of information that is included as information of an image-capturing
direction nor are we able to identify a description of how such information is
to be displayed. Accordingly, under a broad but reasonable interpretation,
Appeal 2019-005921
Application 13/469,690
25
Miyamoto’s display of the space extending forward of a character from a
particular viewpoint (i.e., image capturing direction) teaches or suggests
displaying information of an image-capturing direction of a virtual camera.
Claim 9
Claim 9 recites “[t]he information processing system according to
claim 8, wherein the map image is rotated in accordance with the attitude of
the first virtual camera.” The Examiner finds the recited subject matter is
taught by Foo’s map orientation that “changes to generally maintain a
direction of travel toward the top of the display, in accordance to a vehicle’s
heading as first virtual camera.” Final Act. 37 (citing Foo ¶¶ 63–64, Fig.
4B). Appellant argues, as follows.
Foo does not discuss rotating a map image in accordance with
the attitude of a virtual camera. Rather, what Foo discloses is
that “the orientation of the map also changes to generally
maintain a direction of travel towards the top of the display.”
Reorienting the map so the direction of travel is “up” is not the
same as rotating a map image in accordance with the attitude of
a virtual camera.
Appeal Br. 37. The Examiner responds, explaining as follows.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees because Foo teaches or
suggests the above claim features. In Paragraph [0063]-[0064]
and Fig. 48, Foo describes that orientation of the map changes
to generally maintain a direction of travel toward the top of the
display, wherein the vehicle’s heading, detected by GPS as
indicated in Paragraph [0029], is analogized as the virtual
camera attitude in the claim. Then, as seen in Figs. 4A and 4B,
the map displayed on the screen is rotated as the vehicle makes
a right turn from the road of, “Rue Du Bae,” onto “Boulevard
Saint-Germain.”
Ans. 66.
Appeal 2019-005921
Application 13/469,690
26
Appellant relies, asserting “a heading of a vehicle is not the attitude of
a virtual camera.” Reply Br. 7.
Appellant’s argument does not explain sufficiently why Foo’s rotation
of an image in accordance with a travel direction is not also applicable to
rotation or an image to correspond to a viewing direction, i.e., with the
attitude of a first virtual camera. According, we are not persuaded of
reversible Examiner error and sustain the rejection of claim 9.
Claim 21
Claim 21 reads as follows.
21. The information processing system according to claim 1,
wherein the electronic memory is further configured to store
type information of the panorama image for each one of the
plurality of frames;
wherein the virtual model that is located in the virtual
space is selected in accordance with the type information.
The Examiner finds Richards discloses the recited plurality of frames
(Final Act. 44 (citing Richards ¶¶ 11–13, 40–42) with Chen teaching the
remaining limitations of claim 21 (id. (citing Chen ¶ 62)). According to the
Examiner, the recited electronic memory storing images is taught by Chen’s
camera/lens profile database. Id. The Examiner further finds Chen’s
description of looking up and using camera/lens profiles that are then used in
selecting and applying an image processing model or function to the images
for their proper display teaches using type information to select a virtual
model that is located in virtual space as claimed. Id. The Examiner explains
it would have been obvious to modify the system of Best, Kornmann, and
Richards according to the teachings of Chen “to avoid introducing error in
alignment and stitching by properly applying appropriate unwarping
Appeal 2019-005921
Application 13/469,690
27
functions according with a particular combination of camera and lens used in
capturing an image.” Id. at 45 (citing Chen ¶ 14).
Appellant contends the rejection is improper, arguing as follows.
[W]hile Chen does discuss using image metadata, it fails to
contain any teaching or suggestion of selecting a virtual model
based on the type information of the panorama image. None of
the other references appear to discuss selecting different types
of virtual models (or even using different types of virtual
models) so there is no teaching in the references of using
different models, where those different models may be selected
based on type information of the panorama image.
Appeal Br. 40.
The Examiner responds, explaining Chen’s selection of an image
processing model based on information (e.g., camera/lens profile) teaches or
suggests selecting a model such as and including selection of a virtual model
as per Best’s game system. Ans. 67.
Appellant replies, characterizing the Examiner’s explanation as an
apparent new ground of rejection, further arguing “Best also contains no
teachings or suggestion of selecting models based on the claimed type
information as is set forth in claim 21.” Reply Br. 8.
Appellant’s argument is unpersuasive of reversible Examiner error.
First, any request to seek review of the Examiner’s failure to designate a
rejection as a new ground of rejection in an Examiner’s Answer must be by
way of a petition to the Director under 37 C.F.R. § 1.181 filed within two
months from the entry of the Examiner's Answer and before the filing of any
Reply Brief. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.40(a). Appellant opted to file a Reply Brief
and not a Petition; thus any issue as to whether the Answer contains a new
ground has been waived. Moreover, we do not agree the Examiner’s
Appeal 2019-005921
Application 13/469,690
28
additional explanation conflicts with the earlier statement that the
combination of Best, Kornmann, and Richards does not “explicitly” disclose
the final clause of claim 21. See Reply Br. 8, fn. 2 (citing Ans. 44). Instead,
the Examiner only expands on how the cited disclosure of Chen is applied as
a modification to the teachings of Best. Thus, contrary to Appellant’s
assertion, the Examiner’s explanation does not amount to a new ground of
rejection as the thrust of the rejection has not changed. Rather, the Examiner
is merely responding to Appellant's arguments. Cf. In re Leithem, 661 F.3d
1316, 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
Substantively, Appellant’s argument is also unpersuasive. In
particular, Appellant provides insufficient evidence or reasoned explanation
addressing why one skilled in the art would not have understood from Chen
that different circumstances benefit from selection of a computer imaging
processing model appropriate to the information being processed, whether in
image capture, as in Chen, or image generation, as in Best. Thus, Chen’s
disclosure of selecting among several image processing models based on
information about how the model is to be used when applied to Best’s
disclosure of modeling a three-dimensional world as a three-dimensional
virtual space teaches or suggests the disputed limitation requiring selection
of a virtual model that is located in the virtual space in accordance with type
information. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 21.
Claim 29
Claim 29 recites “[t]he information processing system of claim 1,
wherein the initial attitude is set so a view direction of the first virtual
camera is directed at the fixed position of the model.” The Examiner finds
Cohen’s dynamic wide angle viewing technique that identifies a field of
Appeal 2019-005921
Application 13/469,690
29
view and a viewing direction of a virtual camera based on an initial attitude
of a display screen teaches or suggests the additional subject matter recited
by claim 29. Final Act. 47 (citing Cohen ¶¶ 47–49, Figs. 3–7).
Appellant contends the rejection is improper, arguing Cohen neither
discusses an initial attitude of a first virtual camera nor
setting the initial attitude such that the direction of the first
virtual camera is directed at the “fixed position of the model
[wherein a fixed position in the whole panorama image of each
one of the plurality of frames is mapped to a fixed position in
the model on the surface].”
Appeal Br. 41 (bracketing in original).
The Examiner responds, as follows.
In Paragraphs [0047]–[0049] and Figs. 3–7, Cohen first
discusses of establishing a pair of screen coordinates for each
pixel or vertex location of the display screen, thus generating a
plurality of screen coordinates, each analogized as fixed
positions of the display screen model. Then, Cohen discusses
identifying a field of view and viewing direction, analogized as
an initial attitude of the virtual camera aimed towards the
display screen, and generating a ray that represents the direction
from the viewer through a selected pair of screen coordinates as
mentioned in Step 306. Therefore, the ray that represents the
direction from the viewer is the initial attitude set that is
directed to the selected screen coordinate, analogized as a fixed
position of the model.
Ans. 68. Appellant does not respond to the Examiner’s further explanation.
Appellant’s contention is unpersuasive of reversible Examiner error.
In particular, Appellant fails to provide sufficient evidence or reasoned
explanation addressing why the Examiner’s findings are erroneous or
insufficient to support the rejection of claim 29. Attorney argument
Appeal 2019-005921
Application 13/469,690
30
unsupported by evidence has little probative value. See In re Geisler, 116
F.3d at 1470.
SUMMARY
Appellant’s contentions of error in connection with claims 1, 3, 7, 9,
14, 21, 23, 24, 29, and 30–33 are unpersuasive for the reasons discussed
above. Appellant does not present separate argument traversing the
rejections of dependent claims 5, 6, 10–12, 17, 18, 20, 22. Appeal Br. 36,
38–39, 40. Neither does Appellant separately argue claims 4, 8, 13, 15, 16,
19, or 28. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1, 3–
24 and 28–34.
CONCLUSION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 3, 4, 13–16, 19, 23,
24, 28, and 30–34 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Best, Kornmann, and
Richards.
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 5–8 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) over Best, Kornmann, Richards, and Miyamoto.
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claim 9 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) over Best, Kornmann, Richards, Miyamoto, and Foo.
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 10 and 11 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Best, Kornmann, Richards, Miyamoto, and Foote.
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claim 12 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) over Best, Kornmann, Richards, Miyamoto, Foo, and Foote.
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 17 and 18 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Best, Kornmann, Richards, and Iwata.
Appeal 2019-005921
Application 13/469,690
31
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claim 20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) over Best, Kornmann, Richards, and Foote.
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claim 21 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) over Best, Kornmann, Richards, and Chen.
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claim 22 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) over Best, Kornmann, Richards, Chen, and Foote.
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claim 29 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) over Best, Kornmann, Richards, and Cohen.

Appeal 2019-005921
Application 13/469,690
32
DECISION SUMMARY
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 3, 4, 13–
16, 19, 23,
24, 28, 30–
34
103(a) Best, Kornmann,
Richards
1, 3, 4, 13–
16, 19, 23,
24, 28, 30–
34

5–8 103(a) Best, Kornmann,
Richards,
Miyamoto
5–8
9 103(a) Best, Kornmann,
Richards,
Miyamoto, Foo
9
10, 11 103(a) Best, Kornmann,
Richards,
Miyamoto, Foote
10, 11
12 103(a) Best, Kornmann,
Richards,
Miyamoto, Foo,
Foote
12
17, 18 103(a) Best, Kornmann,
Richards, Iwata
17, 18
20 103(a) Best, Kornmann,
Richards, Foote
20
21 103(a) Best, Kornmann,
Richards, Chen
21
22 103(a) Best, Kornmann,
Richards, Chen,
Foote
22
29 103(a) Best, Kornmann,
Richards, Cohen
29
Overall
Outcome
1, 3–24, 28–
34

Appeal 2019-005921
Application 13/469,690
33
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