Wilkinson, James

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 16, 2021

2019004571 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 16, 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.
13/174,642 06/30/2011 James Wilkinson FEG0862US2 1171
162455 7590 03/16/2021
CANTOR COLBURN LLP - Disney (DSN)
20 Church Street
22nd Floor
Hartford, CT 06103
EXAMINER
ELBINGER, STEVEN Z
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2613
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/16/2021 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):
usptopatentmail@cantorcolburn.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
Appeal 2019-004571
Application 13/174,642
1
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________
Ex parte JAMES WILKINSON
____________________
Appeal 2019-004571
Application 13/174,642
Technology Center 2600
____________________
Before LARRY J. HUME, NATHAN A. ENGELS, and
JAMES W. DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judges.
DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final
Rejection of claims 1–23 and 25–48. During prosecution, Appellant
inadvertently omitted claim 24. See Amdt 11 (filed Oct. 16, 2017).
Accordingly, to the extent Appellant or the Examiner identifies a
range of claims that inadvertently includes claim 24, we exclude claim
24. We have jurisdiction over the remaining pending claims under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellant’s disclosed and claimed invention generally relates to
three-dimensional (3D) animation. Spec. ¶ 2. More specifically, in a
Appeal 2019-004571
Application 13/174,642
2
disclosed embodiment “3D animation may employ creation of a single
camera view with a subsequent stereo paired view created based on
the single camera view.” Spec. ¶ 31. The Specification describes an
exemplary method wherein a mono-animation is produced. Spec. ¶¶
35–36. The mono-animation includes a viewing angle of either a right
side (i.e., right eye) or a left side (i.e., left eye). Spec. ¶ 36. In
creating a stereo pair of frames based on the mono-animation, the
accompanying view (i.e., the left side for a mono-animation including
the viewing angle of a right side) is produced. Spec. ¶ 36. According
to the Specification, the production of a mono-animation “may include
rendering a plurality of computer animation frames based on a
desired or predetermined frame rate, the animation frames comprised
of a desired number of pixels or being of a desired resolution.” Spec.
¶ 35.
Claims 1, 11, and 18 are independent. Claim 1 is
representative (see Appeal Br. 15; see also 37 C.F.R. §
41.37(c)(1)(iv)) of the subject matter on appeal and is reproduced
below with the disputed limitation emphasized in italics:
1 . A s y s t e m f o r t h r e e - d i m e n s i o n a l ( 3 D )
a n i m a t i o n , c o m p r i s i n g :
a means for storage;
a computer apparatus in communication with the
means for storage; and
a means for display in communication with the
computer apparatus; wherein, the means for storage is
disposed to store data representing a 3D animation;
the means for display is disposed to display a
representation of the 3D animation; and
the computer apparatus is configured to perform a
method, comprising:
producing a mono-animation, including rendering a
plurality of computer animation frames based on single
Appeal 2019-004571
Application 13/174,642
3
virtual camera view, wherein the mono-animation includes
a viewing angle of either a left eye or right eye; and
creating at least one stereoscopic frame set for a
target audience including logical representations of two
cameras, the stereoscopic frame set representing the 3D
animation based on said mono-animation, which mono-
animation is fixed as either a left or right eye perspective,
including using a computer model of the mono-animation
to render accompanying frames of at least one left eye
perspective if the mono-animation is fixed as a right eye
perspective or to render accompanying frames of at least
one right eye perspective if the mono-animation is fixed
as a left eye.
The Examiner’s Rejections
1. Claims 1, 11, 18, 21–23, and 25–45 stand rejected under pre-AIA
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Turner et al. (US
2011/0157155 A1; June 30, 2011) (“Turner”) and Yoon (US
2007/0035619 A1; Feb. 15, 2007). Final Act. 3–10.
2. Claims 2–7, 12–17, 19, and 20 stand rejected under pre-AIA
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Turner, Yoon, and
Hendrickson et al. (US 2009/0160934 A1; June 25, 2009)
(“Hendrickson”). Final Act. 10–15.
3. Claims 8–10 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Turner, Yoon, and Hendrickson et al. (US
2009/0219283 A1; Sept. 3, 2009) (“Hendrickson ’283”). Final Act.
15–17.
4. Claims 46–48 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Turner, Yoon, and Suzuki (US
2003/0231179 A1; Dec. 18, 2003). Final Act. 17–20.
ANALYSIS
Rejection of claims 1, 11, 18, 21–23, and 25–45
Appeal 2019-004571
Application 13/174,642
4
The Examiner finds Turner teaches, inter alia, the production of
a mono-animation based on a single virtual camera view, wherein the
mono-animation includes a viewing angle of either a left eye or right
eye. Final Act. 4 (citing Turner ¶¶ 3, 5, 25, Fig. 1). In particular, the
Examiner explains Turner’s conversion of a 2D frame to a
stereoscopic 3D frame involves creating a left eye (or right eye)
image by creating a copy of the 2D layer and shifting the copy left (or
right) relative to the original layer. Ans. 5–6 (citing Turner ¶¶ 29, 37,
Fig. 1).
Turner generally relates to the “conversion of two dimensional
(2-D) multimedia content to stereoscopic three dimensional (3-D)
multimedia content.” Turner ¶ 1. Turner describes converting a 2D
image into a stereoscopic 3D image by obtaining layer data for a 2D
image pertaining to a given image feature, duplicating the given
image feature, and “offsetting in the x-dimension one or both of the
image features to create a stereo pair of the image features.” Turner
¶ 25 (emphasis added). Turner further teaches the layers may be
reproduced as a corresponding left eye version and a corresponding
right eye version and that the “left eye layer and/or the right eye layer
data is shifted by a pixel offset to achieve the desired 3-D effect.”
Turner ¶ 25 (emphasis added); see also Turner ¶ 37. Turner teaches
the described process may be applied to each frame of an animation.
Turner ¶ 25.
Figure 4 of Turner is illustrative and is reproduced below:
Figure 4 of Turner illustrates the creation of left and right eye
layers from a 2D image layer. Turner ¶ 11. Turner describes that a
right eye layer (430) and a left eye layer (420) are created from a 2D
image layer (410). Turner ¶ 39. In the illustrated embodiment, the
left eye layer (420) is shifted 10 pixels to the left and the right eye
layer (430) is shifted 10 pixels to the right to achieve the desired 3D
Appeal 2019-004571
Application 13/174,642
5
effect. Turner ¶ 40. Turner further teaches the desired depth pixel
offset is achieved through “the shifting of one of the left eye or right
eye layers or the combined shifting of the left eye and the right eye
layers in either direction.” Turner ¶ 39 (emphasis added); see also
Turner ¶ 40 (explaining the particular number of pixels may vary and
may be changed to achieve a desired creative effect or to simplify an
image processing step).
Appellant disputes the Examiner’s finding that Turner teaches
producing a mono-animation based on a single camera view, wherein
the mono-animation includes a viewing angle of either a left eye or
right eye. Appeal Br. 10–15; Reply Br. 2–4. In particular, Appellant
argues “Turner is a 2D plate conversion process, with separate
generation of left and right eye layers from a set 2D image,” rather
than producing the claimed mono-animation as a single viewing angle
as an eye. Appeal Br. 12–14. Moreover, Appellant asserts Turner
does not teach shifting an eye, but rather shifts a layer to create a
final composite of layers. Appeal Br. 11, 14–15. Additionally,
Appellant argues Turner describes a parallel projection mechanism
instead of one that is convergent at the screen. Appeal Br. 11,
14–15.
As an initial matter, the Examiner notes several aspects of
Appellant’s arguments are not recited in the claims. Ans. 3–7.
Specifically, the Examiner explains the claims do not recite (i) a
mechanism that is convergent at the screen (see Ans. 3, 7);
(ii) shifting an eye (see Ans. 3); or (iii) horizontal image translation
(see Ans. 4). Further, the Examiner finds the “claim language does
not prevent Turner from disclosing shifting an image layer or camera
image to produce a stereoscopic image.” Ans. 4, 6.
To the extent Appellant relies on limitations not recited in the
claims, we find such arguments unpersuasive of error. See In re Self,
Appeal 2019-004571
Application 13/174,642
6
671 F.2d 1344, 1348 (CCPA 1982) (limitations not appearing in the
claims cannot be relied upon for patentability).
Moreover, an obviousness analysis “need not seek out precise
teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged
claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and creative
steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR
Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). “A person of
ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an
automaton.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 421.
As discussed above, Turner teaches creating a layer for a
particular eye. See, e.g., Turner ¶ 39, Fig. 4. Appellant’s arguments
do not apprise us of Examiner error. Contrary to Appellant’s
arguments, Turner’s generation of a layer for a plurality of frames is
consistent with “mono-animation” as claimed and as described in
Appellant’s Specification. Appellant’s Specification states that
producing a mono-animation may involve rendering a plurality of
animation frames and, as recited in the claims, includes a viewing
angle of a particular eye. See Spec. ¶¶ 35–36, claim 1. Thus, we
agree with the Examiner’s findings that Turner teaches producing the
claimed mono-animation.
Further, Turner teaches creating a stereoscopic frame set
representing a 3D animation based on the produced mono-animation
by generating a corresponding left (or right) eye layer (i.e., Turner’s
stereoscopic set uses the generated mono-animation for a plurality of
frames), shifted by a determined amount to achieve a desired 3D
effect. See Turner ¶¶ 25, 37–40. Appellant’s arguments that
Turner’s approach is “wholly different” (see Reply Br. 3) than the
claimed approach is not supported by persuasive evidence or
reasoning. It is well settled that mere attorney arguments and
conclusory statements, which are unsupported by factual evidence,
Appeal 2019-004571
Application 13/174,642
7
are entitled to little probative value. In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465,
1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997); see also In re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1405
(CCPA 1974) (attorney argument is not evidence).
For the reasons discussed supra, we are unpersuaded of
Examiner error. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
independent claim 1. For similar reasons, we also sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 11 and 18, which recite
similar limitations and were not argued separately. See Appeal Br.
15; see also 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). Regarding dependent
claims 21, 22, 26, 27, 30, 31, 34, 35, 38, 39, 42, and 43, Appellant
relies on the argument related to the base independent claims that
Turner fails to teach producing the claimed mono-animation. See
Appeal Br. 15–17. As discussed, we are not persuaded of Examiner
error. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of dependent
claims 21, 22, 26, 27, 30, 31, 34, 35, 38, 39, 42, and 43. Further,
Appellant does not advance any separate arguments regarding
dependent claims 23, 25, 28, 29, 32, 36, 37, 41, 44, and 45.
Accordingly we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of these claims. See
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
Rejection of claims 2–7, 12–17, 19, and 20
Appellant asserts Hendrickson ’ 934 creates a stereoscopic
frame set, without reference to the mono-animation produced in the
independent claims. Appeal Br. 17. As such, Appellant argues
“Hendrickson [(’934)] fails to remedy the deficiencies of Turner and
Yoon.” Appeal Br. 18.
As discussed above with respect to the independent claims, we
disagree that Turner and Yoon are deficient. Moreover, the Examiner
does not rely on Hendrickson ’934 to remedy an alleged deficiency
with Turner and Yoon regarding the base independent claims. See
Final Act. 10–15.
Appeal 2019-004571
Application 13/174,642
8
Accordingly, we are unpersuaded of Examiner error and sustain
the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2–7, 12–17, 19, and 20.
Rejection of claims 8–10
Appellant asserts Hendrickson ’ 283 creates a stereoscopic
frame set, without reference to the mono-animation produced in the
independent claims. Appeal Br. 17. As such, Appellant argues
“Hendrickson83 [(i.e., Hendrickson ’283)] fails to remedy the
deficiencies of Turner and Yoon.” Appeal Br. 19.
As discussed above with respect to the independent claims, we
disagree that Turner and Yoon are deficient. Moreover, the Examiner
does not rely on Hendrickson ’283 to remedy an alleged deficiency
with Turner and Yoon regarding the base independent claims. See
Final Act. 15–17.
Accordingly, we are unpersuaded of Examiner error and sustain
the Examiner’s rejection of claims 8–10.
Rejection of claims 46–48
Appellant asserts Suzuki teaches a real-time Internet broadcast
system comprising a three camera rig, but does not teach assigning
an eye perspective or creating frame sets based on a fixed eye
perspective as set forth in claim 1. Appeal Br. 19–21. As such,
Appellant argues “Suzuki does not cure the deficiencies of [Turner
and Yoon].” Appeal Br. 21.
As discussed above with respect to the independent claims, we
disagree that Turner and Yoon are deficient. Moreover, the Examiner
does not rely on Suzuki to remedy an alleged deficiency with Turner
and Yoon regarding the base independent claims. See Final
Act. 18–20; see also Ans. 11.
Accordingly, we are unpersuaded of Examiner error and sustain
the Examiner’s rejection of claims 8–10.
Appeal 2019-004571
Application 13/174,642
9
CONCLUSION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–23 and
25–48 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
DECISION SUMMARY
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Ba
sis
Affirmed Reverse
d
1, 11, 18,
21–23,
25–45
103(a) Turner, Yoon 1, 11, 18,
21–23,
25–45
2–7,
12–17, 19,
20
103(a) Turner, Yoon,
Hendrickson ’934
2–7,
12–17,
19, 20
8–10 103(a) Turner, Yoon,
Hendrickson ’283
8–10
46–48 103(a) Turner, Yoon,
Suzuki
46–48
Overall
Outcome
1–23,
25–48
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)(1)(iv).
See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f).
AFFIRMED