Wilkinson, James Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardMar 16, 20212019004571 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 16, 2021) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation