Disney Enterprises, Inc.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardApr 22, 20212020000955 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 22, 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. 14/336,938 07/21/2014 Gregory HOUSE 40189/01004 (11DIS051MED 9440 94470 7590 04/22/2021 DISNEY ENTERPRISES, INC. c/o Fay Kaplun & Marcin, LLP 150 Broadway Suite 702 New York, NY 10038 EXAMINER SHIN, ANDREW ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2612 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 04/22/2021 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): fhall@fkmiplaw.com mmarcin@fkmiplaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte GREGORY HOUSE ____________ Appeal 2020-000955 Application 14/336,938 Technology Center 2600 ____________ Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, JOHN A. EVANS, and MICHAEL T. CYGAN, Administrative Patent Judges. JEFFERY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 11–19 and 24–38. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant’s invention derives graphical representations based on perspectives of a three-dimensional (3D) scene by using sensor model representations of locations points in the scene. Sensor model 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Disney Enterprises, Inc. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2020-000955 Application 14/336,938 2 representations associated with dynamic objects’ location points can be used to determine an associated 3D model and data representations based on that model. See Abstract. Claim 11 is illustrative: 11. A method comprising: receiving a first sensor model representation corresponding to a first location point associated with a first dynamic object in a 3D scene, wherein the first sensor model representation is generated by a first sensor system having a first perspective external to the first location point; receiving a second sensor model representation corresponding to a second location point associated with a second dynamic object in the 3D scene, wherein the second sensor model representation is generated by a second sensor system having a second perspective external to the second location point; determining, with a processor-based computing device, a 3D model associated with the second dynamic object based on a plurality of vectors corresponding to at least one of the first location point and the second location point, wherein the plurality of vectors are derived from the first sensor model representation associated with the first dynamic object and the second sensor model representation associated with the second dynamic object, without determining three-dimensional world coordinates of the first location point or three- dimensional world coordinates of the second location point, wherein the 3D model is a visual representation that describes a spatial attribute of the second dynamic object; and determining, with the processor-based computing device, a data representation based on the 3D model associated with the second dynamic object, wherein the data representation comprises measurements and spatial attributes in the 3D scene. Appeal 2020-000955 Application 14/336,938 3 THE REJECTION The Examiner rejected claims 11–19 and 24–38 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Moezzi (US 5,850,352; issued Dec. 15, 1998) and Matsumoto (US 2001/0005204 Al; published June 28, 2001). Final Act. 10–17.2 FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND CONTENTIONS Regarding independent claim 11, the Examiner finds that Moezzi, among other things, determines a three-dimensional (3D) model associated with a second dynamic object based on plural vectors, namely viewing frustums in Figures 4 and 11. Final Act. 10–12; Ans. 5–6. Although the Examiner acknowledges that Moezzi’s determination is not made without determining 3D world coordinates of the recited first and second location points, the Examiner cites Matsumoto as teaching this feature in concluding that the claim would have been obvious. Final Act. 12; Ans. 6–7. Appellant argues that the cited prior art does not teach or suggest determining a 3D model associated with a second dynamic object based on plural vectors corresponding to at least one of the recited location points, let alone doing so without determining the location points’ 3D world coordinates as claimed. Appeal Br. 10–16; Reply Br. 3–6. According to Appellant, Moezzi does not determine a 3D model based on vectors, but rather determines an object model based on voxels and world coordinates. 2 Throughout this opinion, we refer to (1) the Final Rejection mailed October 5, 2018 (“Final Act.”); (2) the Appeal Brief filed August 19, 2019 (“Appeal Br.”); (3) the Examiner’s Answer mailed September 19, 2019 (“Ans.”); and (4) the Reply Brief filed November 19, 2019 (“Reply Br.”). Appeal 2020-000955 Application 14/336,938 4 Appeal Br. 10–12; Reply Br. 3–4. Appellant emphasizes, among other things, that Moezzi’s viewing frustums are not vectors. Appeal Br. 11–12; Reply Br. 4. Appellant adds that not only does Moezzi teach away from not determining the location points’ 3D world coordinates as claimed, the Examiner’s reliance on Matsumoto in this regard is misplaced. Appeal Br. 14–16; Reply Br. 5–6. According to Appellant, not only does Matsumoto not use vectors to generate a 3D model, Matsumoto’s cylindrical coordinate system is unrelated to the recited location points that correspond to the vectors that are used to determine the 3D model. Appeal Br. 14–16; Reply Br. 5. ISSUE Under § 103, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 11 by finding that Moezzi and Matsumoto collectively would have taught or suggested determining a 3D model associated with a second dynamic object based on plural vectors? ANALYSIS Because Appellant disputes the Examiner’s mapping the recited vectors to Moezzi’s viewing frustums (Appeal Br. 12; Reply Br. 4), this appeal turns on one key question: Are Moezzi’s viewing frustums vectors? To answer this question, we construe the term “vector.” The Specification does not define the term “vector,” unlike other terms whose concrete definitions leave no doubt as to their meaning. See Spec. ¶ 123 (defining “computer program medium” and “computer usable medium” Appeal 2020-000955 Application 14/336,938 5 explicitly). Appellant’s Specification does, however, refer to an observed point “P” 630, shown in Figure 6, that lies on a surface with a normal vector 626 and normalized vectors 624, 628 directed towards point “P.” Spec. ¶ 68. Although the normalized vectors can contain Cartesian coordinate components, the vectors do not retain physical units of length so that only 2D directional information is represented. Id. The view point position mapping functionality in Appellant’s Figures 9 and 10 likewise uses vector analysis. See Spec. ¶¶ 24–25, 92–95. Although this description informs our understanding of the vectors that are used as a basis for the recited 3D model determination, this disclosure does not limit the term “vector” to that particular description. We, therefore, construe the term “vector” with its plain meaning in the art. According to an acknowledged computer graphics dictionary, a “vector” is “[a] line defined by its direction and speed.” Vector, COMPUTER GRAPHICS DICTIONARY 437 (Roger T. Stevens ed. 2002) (“Computer Graphics Dictionary”). Another technical dictionary defines the term “vector,” in pertinent part, as “[a] physical quantity that has magnitude and direction, and combines according to the parallelogram law (so that the combined effect of two vectors is given by the diagonal of the parallelogram with sides representing the two vectors).” Vector, THE PENGUIN DICTIONARY OF SCIENCE 701 (M. J. Clugston ed. 2009) (“Penguin Science Dictionary”) (internal bolding and annotations omitted). Yet another technical dictionary defines the term “vector,” in pertinent part, as “a list of numbers, typically Cartesian coordinates or a direction in 2D or 3D. For example, di = (dx, dy, dy)T = (1, 1.5, 0)T.” Vector, DICTIONARY OF COMPUTER Appeal 2020-000955 Application 14/336,938 6 SCIENCE, ENGINEERING, AND TECHNOLOGY 518 (Phillip A. Laplante ed. 2001) (“Laplante Technical Dictionary”). Given these authorities, we construe the term “vector” as (1) a line defined by its direction and speed; (2) a physical quantity with magnitude and direction, and combines according to the parallelogram law; or (3) a list of numbers, typically Cartesian coordinates or a direction in 2D or 3D. Under this construction, the Examiner’s mapping the recited vectors to Moezzi’s viewing frustums3 in Figures 4 and 11 (see Final Act. 11; Ans. 5) is problematic on this record. As Moezzi’s Abstract explains, immersive video images are synthesized and linked to particular objects, events, or perspectives in a real-world scene. This synthesis is based on a “hypermosaicing” technique that processes multiple video scene perspectives by using video cameras at different spatial locations to produce multiple 2D video scene images. Moezzi Abstract. Moezzi’s system also includes, among other things, (1) a computer-based video data analyzer to detect and track scene objects and their locations; (2) an environmental model builder that combines multiple scene images to build a 3D dynamic model that records scene objects and their spatial locations; and (3) a visualizer that generates selectively synthesized 2D video scene images from the 3D model. Id. 3 Although Moezzi refers to viewing frustrums—not frustums—we nonetheless refer to these elements as “frustums” consistent with Appellant’s and the Examiner’s nomenclature, particularly since the term “frustum” is commonly misspelled as “frustrum.” See Penguin Science Dictionary, at 266 (noting this common misspelling). Accord Appeal Br. 11 n.1 (noting this misspelling). But see Computer Graphics Dictionary, at 202 (defining the term “frustrum”); Laplante Technical Dictionary, at 198 (defining the term “frustrum of vision”). Appeal 2020-000955 Application 14/336,938 7 As Moezzi explains, a key aspect in Moezzi’s system is a 3D environmental model containing (1) the static environment’s structural primitives, such as surfaces, shapes, and elevation; and (2) moving object characteristics, such as motion, position, and shapes. Moezzi col. 26, ll. 45– 53. The preferred model not only contains interdependent static and dynamic objects, but also uses a layered model to represent objects at different levels of abstraction. Id. at col. 26, ll. 54–66. Notably, Moezzi’s preferred dynamic model relies on (1) voxels; and (2) (x, y, z) world coordinates, where each representation supports modeling and data manipulation differently. See Moezzi col. 27, ll. 48–66. As shown in Moezzi’s Figures 6 to 8, the model uses (1) an (x, y, z) world coordinate bounding box representation to indicate an object’s presence at a particular location; and (2) a voxel-based representation to support finer resolution of an object’s shape and location. See id. at col. 33, ll. 20–26. In Section 4.4, Moezzi details voxel-based object models that are built by, among other things, determining voxel occupancy. See generally Moezzi col. 36, l. 64 – col. 37, l. 41. Using this technique, a dynamic model is built by determining the occupancy of only those voxels whose state could have changed from a previous time instant. Id. at col. 37, ll. 5–11. Using a voxel-based algorithm in Figure 12, Moezzi’s system computes a set of points denoting image motion. Id. at col. 37, ll. 15–17. This set portends part of a 3D space where motion may have occurred as shown by the viewing frustums defining this space in Figures 4 and 11. Moezzi col. 37, ll. 19–22. Specifically, Moezzi’s Figure 4 shows how moving objects’ 3D shapes are found by intersecting the viewing frustums of objects that the video data analyzer finds. Id. at col. 20, ll. 57–61. Moezzi’s Appeal 2020-000955 Application 14/336,938 8 Figure 11 shows a representation of the algorithm in that figure that computes vistas using a dynamic model and video streams from multiple perspectives. Id. at col. 21, ll. 49–56. Based on this functionality, we cannot say that Moezzi’s 3D model is determined based on vectors corresponding to at least one location point as claimed. Although Moezzi determines a 3D model based on viewing frustums corresponding to respective location points as shown in Figures 4 and 11, to say that these viewing frustums somehow correspond to vectors under the Examiner’s interpretation (Final Act. 11; Ans. 5–6) strains reasonable limits on this record. Although these viewing frustums may result from (1) the particular direction the associated cameras are oriented, and (2) the distance between those cameras and an associated object as the Examiner indicates (Ans. 6), that does not mean the frustums themselves have a magnitude and direction to constitute a vector under one of the three alternative interpretations of the term noted previously, namely a physical quantity with magnitude and direction, and combines according to the parallelogram law. Nor are Moezzi’s frustums consistent with the other alternative interpretations of a vector articulated previously, namely (1) a line defined by its direction and speed; or (2) a list of numbers, typically Cartesian coordinates or a direction in 2D or 3D. That the same dictionaries that define the term “vector” also define the term “frustum” entirely differently only underscores this point. One of these dictionaries defines the term “frustrum” as “[t]he part of a solid cone or pyramid that remains when the top is cut off by a plane parallel to the base,” or, alternatively, as “[t]he part of a solid between two parallel planes.” Computer Graphics Dictionary, at 202. Perhaps even more relevantly, that Appeal 2020-000955 Application 14/336,938 9 same dictionary defines the term “frustum of vision” as “[t]he volume within which graphics objects are viewed and processed to form an image. It is bounded by planes that intersect at the viewpoint.” Id. Another of these previously-cited dictionaries defines the term “frustum” similarly as “[t]he portion of a solid figure such as a cone that is cut off by two parallel planes.” Penguin Science Dictionary, at 266 (internal annotations omitted). The third cited dictionary similarly defines the term “frustrum of vision” as “the visible region of 3D space. Projecting rays from the viewer through all pixels in the image plane defines an infinite pyramid-like solid shape within which all visible objects appear.” Laplante Technical Dictionary, at 198. That dictionary adds that “[t]he pyramid is then truncated by a distant plane to eliminate the space which is too far away to render, and by a closer plane which eliminates object[s] too close to render. The space in between is the frustrum of vision.” Id. These definitions underscore the fact that Moezzi’s frustums are not vectors despite the Examiner’s finding to the contrary. That these dictionaries each distinguish vectors from frustums by defining the terms entirely differently only further undermines the Examiner’s findings in this regard. To be sure, Moezzi uses vectors in connection with selecting the best view in Section 3.3. See Moezzi col. 30, l. 32; col. 32, ll. 12–18 (noting that the set of all vectors defined in terms of world coordinate position, pan angle, camera tilt angle, and a zoom parameter forms a 6D space). Moreover, Appellant admits that Moezzi uses the term “vector.” See Reply Br. 4. But we cannot say—nor has the Examiner shown—that Moezzi’s Appeal 2020-000955 Application 14/336,938 10 vectors reasonably correspond to those that form the basis on which the 3D model is determined as claimed. Nor will we speculate in that regard here in the first instance on appeal. But what we can say is that by erroneously mapping the recited vectors to Moezzi’s frustums, the Examiner’s rejection that is premised on that mapping is flawed for that reason alone. Nor does Matsumoto cure that deficiency. Therefore, we are persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting (1) independent claim 11; (2) independent claims 24 and 35 that recite commensurate limitations; and (3) the dependent claims for similar reasons. Because this issue is dispositive regarding our reversing the Examiner’s rejection of these claims, we need not address Appellant’s other associated arguments, including those regarding the Examiner’s alleged erroneous means-plus-function claim construction in connection with claims 24–38. See Appeal Br. 5–9; Reply Br. 2. CONCLUSION In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/ Basis Affirmed Reversed 11–19, 24– 38 103 Moezzi, Matsumoto 11–19, 24– 38 REVERSED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation