Disney Enterprises, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Apr 22, 2021

2020000955 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 22, 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.
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