Ex Parte Coombe et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 10, 201813775308 (P.T.A.B. May. 10, 2018) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 131775,308 02/25/2013 100462 7590 05/14/2018 Dority & Manning P.A. and Google LLC Post Office Box 1449 Greenville, SC 29602 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Greg Coombe 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 ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. GGL-197 9040 EXAMINER WU, CHONG ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2613 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/14/2018 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): usdocketing@dority-manning.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte GREG COOMBE and FRANCOIS BAILL Y 1 Appeal2016-004817 Application 13/775,308 Technology Center 2600 Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., and BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, Administrative Patent Judges. BAUMEISTER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1, 5-13, 16-18, and 20, which constitute all the claims pending in this application. App. Br. 7. 2 Claims 2--4, 14--15, and 19 have been cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). We affirm-in-part. 1 Appellants list Google Inc. as the real party in interest. Revised Appeal Brief 3, filed August 19, 2015 ("App. Br."). 2 Rather than repeat the Examiner's positions and Appellants' arguments in their entirety, we refer to the above-mentioned Appeal Brief, as well as the following documents, for their respective details: the Final Action, mailed March 12, 2015 ("Final Act."); the Examiner's Answer mailed February 1, 2016 ("Ans."); and the Reply Brief filed April 1, 2016 ("Reply Br."). Appeal2016-004817 Application 13/775,308 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants describe the present invention as follows: A staged camera traversal for navigating a virtual camera in a three dimensional environment is provided. The staged camera traversal can include a launch stage and an approach stage. During the launch stage, the tilt angle can be decreased towards zero tilt (i.e. straight down) with respect to the vertical. During an approach stage, the tilt angle of the virtual camera can be increased from about zero tilt towards the tilt angle associated with a target location. In certain implementations, the staged camera traversal can further include a traversal stage occurring between the launch stage and the approach stage. The tilt angle of the virtual camera can be maintained at about zero tilt during the traversal stage. The approach path of the virtual camera can be aligned along a view direction associated with the target destination during the approach stage. Abstract. CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Independent claim 1, reproduced below, illustrates the claimed invention: 1. A computer-implemented method of navigating a virtual camera, compnsmg: presenting a view of a three dimensional model from a virtual camera at a first location, the virtual camera having a first tilt angle at the first location; receiving a user input requesting transition of the virtual camera to a second location, the virtual camera having a second tilt angle at the second location; and responsive to the user input and without further user interaction, transitioning the virtual camera from the first location to the second location according to a staged camera traversal having a launch stage, a traversal stage and an approach stage; 2 Appeal2016-004817 Application 13/775,308 wherein transitioning the virtual camera from the first location to the second location according to the staged camera traversal comprises increasing an altitude of the virtual camera while decreasing a tilt angle of the virtual camera from the first tilt angle towards zero tilt during the launch stage, maintaining the tile angle of the virtual camera at about zero tilt during the traversal stage, and decreasing an altitude of the virtual camera while increasing the tilt angle of the virtual camera towards the second tilt angle during the approach stage. REFERENCES AND REJECTIONS ON APPEAL Claims 1 and 11-13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Bailly et al. (US 7,933,395 Bl; issued Apr. 26, 2011) ("Bailly"). Final Act. 3-8. Claims 5-9 and 16-18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Bailly and Varadhan et al. (US 2009/090259976 Al; published October 15, 2009) ("Varadhan"). Final Act. 8-14. Claims 10 and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Bailly, Varadhan, and Aliprandi et al. (US 2010/0026712 Al; published Feb. 4, 2010) ("Aliprandi"). Final Act. 14--16. We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues identified by Appellants, and in light of the arguments and evidence produced thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 107 5 (BP AI 2010) (precedential). CLAIMS 1, 5-8, 11-13, 16, and 18 Examiner's Findings The Examiner finds that Bailly discloses all of the limitations of claim 1 with the exception of performing the camera transitioning without 3 Appeal2016-004817 Application 13/775,308 further user interaction. Final Act. 3--4. More specifically, the Examiner finds that during Bailly's disclosed fly-through process, user interaction is not required. Id. at 5. The Examiner also finds that Bailly teaches that viewing parameters can be preset manually for the disclosed fly-through process. Id. The Examiner further finds that Bailly expressly discloses zoomed in and zoomed out states. Id. Id. Based on these findings, the Examiner concludes it's very reasonable to preset camera parameters (e.g., camera altitude and tilt angle) for zoomed in and zoomed out states in the fly-through process to the settings used in Fig[ s]. 3b and 3c as disclosed by Bailly, such that the staged camera transitioning can be performed without further user interaction. Final Act. 5. The Examiner further concludes [i]t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have modified the method of Bailly to preset camera altitudes and tilt angles properly so that the camera transitioning can be performed without further user interaction. Viewing parameters are entirely designer's choices. Increasing camera altitude while decreasing tilt angle or decreasing camera altitude while increasing tilt angle are very widely used designs. The Examiner clarifies the rejection's rationale further in the Answer (Ans. 2-11): the Examiner explains one portion of Bailly discloses simulating a fly-through of a route from a start to stop location. Ans. 4 (citing Bailly Fig. 4, steps 403--411 ). In this simulation, the display window 321 simulates a camera automatically zooming out, traversing from one point to another, and automatically zooming in. Ans. 4--5. The Examiner explains that Bailly teaches presetting viewing parameters, 4 Appeal2016-004817 Application 13/775,308 including altitudes and tilt angles, before the virtual tour is presented. Ans. 8 (citing Bailly col. 16, 1. 42-58). The Examiner further explains that Bailly teaches a separate functionality wherein once the virtual camera is zoomed-in at a given location, the user can manually control the camera's tilt angle for exploring the location or "waypoint" in a free-style manner. Id. at 5. The Examiner finds that Baily also discloses that using specific settings of camera altitude and tilt angle advantageously provides more details of a building so that the entire building's shape can be seen. Id. (citing Bailly col. 16, 1. 29; FI Gs. 3b, 3c ). The Examiner reasons that incorporating the specified altitudes and tilt angles discussed in Bailly's manual functionality into the automated zoomed-in portions of Bailly's fly-through process teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Ans. 6-7. We understand the Examiner to be concluding that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine these separately disclosed functionalities of Bailly, i.e., the manual and automatic functions, so that the automated fly-through process automates both the zoom functions and the tilt function to provide better views of buildings during the fly-through's zoom-in periods, as taught by Bailly. Id. at 8. A claimed invention is not patentable if it merely automates a prior art process. Broadly providing an automatic way to replace a manual activity accomplishing the same result is not sufficient to distinguish an automated process over the prior art. In re Venner, 262 F.2d 91, 95 (CCPA 1958). An improved product in the art is obvious if that "product [is] not [one] of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense." KSR Int'! Co. v. 5 Appeal2016-004817 Application 13/775,308 Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421 (2007). Here, the Examiner has shown that it would have been obvious to automate Bailly's manual activities. The Examiner's clarifications in the Answer that Bailly' s combined embodiments of manual and automated functions are being used moot some of Appellants' arguments in the Appeal Brief. Cf, e.g., App. Br. 9 (wherein Appellants argue that "the Office Action has failed to cite a single reference or other teaching supporting the assertion that 'viewing parameters[,]' as set forth in the manner of claim 1 [,] are 'entirely designer's choices"') with Ans. 8 (explaining that Bailly is relied upon for teaching that it was known to provide specific settings of camera altitude and tilt angle to improve the appearance of buildings). Our analysis therefore focuses on Appellants' remaining arguments presented in the Reply Brief. Contentions and Analysis Appellants assert "[t]he Examiner's Answer fails to demonstrate how a user would use the 'tilt control 315 and rotate control 321' during the 'automatic[] zoom out and then slide over to and zoom in' to achieve 'a staged camera traversal without further user interaction' as recited in the [claim 1]." Reply Br. 3, bold emphasis omitted. This argument is unpersuasive because the Examiner is not basing the rejection on the theory of a user using the tilt control and rotate control in the modified teachings. We understand the premise of the rejection to be that the functionality of the tilt and rotate controls would be automated so that the user does not have to control the tilt manually. Appellants next argue that the Examiner is relying on functionality from the two disparate embodiments of Bailly's Figures 3b and 3c, and as such, the Examiner's Answer does not point to a single reference or 6 Appeal2016-004817 Application 13/775,308 embodiment that, alone, performs all of the claimed functionality. Reply Br. 3. This argument is unpersuasive because the fact that the Examiner relies upon different embodiments of Bailly is the precise reason the Examiner issued an obviousness rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 instead of an anticipation rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102. As the Examiner explains (Ans. 9--10), arguments regarding anticipation are not applicable to the obviousness rejection. Appellants finally argue the Examiner's Answer still fails to point to a single reference that teaches "maintaining the tilt angle at about zero tilt during the traversal stage" as recited in claim 1. The only analysis provided in the Examiner's Answer is "sliding over to a location implies there is no orientation change." Appellant disagrees. Nothing in the word "sliding" necessarily indicates there is no orientation change. In addition, even if there were no orientation change, use of the term "sliding" does not necessarily indicate that the tilt angle is maintained at about zero tilt. Reply Br. 3--4. This argument is unpersuasive. Bailly's Figure 3b depicts a high elevation (zoomed-out) view of a city with a zero degree tilt. This disclosure, in combination with Bailly's discussion of the fly-through functionality (see, e.g., FIG. 4) either implies or at least suggests that the tilt angle may be set to remain constant at a zero-degree tilt angle during the route between destinations. See also Bailly, col. 16, 11. 34---62 (discussing the virtual tours of user-defined paths). Bailly states within this discussion, "[i]n one particular embodiment, the technique simulates a helicopter flying along the chosen path (e.g., driving directions between two points, or a path created manually using drawing tools) at a constant ground speed with a constant tilt angle." Id. col. 16, 11. 54--58 (emphasis added). 7 Appeal2016-004817 Application 13/775,308 Conclusions For the foregoing reasons, Appellants have not persuaded us of error in the Examiner's obviousness rejection of independent claim 1. We therefore sustain the Examiner's rejection of that claim, as well as dependent claims 11-13, which are not argued separately. App. Br. 11-12; Reply Br. 2--4. We likewise sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejection of claims 5-8, 16, and 18 over Bailly in view of Varadhan. Appellants have not particularly pointed out errors in the Examiner's reasoning regarding the additional teachings of Varadhan or Aliprandi, but merely reiterate the same arguments that are set forth in relation to independent claim 1 regarding the alleged deficiencies of Bailly. App. Br. 12-13, 17; see also generally Reply Br. CLAIMS 9, 10, 17, and 20 Claim 9, as well as dependent claim 8, from which claim 9 depends, reads as follows: 8. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein transitioning the virtual camera from the first location to the second location according to the staged camera traversal comprises aligning an approach path of the virtual camera with a view direction associated with the second location during the approach stage. 9. The computer-implemented method of claim 8, wherein aligning an approach path of the virtual camera with a view direction associated with the second location during the approach stage comprises: determining a first camera path extending along the view direction associated with the target location; 8 Appeal2016-004817 Application 13/775,308 determining a second camera path that increases the tilt angle of the virtual camera towards the second tilt angle and decreases the altitude of the virtual camera; and determining the approach path for the virtual camera by blending one or more camera parameters defined by the first camera path with one or more camera parameters defined by second camera path. Findings and Contentions The Examiner finds in relation to claim 8 that "Bailly discloses transitioning the virtual camera from the first location to the second location according to the staged camera traversal ... , but fails to disclose aligning an approach path of the virtual camera with a view direction associated with the second location during the approach stage." Final Act. 10 (emphasis omitted). The Examiner finds that Varadhan teaches this limitation and that motivation existed to incorporate these teachings of Varadhan into Bailly's invention. Id. The Examiner then finds in relation to claim 9 that V aradhan additionally teaches the steps of determining the two camera paths and determining the approach path by blending the parameters of the two camera paths. Id. at 10-11 (citing Varadhan, FIGs. IA, IB). In the Answer, the Examiner expounds upon how the claim language is being interpreted: in [Figure 7 of Appellants' Specification], the "path extending along the view direction associated with the target location" (i.e.[,] path 450) is also aligned with a view direction corresponding to the camera tilt angle at the target location (i.e. tilt angle at F). However, such feature is not claimed. There is no claimed limitation involving the relationship between the "view direction associated with the target location" and the "second tilt angle at the second location". Therefore, the 9 Appeal2016-004817 Application 13/775,308 "view direction associated with the target location" does not need to be aligned with the view direction corresponding to a camera tilt angle at the target location. Under the term's broadest reasonable interpretation, any view direction having a line of sight passing through the target location could be interpreted as "a view direction associated with the target location". Path 450 in [the] above figure only shows a special case where the "view direction associated with the target location" just overlaps the view direction corresponding to the camera tilt angle at the target location. Ans. 14 (emphasis added). Appellants argue, inter alia, that the Office Action has failed to establish that FIG. lB discloses "a first camera path extending along the view direction associated with the target location." App. Br. 16. Analysis Contrary to the Examiner's finding that claim 9 does not set forth limitations relating to the direction of the first camera path (Ans. 14), claim 9 expressly requires "a first camera path extending along the view direction associated with the target location." The requirement is illustrated in Appellants' Figure 7, which depicts first camera path 450 extending in the same direction as the target location's view direction at point F. Accordingly, Appellants have persuaded us of error in the Examiner's obviousness rejection of dependent claim 9. We, therefore, do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of that claim, or of claim 17, which recites similar requirements. We likewise do not sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejection of claims 10 and 20 over Bailly, Varadhan, and Aliprandi. The Examiner does not rely on Aliprandi to cure the noted deficiency of Varadhan. Final Act. 14--16 (citing Aliprandi i-f 127). 10 Appeal2016-004817 Application 13/775,308 DECISION The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1, 5-8, 11-13, 16, and 18 is affirmed. The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 9, 10, 17, and 20 is reversed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal maybe extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED-IN-PART 11 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation