Ex Parte Hosenpud et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 27, 2018

14792844 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 27, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
14/792,844 07/07/2015 Jonathan J. Hosenpud
35690 7590 12/31/2018
MEYERTONS, HOOD, KIVLIN, KOWERT & GOETZEL, P.C.
P.O. BOX 398
AUSTIN, TX 78767-0398
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.
6430-04501 8419
EXAMINER
NGUYEN, KIMBINH T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2612
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/31/2018 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):
patent_docketing@intprop.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JONATHAN J. HOSENPUD, ARTHUR L. BERMAN,
JEROME C. TU, KEVIN D. MORISHIGE, and
DAVID A. CHAVEZ
Appeal2018-009073
Application 14/792,844
Technology Center 2600
Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, IRVINE. BRANCH, and
JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, Administrative Patent Judges.
KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
Appeal2018-009073
Application 14/792,844
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants' invention is directed to "methods and systems to view and
capture still and video images from a perspective related to the tip of a user
input device. The user input device is used in connection with a
stereoscopic display system. (Spec. ,r 2).
Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is exemplary of the subject
matter on appeal.
1. A computer-implemented method for capturing a
virtual two dimensional (2D) image of a portion of a virtual
three dimensional (3D) scene, comprising:
a computer performing:
rendering a virtual 3D scene on a display from a user's
point of view (POV);
activating a camera mode in response to first user input
via a user input device in communication with the computer,
wherein the user input device comprises a stylus, wherein the
camera mode enables the user input device to trigger the
computer to capture virtual images within the virtual 3D scene
based on a POV of the user input device;
determining the POV of the user input device, wherein
the POV of the user input device is independent of the user's
POV·
' determining a virtual 2D frame of the virtual 3D scene
based on the POV of the user input device;
capturing the virtual 2D image based on the virtual 2D
frame and in response to second user input via the user input
device; and
storing the virtual 2D image.
REJECTIONS and REFERENCES
The Examiner rejected claims 1--4 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) based
upon the teachings of Catt (US 2015/0358539 Al, published Dec. 10, 2015),
2
Appeal2018-009073
Application 14/792,844
Seidl (US 2014/0098186 Al, published Apr. 10, 2014), and Zhang (US
2014/0043445 Al, published Feb. 13, 2014).
The Examiner rejected claims 5-20 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) based
upon the teachings of Catt, Seidl, Zhang, and Nakayama (US 2014/0002351
Al, published Jan. 2, 2014).
ANALYSIS
Appellants contend the Examiner erred in finding the combination of
Catt, Seidl, and Zhang fails to teach and suggest "capturing a virtual two
dimensional (2D) image of a portion of a virtual three dimensional (3D)
scene" where "the camera mode enables the user input device to trigger" a
computer and "capture virtual images within the virtual 3D scene bases on a
POV [point of view] of the user input device," the "POV of the user input
device is independent of the user's POV." App. Br. 7. Particularly, Catt
teaches displaying 3D images and capturing 3D-pannable images using a
camera system and Seidl teaches a wide field of view optical imaging device
configured to image at least two different viewpoints of a scene. App. Br.
10. Further Seidl's cameras narrow the field of view of the user to navigate
by head turns, all being 3D images. App. Br. 11. Thus, Appellants contend,
neither Catt nor Seidl teaches "determining a virtual 2D frame of the virtual
3D scene based on the POV of the user input device," (emphases added) as
claimed. Id. We agree.
The Examiner's Answer, for the most part, recites the same arguments
as in the Final Office Action, and cites portions of the references that do not
teach a virtual 2D image or "capturing the virtual 2D image based on the
3
Appeal2018-009073
Application 14/792,844
virtual 2D frame and in response to second user input via the user input
device." Ans. 3-7; see App. Br. 11-12.
We also note the Examiner's reliance on Seidl for teaching
"determining the POV of the user input device, wherein the POV of the user
input device is independent of the user's POV," is misplaced. Ans. 6.
Seidl's paragraph 4 teaches an "imaging device having at least two optical
imaging elements configured to image at least two different viewpoints of a
scene." Ans. 6. The Examiner's reliance on Zhang's Figure 5 and
paragraph 33 for teaching user input is a stylus as claimed, is also misplaced.
Ans. 5 (also relying on Catt ,r,r 25-26).
Thus, the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Catt, Seidl,
and Zhang teaches and suggests Appellants' independent claim 1, and
independent claims 2 and 3, which recite similar limitations. We therefore
do not sustain the rejection of independent claims 1-3 and claims 4--20
dependent therefrom.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-20 is reversed.
REVERSED
4