Ex Parte Kawamoto et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 21, 2016

13053713 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 21, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/053,713 03/22/2011
27562 7590 07/25/2016
NIXON & V ANDERHYE, P,C
901 NORTH GLEBE ROAD, 11 TH FLOOR
ARLINGTON, VA 22203
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Kouichi KAW AM OTO
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.
MEN-1506-65 8755
EXAMINER
BEASLEY, DEIRDRE L
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2482
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/25/2016 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):
PTOMAIL@nixonvan.com
pair_nixon@firsttofile.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte KOUICHI KAW AM OTO, SHINY A FUJIWARA,
and YUUKI NISHIMURA
Appeal 2015-003119
Application 13/053,713
Technology Center 2400
Before HUNG H. BUI, IRVINE. BRANCH, and AMBER L. HAGY,
Administrative Patent Judges.
BRANCH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 1-
4, 6-12, and 14--19. Claims 5 and 13 are pending but are not presently
rejected. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Appeal 2015-003119
Application 13/053,713
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to image processing wherein virtual objects
are superimposed into images of real object. Spec., Abstract.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium
having stored therein an image processing program which is
executed by a computer of an image processing apparatus which
generates an image in which a virtual object image is
superimposed on an image taken by a real camera, the image
processing program comprising instructions that are, when
executed by the computer, configured to:
obtain a real image of an object which is taken by the real
camera;
obtain position/orientation information corresponding to a
position and an orientation of the real camera in a real space;
set a position and an orientation of a virtual camera in a
virtual space on the basis of the obtained position/orientation
information;
change at least one of a position and an orientation of at
least a part of a virtual object located in the virtual space in
accordance with obtained input;
generate a virtual object image in accordance with the set
position and orientation of the virtual camera;
generate a superimposed image in which the generated
virtual object image is superimposed on the obtained real image;
and
store the superimposed image to a storage medium as a
still photographed image in accordance with a photographing
instruction provided by the user.
REJECTION
Claims 1--4, 6-12, and 14--19 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Miller (US Publication No. 2011/0242134 Al;
2
Appeal 2015-003119
Application 13/053,713
Oct. 6, 2011) and Matsui (US Publication No. 2002/0060648 Al; May 23,
2002). Ans. 2-11. 1
ANALYSIS
Claims 1 and 14-16
Appellants argue that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 because
the combination of Miller and Matsui does not teach or suggest setting a
position and an orientation of a virtual camera. App. Br. 13-15. Appellants
rely on similar arguments for claims 14-16. Id.
The Examiner's rejection is based in part on Miller's disclosure of a
virtual character demonstrating an awareness of the perspective from which
the character is being observed. Ans. 2--4 (citing Miller i-f 93). Miller
discloses that the virtual character "demonstrate[s] awareness of a user's
position by talking in the direction of the user and/or their portable device."
Miller i-f 93. In view of this disclosure, we are unpersuaded of error.
iviiller's virtual character exists in a virtual world onto which the
user's perspective from the real world is mapped. Miller, Abstract. As the
Examiner finds, and we agree, the perspective from which Miller's virtual
character is viewed in the virtual world corresponds to the claimed virtual
1 The Examiner's Answer withdrew rejections of claims 5 and 13 (Ans. 12)
and misstates the pending rejections by not including claims 17 and 18 in the
pending rejections introduction (id. 2). The Examiner details the rejections
of claims 17 and 18 in the Grounds of Rejection to be Reviewed on Appeal
section of the Examiner's Answer (id. 10-11) and responds to Appellants'
arguments regarding claims 17 and 18 (id. 14-15). Appellants acknowledge
that the Examiner maintained the rejections of claims 17 and 18. Reply Br.
3--4. Accordingly, we treat the Examiner's misstatement of the status of
claims 17 and 18 as an administrative error and treat the rejections of claims
17 and 18 as having been maintained.
3
Appeal 2015-003119
Application 13/053,713
camera. Ans. 13. This perspective, or virtual camera position, corresponds
to the position of the user's real camera in the real world. Id. Hence,
Appellants' arguments that Miller fails to mention virtual cameras and that a
"real" camera does not exist in a virtual space and thus cannot move through
a virtual environment (App. Br. 13-15; Reply Br. 1-2) are unavailing of
error.
Appellants also argue error in the rejection of claims 1 and 14--16
because the combination of Matsui fails to teach or suggest storing a still
photographed image in response to a user instruction. App. Br. 16-17;
Reply Br. 2-3.
Although the Examiner's rejection and Answer (Final Act. 4--7; Ans.
13) are not a model of clarity with respect to claim 1 's "store the
superimposed image to a storage medium as a still photographed image in
accordance with a photographing instruction provided by the user," we find
the Examiner to have presented a prima facie case for obviousness, which
Appellants do not persuasively rebut.
We note that the rejection of claim 1 is based on the combined
teachings of the references. Final Act. 4--7. We also note that, although the
Final Action appears absolute with respect to Miller not disclosing claim 1 's
"store the superimposed image to a storage medium as a still photographed
image in accordance with a photographing instruction provided by the user,"
(see Final Act. 6 ("Miller does not disclose the following claim limitation")),
the Examiner's Answer makes clear that the rejection relies on Miller at
least partly. Ans. 13 ("Based on the broadest reasonable interpretation of the
claim, Miller discloses the claimed limitation."). This position is further
bolstered by the Examiner's proposed reasoning for combining the
references (Final Act. 7), which Appellants do not dispute. Specifically, the
4
Appeal 2015-003119
Application 13/053,713
Examiner finds that "[i]t would have been obvious to combine Miller and
Matsui such that the image apparatus would further include a storage
means." Id. 7. Accordingly, we do not find the Examiner's rejection to rely
on Matsui exclusively for the argued limitation.
We further note the Examiner's finding that Matsui discloses
capturing video, which is a compilation of still images. Ans. 13 (citing
Matsui, Fig. 3). We also note the Examiner's reference to Matsui's
disclosure of image synthesis processing, wherein a real space image is
superposed with an image in a virtual space. Final Act. 4 (citing Matsui,
Fig. 4 and i-fi-132, 39). And we note the rejection cites Miller's portable
device, which includes user controls. Id. 5 (citing Miller, Fig. IA, which
includes user input buttons 16 and 18).
In view of the foregoing evidence, we find the Examiner to have
reasonably concluded that, based on the combined teachings of the
references, an image capture program (claim 1) that captures and stores
• •1 1 1• • 111 1 1 • ' images or v10eo wnen a user commana 1s given wowa nave oeen oov10us at
least because it amounts to the predictable use of a known technique. Id. 3-
4 (see KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007)). Appellants'
arguments (App. Br. 16-17; Reply Br. 2-3) do not include sufficient
persuasive argument or evidence to convince us otherwise.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1. We also
sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 14--16, which Appellants argue on
similar grounds. App. Br. 12-17; Reply Br. 2-3.
Claim 3
Claim 3 depends from claim 1 and recites outputting image data to a
display device "until the photographing instruction is provided." Appellants
5
Appeal 2015-003119
Application 13/053,713
argue error in the rejection because, in Miller, the displayed images are not
still and there is no "photographing instruction" as recited in the claim. App.
Br. 17-18. Appellants argue further that claim 3 is distinguishable from the
combination of Miller and Matsui because "merely displaying a video does
not teach or suggest displaying the video 'until' a photographing instruction
is received and then storing a 'still' photographed image." Reply Br. 3.
We are unpersuaded of error in the Examiner's rejection of claim 3 for
the reasons stated by the Examiner. Ans. 5, 14. We do not find persuasive
of error Appellants' argument that "merely displaying a video" does not
teach or suggest the limitation (Reply Br. 3) because the rejection is not
based on "merely" displaying a video. See Ans. 5, 14.
Claims 1 7-19
We have reviewed Appellants' arguments that the Examiner erred in
rejecting claims 17-19 as obvious over Miller and Matsui. App. Br. 19-21;
Reply Br. 3--4. We find Appellants' arguments unpersuasive of error for the
reasons stated by the Examiner. Ans. 14--16.
For the foregoing reasons, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of
claims 3 and 17-19. We also sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 2, 4,
and 6-12, which Appellants do not argue separately with particularity.
6
Appeal 2015-003119
Application 13/053,713
DECISION
We sustain the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1--4, 6-12, and
14--19.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
7