Ex Parte Marketsmueller et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 30, 201713116835 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 30, 2017) 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. 13/116,835 05/26/2011 Sebastian Marketsmueller B1334 6307 108982 7590 Wolfe-SBMC 116 W. Pacific Avenue Suite 300 Spokane, WA 99201 EXAMINER LIU, ZHENGXI ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2611 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 04/03/2017 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): docket@sbmc-law.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte SEBASTIAN MARKETSMUELLER, DAVID A. TRISTRAM, and LEE B. THOMASON Appeal 2016-005174 Application 13/116,835 Technology Center 2600 Before: MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, JEREMY J. CURCURI, and JOHN R. KENNY, Administrative Patent Judges. KENNY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from rejections of claims 1—5, 7—11, 13—15, and 17—25, which constitute all pending claims. Final Act. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. Appeal 2016-005174 Application 13/116,835 CLAIMED INVENTION According to Appellants, the disclosed invention relates to 2D and 3D media playback. Spec. 11. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A method, comprising: receiving a multimedia presentation including two- dimensional (2D) content and three-dimensional (3D) content integrated into an integrated common rendering framework and common event model, the common rendering framework capable of rendering both 2D and 3D content into a common graphics layer before final compositing, and the common event model capable of applying an effect to both the 2D and 3D content responsive to detection of an event pertaining to the 2D and 3D content; rendering the 2D and 3D content based on a specification of one or more rendering effects to be applied to both the 2D and the 3D content according to the common rendering framework; and responsive to detecting a collision event pertaining to the 2D and 3D content during playback of the multimedia presentation, applying one or more rendering effects to the 2D and 3D content according to the common event model, the collision event comprising a collision between the 2D content and the 3D content. Griffiths, “Graphical Composition in Avalon,” http://www.ondotnet.eom/lpt/a/4680 (Archived May 21, 2006). Brimelow, Digital Media Add Video to Controls and 3D Surfaces with WPF, archived on December 31, 2008 Smith, Rotating WPF Content in 3D Space, (Code Project March 22, 2009) (“Smith Article”). REFERENCES Smith ’084 Srivastava Nathan US 2005/0243084 A1 Nov. 3, 2005 US 2008/0313553 A1 Dec. 18, 2008 US 2010/0160039 A1 Jun. 24, 2010 2 Appeal 2016-005174 Application 13/116,835 Solis, Illustrated WPF (Apress 2009) (see December 9, 2013 Notice of References Cited, p. 1). REJECTIONS Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 9, 18, 23, and 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 (a) as unpatentable over the combination of Solis, Smith ’048, Smith Article, Brimelow, and Nathan. Final Act. 2. Claims 3, 8, 10-12, 14, 15, 19—21, and 25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (a) as unpatentable over the combination of Solis, Smith ’048, Smith Article, Brimelow, Nathan, and Griffiths. Final Act. 25. Claims 7, 13, 17, and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (a) as unpatentable over the combination of Solis, Smith ’048, Smith Article, Brimelow, Nathan, Griffiths, and Srivastava. Final Act. 33. ANAFYSIS We agree with and adopt as our own the Examiner’s findings of facts and conclusions as set forth in the Answer and in the Action from which this appeal was taken. We have considered Appellants’ arguments, but do not find them persuasive of error. We provide the following explanation primarily for emphasis. Appellants argue the Examiner errs in finding Nathan teaches or suggests the limitation in claim 1 of “responsive to detecting a collision event pertaining to the 2D and 3D content during playback of the multimedia presentation, applying one or more rendering effects to the 2D and 3D content according to the common event model, the collision event comprising a collision between the 2D content and the 3D content.” Br. 15. Appellants argue Nathan does not discuss 2D or 3D content and, therefore, 3 Appeal 2016-005174 Application 13/116,835 could not teach or suggest this disputed limitation. Id. at 17. We are not persuaded by these arguments because the Examiner does not rely upon Nathan by itself for this disputed limitation. The Examiner relies on Nathan for a collision event between a first content and a second content (Final Act 16—17, citing Nathan || 3, 52, 72, 112) and on other references for 2D and 3D content. Id. at 17—18. Appellants also argue the Examiner erroneously relies on a collision between 3D content and 3D content for the “collision between 2D content and 3D content,” recited in claim 1. Br. 18. We are not persuaded by this argument, because, contrary to Appellants’ argument, the Examiner relies on the collision between 2D content on a 3D object with 3D content on a second 3D object. Ans. 4. The Examiner, in fact, provides an illustration of how such a collision can occur. Id. at 43; see also Ans. 41—42 for explanations relating to this illustration. We agree with the Examiner’s findings regarding the recited collision and agree that the asserted combination of references teaches or suggests the disputed limitation of claim 1. Ans. 18, 41—43. Accordingly, we sustain the rejections of claims 1—5, 7—11, 13—15, and 17—25. DECISION We affirm the rejections of claims 1—5, 7—11, 13—15, and 17—25. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv). AFFIRMED 4 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation