Ex Parte MORIDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 29, 201612835593 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 29, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 12/835,593 07/13/2010 KojiMORI 21254 7590 06/09/2016 MCGINN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW GROUP, PLLC 8321 OLD COURTHOUSE ROAD SUITE 200 VIENNA, VA 22182-3817 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. FJ-2010-038-US 1572 EXAMINER GER OLEO, FRANCIS ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2485 MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE 06/09/2016 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte KOJI MORI Appeal2014-003486 Application 12/835,593 Technology Center 2400 Before BRUCE R. WINSOR, JOHN F. HORVATH, and ADAM J. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judges. HORVATH, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1, 6, 7, 9, 10, and 12-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. Appeal2014-003486 Application 12/835,593 SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION The invention is directed to a three-dimensional imaging method and apparatus. Spec. 1:5-8. Claims 1 and 12, reproduced below, are illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A three-dimensional imaging apparatus comprising: a plurality of shooting devices configured to shoot an object; a shutter switch; a display device configured to display a three-dimensional image generated by a plurality of images obtained by shooting an identical object from a plurality of view points by the plurality of shooting devices; an OSD (on-screen display) control device configured to control display of OSD information superimposed and displayed on an image displayed on the display device; and a calculation device configured to calculate a parallax amount of each of a plurality of areas which are obtained by dividing a peripheral area of a display screen of the display device, wherein the OSD control device moves the display of the OSD information displayed on the display device to an area the parallax amount of which is smaller than a threshold value, when the shutter switch is operated. 12. A three-dimensional imaging apparatus comprising: a plurality of shooting devices configured to shoot an object; a shutter switch; a display device configured to display a two-dimensional image or a three-dimensional image generated by a plurality of images obtained by shooting an identical object from a plurality of view points by the plurality of shooting devices; a selector device configured to switch the display between the two-dimensional image and the three-dimensional image; and 2 Appeal2014-003486 Application 12/835,593 an OSD (on-screen display) control device configured to control a display or a plurality of displays of OSD information in such a manner that, when the two-dimensional image is displayed, an icon which is related to focus control is superimposed and displayed as the OSD information on the two- dimensional image displayed on the display device in response to an operation of half-pressing the shutter switch, and in such a manner that, when the three-dimensional image is displayed, all or a part of the displays of the OSD information including the icon which is superimposed and displayed on the three- dimensional image is erased in response to an operation of half- pressing the shutter switch. Mise Kawaguchi Okamoto Choi Senda REFERENCES US 2007 /0285528 Al US 2007/0291155 Al US 2008/0158346 Al US 2009/0298537 Al JP 2004-274125 REJECTIONS Dec. 13, 2007 Dec. 20, 2007 July 3, 2008 Dec. 3, 2009 Sept. 30, 2004 Claims 1 and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Okamoto and Senda. Final Act. 2--4. Claims 6 and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Okamoto, Senda, and Kawaguchi. Final Act. 4--5. Claim 7 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Okamoto, Senda, Kawaguchi, and Choi. Final Act. 5---6. Claims 12-14, 16, 18, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Okamoto, Mise, and Choi. Final Act. 6-9. Claims 15 and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Okamoto, Mise, Choi, and Kawaguchi. Final Act. 9-10. 3 Appeal2014-003486 Application 12/835,593 Claim 17 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Okamoto, Senda, and Mise. Final Act. 10-12. ISSUES AND ANALYSIS Claims 1, 6, 7, 9, 10, and 17 Issue 1: Whether Senda teaches or suggests calculating parallax for each of a plurality of peripheral areas of a display, and displaying OSD information in a peripheral area where the parallax is calculated to be less than a threshold amount The Examiner finds Okamoto teaches a compound eye digital camera capable of displaying two or three dimensional images, and superimposing OSD (on-screen display) information on the images. Final Act. 3 (citing Okamoto i-fi-154, 56, 59, and 65; Figs. 1-3). The Examiner finds Senda teaches calculating parallax in each of a plurality of peripheral areas of a display, and displaying information (a title) in an area where the parallax is less than a threshold amount. Id. at 3--4 (citing Senda Figs. 1-1 O); see also Ans. 12-13 (citing Senda i-fi-126-28, 40; Fig. 7). Appellant argues the Examiner errs because Senda teaches calculating parallax for different objects in the background and foreground of a displayed image, rather than for different peripheral areas of the display. App. Br. 22-23. Appellant further argues the Examiner errs because Senda teaches displaying a title (corresponding to OSD information) at a specific location in the display and at a predetermined depth E in the image, rather than in a peripheral area of the display where the parallax is less than a threshold value. Id. at 23-24. 4 Appeal2014-003486 Application 12/835,593 We are persuaded by Appellant's arguments. Senda teaches adding parallax information to a title in order to display the title in a predetermined area of the display so that the title's 3-D appearance is not incongruous with the 3-D appearance of image objects that are displayed near the title. See Senda i-fi-19-10, 26-27, and 34. Senda does not teach or suggest displaying the title in a peripheral area of the display that has a calculated parallax that is less than a threshold amount as required by claims 1, 9, and 17. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejections of claims 1, 9, and 17, and of claims 6, 7, and 10, which respectively depend from claims 1and9. Claims 12-16 and 18-20 Issue 2: Whether the combination of Okamoto, Mise, and Choi teaches or suggests displaying an OSD information icon on a two-dimensional image and erasing the OSD information icon on a three-dimensional image when a shutter is half-pressed The Examiner finds Okamoto teaches a compound eye digital camera capable of displaying two or three dimensional images, and superimposing OSD information on the images in both 2-D and 3-D modes. Final Act. 6-7 (citing Okamoto i-fi-154, 56, 59, and 65; Figs. 1-3, and 12). In particular, the Examiner finds Okamoto teaches displaying OSD information as cursors that designate the left (CL), right (CR), and stereoscopic (CS) portions of a 3-D image when the camera shutter is half pressed. Id. at 7 (citing Okamoto i-fi-f 14, 123, 139--44, and 159, Figs. 8, 9, and 12). Referring to Okamoto's Figure 12, Appellant argues the Examiner errs because: 5 Appeal2014-003486 Application 12/835,593 Okamoto teaches in step 10 half-pressing the shutter (e.g. see Okamoto at paragraph [O 159]), and then in step 28 full-pressing the shutter (e.g. see Okamoto at paragraph [0172]). Thus, step 33 which the Examiner alleges displays the icon in response to a half press is actually in response to the full press of the shutter (i.e. second step of the two-step button). App. Br. 35 (emphasis omitted). We are persuaded by Appellant's argument. Okamoto teaches determining whether the camera is in 2-D or 3-D mode when the first step of the shutter is turned on (i.e., when the shutter is half pressed). See Okamoto i-f 159. If the camera is in 3-D mode, Okamoto teaches activating a number of image pickup devices (e.g., left and right lenses) for a determined number of viewpoints (e.g., two). Id. i-fi-1168-71. Okamoto then teaches capturing images from each of the activated lenses when a second step of the shutter is turned on (i.e., when the shutter is fully pressed). Id. i-f 172 (teaching "when a second step of the shutter button 18 is turned on (equivalent to a photographing instruction ... ), photographing is performed (step S28) by the image pickup devices Rand L."). Next, Okamoto teaches generating 3-D and whole images from the captured images, calculating coordinates "expressing to which portion in the whole image created at step S31 the 3 D image (stereoscopic image) created at step S30 corresponds," and delineating the portion of the whole image that is a 3-D image using cursors. Id. i-fi-1 173 and 175; see, e.g., id. at Fig. 8. Thus, as Appellant contends, the cursors CL, CR, and CS shown in Figure 8 of Okamoto are generated after the shutter is fully pressed, after images from the left and right lenses are captured (photographed), and after 6 Appeal2014-003486 Application 12/835,593 the whole and stereoscopic images shown in Figure 8 are generated from the left and right images. Additionally, we agree with Appellant that, although Choi discloses the display/erasure of icons in response to a half press of a camera shutter (see Final Act. 8), the Examiner has only provided generalized articulated reasoning (see Final Act. 9) that is insufficient to show that one of ordinary skill in the art would modify Okamoto with Choi' s functionality to arrive at the specific functionality recited in claims 12 and 18. See App. Br. 35-36. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejections of claims 12 and 18 and claims 13-16, 19, and 20, which depend from claims 12 and 18 respectively. DECISION The Examiner's rejections of claims 1, 6, 7, 9, 10, and 12-20 are reversed. REVERSED 7 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation