Ex Parte MORI

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 29, 2016

12835593 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 29, 2016)

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