Ex Parte OtaDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 4, 201612873077 (P.T.A.B. May. 4, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 12/873,077 08/31/2010 37123 7590 05/05/2016 FITCH EVEN TABIN & FLANNERY, LLP 120 SOUTH LASALLE STREET SUITE 1600 CHICAGO, IL 60603-3406 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Takaaki Ota 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. 7114-95588-US 4614 EXAMINER PEREZ FUENTES, LUIS M ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2481 MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE 05/05/2016 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 T AKAATI OT A Appeal2014-008100 Application 12/873,077 Technology Center 2400 Before THU A. DANG, LARRY J. HUME, and JAMES W. DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judges. DANG, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1-17 and 21-26. Claims 18-20 have been canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). We affirm. A. INVENTION According to Appellant, the disclosed and claimed invention relates to "multiview display of content" (Spec., 1 11. 9-11 ). Appeal2014-008100 Application 12/873,077 B. ILLUSTRATIVE CLAHvI Claim 1 is exemplary: 1. A method comprising: receiving a first content and a second content; applying a first depth to the first content; applying a second depth to the second content; and compositing the first content and the second content to generate a single 3-Dimensional (3-D) composite content, wherein the composite content is configured to be displayed on a 3-D display; and wherein the composite content is configured to be played back such that the first content and the second content are displayed simultaneously, and wherein the composite content is further configured to be played back such that one of the first content and the second content is displayed appearing in focus and the second one of the first content and the second content is displayed appearing out of focus based on a selection of one of the first content and the second content. C. REJECTIONS The prior art relied upon by the Examiner as evidence in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Wang Paquette Sasaki US 2010/0103318 Al US 7,817,166 B2 US 2011/0013890 Al Apr. 29, 2010 Oct. 19, 2010 Jan. 20, 2011 Claims 1-8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the teachings of Paquette and Wang. Claims 9-17, and 21-26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the teachings of Paquette and Wang, in further view of Sasaki. 2 Appeal2014-008100 Application 12/873,077 II. ISSUE The principal issue before us is whether the Examiner erred in finding that the combination of Paquette and Wang teaches or would have suggested "applying a first depth to the first content; applying a second depth to the second content;" and "compositing the first content and the second content to generate a single [3-D] composite content ... ," wherein" ... one of the first content and the second content is displayed appearing in focus and the [other] appearing out of focus based on a selection of one of the first content and the second content" (claim 1) (emphasis added). III. FINDINGS OF FACT The following Findings of Fact (FF) are shown by a preponderance of the evidence. Paquette 1. Paquette discloses displaying stereo content in a windowing environment (col. 2, 11. 20-50). In examples of stereo content display methods, content is written to two frame buffers, one each including content for display to the left and right eye (col. 1, 11. 18--43). A mechanism, such as stereo shutter glasses or polarization filters, is used in conjunction with the frame buffers to direct the content in each buffer to the appropriate eye (id.). The viewing mechanism, upon detection of a signal value, causes the appropriate eye to receive the display information (id.). An external hardware device may be used to directly control operation of the viewing device (id.). 2. In an embodiment, a stereo assembly buffer for each display device in the system is created (col. 4, 11. 32---62). The content of all windows and 3 Appeal2014-008100 Application 12/873,077 attached drawing surfaces is mapped to drawing layers, wherein, for stereo content, left eye content is mapped to drawing layers for the left eye, and right eye content is mapped to drawing layers for the right eye (id.). An optional transformation may be applied to windows and attached surfaces for the right eye based on the window ordering (id.). As an example, affine transformations may be applied to window content that is supposed to be on top and, in the right-eye view, moved slightly to the left so that it appears in front (id.). 3. The windowing system can determine whether stereo processing is required, wherein monocular processing is performed when no stereo content is being displayed, while stereo processing is performed as appropriate (col. 4, 1. 64 to col. 5, 1. 6). IV. ANALYSIS Appellant argues that Paquette' s "locus of stereo content processing" and "the ability to support transparency ... and the ability to reliably support blue-line technologies in a windowed environment" do not disclose a display where "one of the first content and the second content is displayed appearing in focus" and the other one of "the first content and the second content is displayed appearing out of focus," as required by claim 1 (App. Br. 11-13). Further, according to Appellant, "no portion of Paquette discloses or suggests displaying one of the first content and the second content in focus and the second one of the first content and the second content out of focus 'based on a selection of one of the first content and the second content' as recited in independent claim 1" (App. Br. 13-14). 4 Appeal2014-008100 Application 12/873,077 Appellant also argues that Paquette does not disclose or suggest "applying a first depth to the first content" and "applying a second depth to the second content," as recited in claim 1 (App. Br. 14--16). Finally, Appellant argues that the proposed combination does not disclose or suggest "compositing the first content and the second content to generate a single 3- Dimensional (3-D) composite content, wherein the composite content is configured to be displayed on a 3-D display," as required by claim 1 (App. Br. 16-18). We have considered all of Appellant's arguments and evidence presented. However, we disagree with Appellant's contentions regarding the Examiner's rejections of the claims. We agree with the Examiner's findings, and find no error with the Examiner's conclusion that the claims would have been obvious over the combined teachings. As a matter of claim interpretation, we give the claims their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification. See In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997). While we interpret claims broadly but reasonably in light of the specification, we nonetheless must not import limitations from the specification into the claims. See Phillips v. A WH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en bane) (citations omitted). We first look to the Specification to determine whether any specific definition has been given to any of the relevant claim terms. With respect to the claim limitation "appearing in focus and the [other] appearing out of focus based on a selection of one of the first content and the second content" (claim 1 ), the Specification states that "in some embodiments, when the user selects which content to focus on, that content will be perceived in focus ... while the other content will perceived as ... out of focus" (Spec., 8, 11. 5 Appeal2014-008100 Application 12/873,077 3-5). The determination of which image to display "in focus" may result in one or more layers as being presented "on top" of the other (Spec., 8, 11. 9-15). However, the Specification does not explicitly limit the selection to one being made by a user, and that embodiment is therefore considered exemplary. We therefore conclude that the broadest reasonable interpretation of this claim limitation includes any selection that places one content in focus and one content out of focus to the user. With respect to the claim limitation "applying a first depth to the first content; applying a second depth to the second content" (claim 1 ), the Specification offers several examples. "In one embodiment, the depth assignment is performed ... such that each of the first content and second content may form a different layer of a 3D displayable image" (Spec., 6, 11. 10-12). Depth is also discussed as comprising an "assigned depth" (Spec., 6, 11. 17-18), as "parallax values" (Spec., 6, 11. 22-27), as "weight" (Spec. 6, 11. 28-29), and/or as a "transparency value" (Spec., 6 1. 31-7 1. 1 ). Again, however, these discussions of an application of depth to a first content and a second content are given as exemplary embodiments. Accordingly, we conclude that the broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 1 merely requires that any type of depth be applied to each of a first content and a second content. We agree with the Examiner's finding that Paquette discloses and suggests the ability to select one content as in focus and another content as out of focus (Ans. 9). In particular, Paquette discloses that an external hardware device may allow for the operation of a display device that displays stereo content (FF 1 ). Further, the system of Paquette discloses a determination of whether stereo or monocular content is presented to the 6 Appeal2014-008100 Application 12/873,077 display, and adjusts the presentation of the one or more content as necessary (FF 3). Finally, Paquette discloses that stereo and/or monocular content may be included in a plurality of windows on a display, wherein transformations may be applied to one or more of the contents such that they display in focus to the user based on the position of the windows (FF 2). Given that the Specification, as discussed above, includes "transparency," "assigned depth," and "layer of 3D displayable image" as embodiments of ways to determine depth and which layer is presented as "on top" to the user, we agree with the Examiner's finding that a selection is made, at least, by the system of Paquette, which determines which of one or more contents is presented as in focus to the user. We further agree with the Examiner's finding that Paquette discloses and suggests that a "first depth is applied to a first content" and that a "second depth is applied to a second content" (App. Br. 9). In particular, Paquette discloses that left eye content (i.e., a first content) is mapped to a layer for the left eye and that right eye content (i.e., a second content) is mapped to a layer for the right eye (FF 2). Further, an optional transformation may be performed on one or more contents based on window position from front to back (id.). Specifically, an affine transformation may be performed such that one of the one or more contents appears in front (id.). Finally, we agree with the Examiner that Paquette discloses and suggests "compositing the first content and the second content to generate a single 3-Dimensional (3-D) composite content, wherein the composite content is configured to be displayed on a 3-D display" (App. Br. 9). Specifically, Paquette discloses that a left eye content and right eye content are displayed to a user at different levels, such that, with the use of a 7 Appeal2014-008100 Application 12/873,077 mechanism such as stereo shutter glasses or polarization filters, appropriate content is displayed to each eye in a stereo image (FF 1 ). Further, Paquette discloses that first and second content may be mapped to left eye and right eye layers such that stereo content is displayed to the user (FF 2). We note that Appellant argues, with respect to several of the claim limitations, that the Examiner has not met the appropriate burden for establishing that the claim limitations necessarily result from the prior art in rejecting the claim based on inherency (App. Br. 13-14, 15-16, 17). The Examiner has not, however, relied on inherency in rejecting the claims, and we agree with the Examiner's finding that Paquette discloses or at least suggests the claim features discussed above. Appellant has not provided additional substantive argument regarding claims 11 and 17 other than to note the rejections are erroneous for similar reasons as that of claim 1 (App. Br. 18-19). Similar argument is presented with respect to claims 2-10, 12-16 and 21-16, which depend from claims 1, 11 or 17 (id.). For the reasons discussed above, we also affirm the rejections of claims 2-8 over Paquette and Wang, and the rejections of claims 9, 10, 12-16 and 21-26 over Paquette and Wang, in further view of Sasaki. V. CONCLUSION AND DECISION We affirm the Examiner's rejections of claims 1-17 and 21-26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). 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 8 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation