Ex Parte TSUDA et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 29, 2019

14745974 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 29, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/745,974 06/22/2015
27562 7590 01/31/2019
NIXON & V ANDERHYE, P.C.
901 NORTH GLEBE ROAD, 11 TH FLOOR
ARLINGTON, VA 22203
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Munetaka TSUDA
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.
RYM-723-4178 7811
EXAMINER
DU,HAIXIA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2611
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/31/2019 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 MUNET AKA TSUDA, AKIHIRO UMEHARA,
YUI IIDA, MASA YUKI OKADA, and HA YURU SOMA
Appeal2018-005845
Application 14/745,974
Technology Center 2600
Before JUSTIN BUSCH, LINZY T. McCARTNEY, and
JOHN P. PINKERTON, Administrative Patent Judges.
McCARTNEY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants seek review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner's final
rejection of claims 1--4, 6-18, and 20-24. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
Appeal2018-005845
Application 14/745,974
BACKGROUND
The present patent application "relates to a technique for generating
an avatar corresponding to a subject of a captured image." Specification 1,
filed June 22, 2015. Claims 1 and 14--18 are independent. Claim 1 illustrates
the claimed subject matter:
1. A non-transitory storage medium storing a program for
causing a computer to execute a process, the process comprising:
causing an image capture device to capture a video of a
subject;
generating plural avatars based on one image, from plural
images constituting the video captured by the image capture
device, the plural images corresponding respectively to different
image capture timings, and each of the plural avatars
representing a subject shown in at least the one image; and
causing a display device to display the generated plural
avatars and enable selection of at least one of the plural avatars.
Appeal Brief 27, filed December 15, 2017 ("App. Br.").
1, 2, 6, 10-18, and 20-
23
3
4
REJECTIONS
§ 103
§ 103
§ 103
1 Du et al. (US 2014/0218371 Al; Aug. 7, 2014).
Du 1 and Kim '9892
Du, Kim '989, and
Makofsky3
Du, Kim '989, and Li4
2 Kim et al. (US 2014/0129989 Al; May 8, 2014). Appellants and the
Examiner refer to this reference as "Kim."
3 Makofsky et al. (US 2014/0229850 Al; Aug. 14, 2014).
4 Li et al. (US 2015/0325029 Al; Nov. 12, 2015).
2
Appeal2018-005845
Application 14/745,974
7 and 8
9
24
§ 103
§ 103
§ 103
DISCUSSION
Du, Kim '989, and
Kim '219 5
Du, Kim '989,
Kim '219, and Gava6
Du, Kim '989, and
Owano7
Claim 1 recites "generating plural avatars based on one image, from
plural images constituting the video captured by the image capture device."
App. Br. 27. Appellants contend the Examiner erroneously concluded it
would have been obvious to combine the teachings of Du and Kim '989 to
arrive at this limitation. See App. Br. 13-16. Appellants assert that Du
animates an avatar in real time based on facial features of a user extracted
from a video image, while Kim '989 generates "avatar candidate images"
resembling a target face and allows users to repeatedly select from the
images to produce an avatar. App. Br. 13-14 (citing Du Fig. 2; Kim '989
Fig. 3); Reply Brief 2-3, filed April 23, 2018 (citing Du ,r 19) ("Reply Br.").
Appellants argue it would have been unnecessary and detrimental to replace
Du's video image with Kim '989's avatar candidate images because the
avatar candidate images merely resemble a target face. App. Br. 15.
Appellants also contend that modifying Du in this way "would render Du
5 Kim et al. (US 2011/0122219 Al; May 26, 2011).
6 Gava et al. (US 2014/0043424 Al; Feb. 13, 2014).
7 Nancy Owano, Intel Brings Out the Avatar in You with New App,
TechXplore.com (June 20, 2014), https://techxplore.com/news/2014-06-
intel-avatar-app.html.
3
Appeal2018-005845
Application 14/745,974
unsatisfactory for its intended purpose of animating a single avatar to mimic
the [person's] expression." Reply Br. 5; see also App. Br. 16.
We find Appellants' arguments persuasive. The Examiner concluded
it would have been obvious to combine the methods of Du and Kim '989 to
arrive at the disputed limitation because doing so would "provide a natural
avatar ... without a separate analysis or re-analysis process." Final Office
Action 8, mailed August 24, 2017 ("Final Act."). This reasoning does not
sufficiently explain why one of ordinary skill in the art would have replaced
Du's video image of a person with Kim '989's avatar candidate images that
resemble a target face. As argued by Appellants, Du relies on a video image
of a person to animate an avatar, see Du ,r 14, and it is unclear how replacing
that image with multiple avatar candidate images that merely resemble a
target face would "provide a natural avatar."
Moreover, as asserted by Appellants, the purpose of Du's invention is
to animate an avatar in real time based on a user's facial or head movements.
See, e.g., Du ,r 11 ("The technologies described herein allow avatars to be
animated in real time based on a user's facial or head movements."). We
agree with Appellants that the Examiner's combination of Du and Kim '989
would make Du unsuitable for animating an avatar in real-time. As
discussed above, Kim '989's method involves a user repeatedly selecting
avatar candidate images to eventually generate an avatar. See Kim '989
,r,r 42-53, Fig. 3. Incorporating Kim '989's process of user selection into
Du's animation method would undermine the real-time aspect of Du's
method.
For the above reasons, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of
claim 1 and its dependent claims. Because the Examiner's rejections of
4
Appeal2018-005845
Application 14/745,974
independent claims 14--18 suffer from similar deficiencies, we also do not
sustain these rejections.
CONCLUSION
1, 2, 6, IO-
Du and
1, 2, 6, IO-
18, and 20- § 103
Kim '989
18, and 20-
23 23
Du,
3 § 103
Kim '989,
3
and
Makofsk
Du,
4 § 103 Kim '989, 4
and Li
Du,
7 and 8 § 103
Kim '989,
7 and 8
and
Kim '219
Du, Kim
9 § 103
'989
9 ' Kim '219,
and Gava
Du, Kim
24 § 103 '989, and 24
Owano
Summary
1--4, 6-18,
and 20-24
REVERSED
5