SONY CORPORATION

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 30, 2020

2019004666 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 30, 2020)

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.
15/849,947 12/21/2017 HIROMASA NAGANUMA SP357935US01 3304
108359 7590 12/30/2020
CHIP LAW GROUP
505 N. LAKE SHORE DRIVE
SUITE 250
CHICAGO, IL 60611
EXAMINER
LEE, MICHAEL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2422
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/30/2020 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):
docketing@chiplawgroup.com
eofficeaction@appcoll.com
sonydocket@evalueserve.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte HIROMASA NAGANUMA
____________

Appeal 2019-004666
Application 15/849,947
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, ADAM J. PYONIN, and
GARTH D. BAER, Administrative Patent Judges.

BAER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2019-004666
Application 15/849,947

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
final rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 10, 11, and 13. Appeal Br. 1. Claims 3, 5–
9, 12, and 14–18 are indicated as containing allowable subject matter. Final
Act. 3. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

BACKGROUND
A. The Invention
Appellant’s invention is directed to performing a “blending
calculation for correcting brightness of an image in accordance with a
distance from a projection unit configured to project the image to a
projection surface onto which the image is projected.” Abstract.
Independent claim 1 is representative and reproduced below with emphasis
added:
1. An image processing apparatus, comprising:
at least one processor configured to:
correct brightness of each image of a plurality of
images projected by a plurality of projection units, based
on mixing ratio information, wherein the mixing ratio
information is associated with a mixing ratio of each
image of the plurality of images in a region in which a
first image of the plurality of images partially overlaps
with a second image of the plurality of images, and
the mixing ratio information comprises geometric
calibration information associated with each projection
unit of the plurality of projection units.

1 We use “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42.
Appellant identifies Sony Corporation as the real party in interest. Appeal
Br. 2.
Appeal 2019-004666
Application 15/849,947

3
Appeal Br. 12 (Claims App.).

B. The Rejection on Appeal
The Examiner rejects claims 1, 2, 4, 10, 11, and 13 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Harville (US 2007/0291047 A1; Dec. 20,
2007). Final Act. 2.
ANALYSIS
A. Anticipation Rejection of Claim 1
Appellant argues that:
the attenuation factor taught by Harville is calculated based on a
distance of a pixel location 912 within the frame 110A(1)
(corresponding to location 924(1) in blend map 702(1)) . . . and
a distance of a pixel location 914 within the frame 110A(2)
(corresponding to location 922(1) in blend map 702(1)).

Reply Br. 8. Appellant contends that:
[a]s a result, the blend map 702(1) which includes the
attenuation factor is generated based on or is associated with the
distance of the pixel location 912 within the frame 110A(1)
from the edges of the frame 110A(1) and the distance of the
pixel location 914 within the overlapping frame 110A(2) from
the edges of the overlapping frame 110A(2). Accordingly,
Harville does not describe that the blend map 702(1) is
associated with or is generated based on a mixing ratio of
each the frame 110A(1) and the frame 110A(2) that overlap in
a region. Therefore, Harville does not describe controlling the
brightness levels of projectors based on the mixing ratio of
images that overlap.

Reply Br. 8 (emphasis added).
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments. Because both
Appellant’s arguments and the Examiner’s findings are made with respect to
Appeal 2019-004666
Application 15/849,947

4
Figures 9A and 9B of Harville, these figures are reproduced below for
reference, with annotations added.

In Figure 9A shown above, overlap region 900 is shown using hatched
lines, and represents the projection area common to frame 110A(1) and
frame 110A(2). See Harville ¶ 150. Overlap region 900 is further illustrated
in the upper portions of Figure 9B as corresponding to regions 910A and
910B. Screen location 900A is a point residing inside overlap region 900,
and this same location is represented in region 910A at pixel location 912
Appeal 2019-004666
Application 15/849,947

5
and in region 910B at pixel location 914. See id. The bottom portions of
Figure 9B correspond to blend map 702(1) and blend map 702(2), with
location 922(1) in blend map 702(1) and location 922(2) in blend map
702(1) both corresponding to screen location 900A. See id. ¶ 151.
Appellant’s argument that “Harville does not describe that the blend
map 702(1) is associated with or is generated based on a mixing ratio of
each the frame 110A(1) and the frame 110A(2) that overlap in a region”
(Reply Br. 8 (emphasis added)) assumes that the image overlap must be
determined on a frame-by-frame basis, but independent claim 1 does not
require this. The Examiner finds, and we agree, that “[t]he blend maps 702
stores the attenuation factors for every corresponding overlapping pixel of
the two adjacent frames at the overlapping region 900.” Ans. 5, citing
Harville ¶ 156 (emphasis added). Here, the Examiner is broadly and
reasonably interpreting the claimed “first image” and “second image” as the
individual pixels that appear in both frames when the frames are projected,
i.e., pixels that overlap. Not only is the Examiner’s interpretation not
contradicted by Appellant’s disclosure, the Examiner’s interpretation
appears to be consistent with Appellant’s claim 2, which recites (with
emphasis added):
[t]he image processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein
the mixing ratio information is map information representing
the mixing ratio for each pixel of each image of the plurality
of images.

Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of independent
claim 1, as well as independent claim 10 commensurate in scope, and
dependent claims 2 and 11 not argued separately. See Appeal Br. 10.
Appeal 2019-004666
Application 15/849,947

6
B. Anticipation Rejection of Claim 4
Dependent claim 4 recites:
[t]he image processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the at
least one processor is further configured to correct luminance
information associated with the brightness of each image of the
plurality of images for each projection unit of the plurality of
projection units, based on a third image of the plurality of images for
which the brightness is corrected.

Appellant argues that the while “camera 112 captures images of the
projected image frames during the calibration process . . . Harville does not
describe that the camera 122 captures images of the brightness corrected
image frames projected by the projectors. Moreover, Harville nowhere
describes that the camera 112 functions a feedback loop.” Reply Br. 11
(emphasis added), citing Harville ¶¶ 121–123.
We disagree. The Examiner finds, and we agree, that
[a]s described in [Harville ¶¶ 131, 174], an image projected by
the projectors 112 is captured by camera 122. The captured
image is output as captured image 123C. As illustrated in
Figure 1, the camera 122 functions as a feedback loop in the
system.

Ans. 5.
As a preliminary matter, we note that while Harville uses identifier
“122” to identify many kinds of cameras (including, for example, “camera
122” (Harville ¶ 66), “single camera 122” (Harville ¶ 63), “single, wide-
angle camera 122” (Harville ¶ 61), and “multiple cameras 122” (Harville
¶ 63)), Harville appears to use identifier “112” only to identify “projectors
112” (Harville ¶ 25) or “projector 112” (Harville ¶ 60).
Appeal 2019-004666
Application 15/849,947

7
Appellant’s argument relies on the single citation in Harville to
“camera 112,” which appears to be a typographical error, as later in the same
paragraph Harville refers to “camera 122” (“[c]amera 122 captures each
image 123C with a relatively short exposure” (Harville ¶ 123)) in a manner
that is consonant with the remainder of the publication. We find one of
ordinary skill would understand Harville’s camera “112” to be the same
camera as camera “122.”
Appellant further contends that “Harville does not teach that camera
122 captures images in repetitive manner to correct the brightness.” Reply
Br. 12, citing Harville ¶¶ 176–178, 202. Here, the Examiner’s finding is
confirmed by the Examiner’s cited portion of Harville, stating that
[w]hite level measurement map 1102 contains white level
measurement values that each identify the maximum brightness level
at a corresponding location on display surface 116 after blend maps
702 have been applied, as determined from the set of captured images
123C and blend maps 702.

Harville ¶ 174 (emphasis added). As the white level measurement values
are determined from captured images 123C after images are captured to
determine the blend maps, Harville discloses the claimed images.
Appellant’s cited portions of Harville describe other embodiments and do
not contradict the Examiner’s findings. Accordingly, we sustain the
Examiner’s anticipation rejection of dependent claim 4, as well as dependent
claim 13 commensurate in scope.
CONCLUSION
In summary:
Appeal 2019-004666
Application 15/849,947

8
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED

Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 2, 4,
10, 11,
13
102(a)(1) Harville 1, 2, 4,
10, 11,
13