Ex Parte 7403220 et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 11, 2013

95000493 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 11, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE
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.
95/000,493 08/14/2009 7403220 590280000014 9484
46251 7590 12/12/2013
T. D. FOSTER
11622 El Camino Real , SUITE 100
SAN DIEGO, CA 92130
EXAMINER
FERRIS III, FRED O
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3992
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/12/2013 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
____________

DREAMWORKS ANIMATION SKG, INC.
Third Party Requester

v.

GAMECASTER, INC.
Patent Owner and Appellant
____________

Appeal 2013-000375
Reexamination Control No. 95/000,493
Patent 7,403,220 B2
Technology Center 3900
____________

Before HOWARD B. BLANKENSHIP, ROBERT E. NAPPI, KEVIN F.
TURNER, and DAVID M. KOHUT, Administrative Patent Judges.

KOHUT, Administrative Patent Judge

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2013-000375
Reexamination Control No. 95/000,493
Patent 7,403,220 B2

2
Patent Owner Gamecaster, Inc. appeals under U.S.C. §§ 134 and 315
(2002) the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 17-33 and 42-46 under
certain grounds as discussed below. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§§ 134 and 315 (2002). An oral hearing was conducted with the Requester
and Patent Owner on January 23, 2013.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This proceeding arose from a request by Dreamworks Animation
SKG, Inc. for an inter partes reexamination of U.S. Patent 7,403,220 B2,
titled “Apparatus, Methods, and Systems for Viewing and Manipulating a
Virtual Environment,” and issued to MacIntosh et al. on July 22, 2008 (the
’220 patent).
The ’220 patent describes a camera simulating device that allows
multiple views within a virtual environment.
Claim 17 on appeal reads as follows:
17. A camera simulating device for controlling a
virtual camera capturing a view within a virtual
environment that is entirely generated by a video
software application, the virtual environment being
generated without images captured by a camera with an
image sensor, the camera simulating device comprising:
a horizontal sensor configured to provide a
horizontal movement signal in accordance with a
horizontal movement of the camera simulating device,
the horizontal sensor comprising any one of a horizontal
angular acceleration sensor configured to provide the
horizontal movement signal in accordance with a
horizontal acceleration of the apparatus and a horizontal
angular rate sensor configured to provide the horizontal
Appeal 2013-000375
Reexamination Control No. 95/000,493
Patent 7,403,220 B2

3
movement signal in accordance with a horizontal rate of
movement of the apparatus;
a vertical sensor configured to provide a vertical
movement signal in accordance with a vertical movement
of the camera simulating device, the vertical sensor
comprising any one of a vertical angular rate sensor
configured to provide the vertical movement signal in
accordance with a vertical rate of movement of the
apparatus and a vertical angular rate sensor configured to
provide the vertical movement signal in accordance with
a vertical acceleration of the apparatus;
a camera control input device configured to
provide a camera control input device signal in response
to user actions;
a control signal generator configured to generate a
virtual camera control signal based on at least one of a
plurality of signals comprising the vertical movement
signal, the horizontal movement signal, and the camera
control input device signal, the virtual camera control
signal recognizable by the video software application as
at least one of a plurality of commands to change the
view captured by the virtual camera of the virtual
environment.

Requester proposes rejections of the claims over the following prior
art references:
Rallison et al. US 6,369,952 B1 Apr. 9, 2002

Zwern US 2002/0158815 A1 Oct. 31, 2002

Titcomb et al. US 7,038,660 B2 May 2, 2006

Vincent US 7,050,102 B1 May 23, 2006

Appeal 2013-000375
Reexamination Control No. 95/000,493
Patent 7,403,220 B2

4
W. Bradford Paley, Interaction in 3D Graphics: Designing Special Purpose
Input Devices, ACM SIGGRAPH vol. 32, No. 4, November 1998.
(Hereinafter Paley).

Holger Schnadelbach, et al., The Augurscope: A Mixed Reality Interface for
Outdoors, Proceeding CHI 2002, ACM Press Vol. 4, Issue No. 1, April,
2002. (Hereinafter Schnadelbach).

Michael C. Tsang, Boom Chameleon: Simultaneous Capture of 3D
Viewpoint, Voice and Gesture Annotations on a Spacially-Aware Display,
Univ. of Toronto, 2002. (Hereinafter Tsang).

D. Wormell, et al., Advancements in 3D Interactive Devices for Virtual
Environments, The Eurographics Association, Vol. 4, Issue No. 1, May,
2003. (Hereinafter Wormell).

Appellant/Patent Owner appeals the Examiner’s adoption of the
following rejections:
Claims 17-33 and 42-46 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by the
following references:
1. Schnadelbach;
2. Paley;
3. Tsang;
4. Titcomb;
5. Zwern;
6. Wormell; and
7. Rallison.
Claims 17-33 and 42-46 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over the
combination of Paley and Vincent.
Appeal 2013-000375
Reexamination Control No. 95/000,493
Patent 7,403,220 B2

5
ISSUE
Did the Examiner err in adopting Requester’s rejection of claims 17-
33 and 42-46 as obvious over the combination of Paley and Vincent?

ANALYSIS

Requester proposed the rejection of claims 17-33 and 42-46 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over the combination of Paley and Vincent. Req.
for Reexam 44-59. The Examiner adopted Requester’s rejection of these
claims for the same reasons as indicated by Requester. RAN 11-20. Patent
Owner argues that the adoption of the rejection is in error because Paley fails
to teach or suggest “capturing a view within a virtual environment,” as
recited in each of independent claims 17, 24, and 42. App. Br. 25. Patent
Owner disagrees with the Examiner and Requester because Patent Owner
argues that the term “capturing” must be interpreted as “storing” or
“recording” a virtual image. App. Br. 25. Thus, Patent Owner contends
that, since Paley only teaches viewing portions of a computer animation and
not extracting and recording any of the virtual images, Paley does not teach
capturing images. App. Br. 25.
While Patent Owner’s argument revolves around the interpretation of
the claim term “capturing,” we find that whether the term is defined as (1)
only “obtaining” images or (2) as “obtaining and storing or recording”
images is irrelevant for the obviousness rejection over these claims to be
valid. Requester contends (3PR Comments dated Aug. 26, 2010, pg. 24),
and the Examiner agrees (RAN 16-17), that Paley teaches a camera that
captures images that are recorded, processed, edited, and viewed at a later
Appeal 2013-000375
Reexamination Control No. 95/000,493
Patent 7,403,220 B2

6
time. In support of this contention, Requester cites to a portion of Paley that
describes a display of a real-time preview and a device an animator uses to
control animation previews in order to edit them. 3PR Comments dated
Aug. 26, 2010, pg. 24. Requester argues that the views from the display
device are fed into the animation program workplace and stored so that the
images can be edited at a later time. 3PR Comments dated Aug. 26, 2010,
pg. 25. We agree with Requester that one of ordinary skill in the art would
have used these devices together, especially in light of Requester’s
contention that the Paley reference was designed for an animation director.
3PR Comments dated Aug., 26, 2010, pg. 25. Even without all the
foregoing evidence, Requester contends that it was well-known at the time
of the invention for computer animation scenes to be obtained and recorded
for subsequent processing, editing, and viewing. 3PR Comments dated Aug.
26, 2010, pg. 25. Again, we agree since cameras are known devices that are
used to capture and store images.
The Examiner also agrees (RAN 17) with Requester that, in Paley, the
images are inherently stored long enough to generate a preview such that the
images were stored either in “a frame buffer memory, input/output buffer,
cache memory, Random Access Memory (RAM),” etc. 3PR Comments
dated Aug. 26, 2010, pg. 25.1 Therefore, regardless of the definition of
“capturing,” we find that the evidence supports that it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that Paley teaches obtaining
images and storing them in temporary files and/or long term storage.

1 Instead of arguing against Requester’s evidence, Patent Owner provides
arguments directed toward the interpretation of the term “capturing.” App.
Br. 10-15; PO Reb. Br. 2-12.
Appeal 2013-000375
Reexamination Control No. 95/000,493
Patent 7,403,220 B2

7
Patent Owner additionally argues that the Examiner’s adoption of
Requester’s rejection of the claims over Paley and Vincent is in error since
neither Paley nor Vincent teaches movement sensors, as required by each of
the independent claims. App. Br. 28. First, Patent Owner contends that the
Paley declaration submitted by Requester actually admits that the Paley
reference did not include angular rate or acceleration signal generation, even
though the Examiner continues to find that Paley does teach this feature.
App. Br. 28. The evidence in the record does not support Patent Owner’s
contention. Instead, the Examiner finds that the ‘220 patent indicates, at
column 24, lines 41-44, that any sensors known in the art that are used to
measure relative displacement can be used with the invention. RAN 17.
Additionally, the Examiner finds that the ‘220 patent specifically provides
an example where potentiometers are used for this purpose. RAN 17. Thus,
since Paley teaches the use of potentiometers, the Examiner finds, and we
agree, that Paley teaches the movement sensors, as claimed. RAN 17.
Second, Patent Owner contends that Paley’s system cannot measure
the position of the apparatus with respect to its environment and, thus, does
not teach the required movement sensors. App. Br. 29. Requester argues
that Patent Owner is attempting to require a specific definition for movement
sensors that includes sensing the claimed apparatus’s movement with respect
to its environment rather than with respect to its sensor. 3PR Resp. Br. 11.
As noted above, Patent Owner’s Specification does not require this
definition, but rather states that any sensor that measures “relative
displacement in any type of direction” can be used with the invention. 3PR
Resp. Br. 12 (citing ‘220, col. 23, l. 67 – col. 24, l. 1 and col. 24, ll. 41-44).
Appeal 2013-000375
Reexamination Control No. 95/000,493
Patent 7,403,220 B2

8
Thus, again, we find that the evidence supports that Paley teaches the
movement sensors, as claimed.
Third, Patent Owner contends that Paley’s fluid head tilt and pan
angles are not movement sensor signals. App. Br. 29. We find this
argument to be moot as Vincent is used to teach angular rate and
accelerometer sensors. RAN 18. The Examiner finds, and we agree, that
Requester is correct in asserting that Vincent teaches accelerometers and
gyroscopes to determine angular rates and acceleration of a camera device.
RAN 19 (citing Vincent, col. 5, ll. 16-35 and Fig. 2).
Fourth, Patent Owner contends that Vincent cannot be used with
Paley because Vincent is used for real world cameras and not a virtual
environment. App. Br. 30. However, the Examiner agrees with Requester
(RAN 20) that the combination of Vincent’s gyroscopes and accelerometers
with Paley’s camera is nothing more than combining familiar elements
according to known methods in order to yield predictable results. See KSR
International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007). We also agree.
While one reference teaches a system in a virtual environment and the other
teaches a system in a real world setting, we find that one of ordinary skill in
the art would have looked to the other for guidance regarding camera
operation and motion sensing.
For all of the reasons indicated supra, we agree with the Examiner
and Requester. Thus, we find that the Examiner did not err in adopting
Requester’s rejection of claims 17-33 and 42-46 as obvious over the
combination of Paley and Vincent.

Appeal 2013-000375
Reexamination Control No. 95/000,493
Patent 7,403,220 B2

9
Claims 17-33 and 42-46 – Other proposed rejections

Our conclusion that the Examiner did not err in adopting the rejection
of the above-referenced claims as obvious over the combination of Paley and
Vincent renders it unnecessary to reach the propriety of the Examiner’s
decision to adopt the proposed rejections of those claims on a different
basis. Cf. In re Gleave, 560 F.3d 1331, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2009). As such, we
need not reach the propriety of the proposed anticipation rejections of the
claims over Schnadelbach, Paley, Tsang, Titcomb, Zwern, Wormell, or
Rallison.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in adopting Requester’s rejection of claims
17-33 and 42-46 as obvious over the combination of Paley and Vincent.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision to adopt the rejection of claims
17-33 and 42-46 as obvious over the combination of Paley and Vincent.

AFFIRMED

Appeal 2013-000375
Reexamination Control No. 95/000,493
Patent 7,403,220 B2

10

Patent Owner:

T. D. FOSTER
11622 El Camino Real , Suite 100
San Diego, CA 92130

Third Party Requester:

DreamWorks Animation SKG, Inc.
Morrison & Foerster LLP
755 Page Mill Road
Palo Alto, CA 94304-1018

cu