Ex Parte Baurmann et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 27, 2016

12251755 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 27, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/251,755 10/15/2008 Travis Baurmann
36738 7590 06/29/2016
ROGITZ & AS SOCIA TES
750B STREET
SUITE 3120
SAN DIEGO, CA 92101
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.
200802117.01 6172
EXAMINER
PATEL, PARTHKUMAR
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2468
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/29/2016 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):
Noelle@rogitz.com
eofficeaction@appcoll.com
J ohn@rogitz.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte TRAVIS BAURMANN,
THOMAS PATRICK DAWSON,
STEVEN FRIEDLANDER,
and SETH HILL
Appeal2015-000122
Application 12/251,755
Technology Center 2400
Before BRUCE R. WINSOR, CARLL. SILVERMAN, and
SCOTT E. BAil...J, Administrative Patent Judges.
WINSOR, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection
of claims 1---6, 8-14, 16, and 17, which constitute all the claims pending in
this application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). Claims 7 and
15 are cancelled. (Response to Office Action 4--5 (June 14, 2013).)
We affirm-in-part.
1 The real parties in interest identified by Appellants are Sony Corp. and
Sony Electronics, Inc. (App. Br. 2.)
Appeal2015-000122
Application 12/251,755
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants' disclosed invention "relates generally to augmenting TV
menu elements with reflections of images in front of the TV." (Spec. 1.)
Independent claims 6 and 11, which are illustrative, read as follows:
6. Method comprising:
imaging space in front of a TV using a camera; and
superimposing a computer-generated reflection of
the space on menu elements presented on the TV, wherein as the
camera captures a person moving in front of the TV, the
reflection superimposed on the menu elements is of the person
and as the person moves the reflections correspondingly move,
wherein subsets of an image of the person are applied to the menu
elements based on relative positions of the menu elements such
that portions of the reflection of the person are spread across the
menu elements such that as the person walks in front of the TV,
a reflection of the person moves across the menu elements, the
subsets of the image being confined to respective boundaries
defined by respective menu elements.
11. System comprising:
a TV including a TV display;
a camera positioned to generate an image of space
in front of the display; and
a processor associated with the TV for presenting at
least one graphical user interface element on the TV selectable
by a user to input a signal to the processor, a representation of
the image being displayed on the element, wherein the
representation is a specular reflection of the image.
Claims 1-5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)2 as being
unpatentable over Saito (WO 2007/029393 Al, publ. Mar. 15, 2007;
2 The rejections are under the provisions of 35 U.S.C. as they stood prior to
the effective date of the America Invents Act.
2
Appeal2015-000122
Application 12/251,755
corresponding to JP 2007/072564 A, publ. Mar. 22, 2007)3, Ohba (US
6,771,277 B2, iss. Aug. 3, 2004), and Ciudad et al. (US 8,085,318 B2, iss.
Dec. 27, 2011 (filed Oct. 11, 2005)) (hereinafter "Ciudad"). (See Final Act.
4--7.)
Claims 6, 8-14, 16, and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Saito, Ohba, and Nichols et al. (US 2006/0098085
Al, publ. May 11, 2006) (hereinafter "Nichols"). (See Final Act. 7-12.)
Rather than repeat the arguments here, we refer to the Briefs ("App.
Br." filed May 7, 2014; "Reply Br." filed Sept. 18, 2014) and the
Specification ("Spec." filed Oct. 15, 2008, amended Aug. 20, 2009) for the
positions of Appellants and the Final Office Action ("Final Act." mailed
Mar. 14, 2014) and Examiner's Answer ("Ans." mailed Aug. 7, 2014) for
the reasoning, findings, and conclusions of the Examiner. Only those
arguments actually made by Appellants have been considered in this
decision. Arguments that Appellants did not make in the Briefs have not
been considered and are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2013).
ISSUES
The issues presented by Appellants' arguments are as follows:
Whether the Examiner errs in finding the combination of Saito, Ohba,
and Nichols teaches or suggests "the subsets of the image being confined to
3 References herein to the text of Saito are to a machine translation of the JP
'564 publication prepared November 8, 2012, comprising 13 pages,
appearing in the record on appeal.
3
Appeal2015-000122
Application 12/251,755
respective boundaries defined by respective menu elements," as recited in
claim 6.
Whether the Examiner errs in finding the combination of Saito, Ohba,
and Nichols teaches or suggests "the representation [of the image being
displayed on the element] is a specular reflection of the image," as recited in
claim 11.
ANALYSIS
Claims 1-5
Claims 1-5 are pending and rejected. (Final Act. 1.) "An appeal,
when taken, is presumed to be taken from the rejection of all claims under
rejection unless cancelled by an amendment filed by the applicant and
entered by the Office." 37 C.F.R. § 41.3 l(c). Appellants present no
arguments alleging error in the rejection of claims 1-5. (See App. Br. 3--4;
Reply Br. 1-2.) Accordingly, such arguments are waived, and we
summarily sustain the rejection of claims 1-5. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
Claim 6
The Examiner finds Nichols teaches "the subsets of the image being
confined to respective boundaries defined by respective menu elements," as
recited in claim 6. (Final Act. 9 (citing Nichols Abstract, i-fi-123, 34, Figs. 1,
7 A---C); see also Ans. 2-3 (additionally citing Nichols i-fi-f 17, 33, Figs. 4A-
C).) Appellants contend as follows:
Nichols discusses superimposing images onto a desktop
background but nowhere states that the images are superimposed
on menu elements, as opposed to the general desktop
environment, much less that the images are confined to the
4
Appeal2015-000122
Application 12/251,755
boundaries as claimed. In fact, look at figure 7C, showing the
overlay [-] the images 126 of the secondary teleconference
participants are not overlaid onto any file 156 or application icon
158 in the desktop, and the image 122 of the primary
teleconference participant extends beyond the boundary of the
files 156, the opposite of what Claim 6 requires.
(App. Br. 3--4; see also Reply Br. 1-2.) We agree with Appellants for the
reasons stated by Appellants.
Appellants persuade us of error in the rejection of claim 6.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 6 and claims 8-10,
which depend from claim 6.
Claim 11
The Examiner finds that Saito teaches that "the representation [of the
image being displayed on the element] is a specular reflection[4J of the
image," as recited in claim 11. (Final Act. 10 (citing Saito i-fi-f 14, 21, 70);
see also Ans. 3.) Appellants contend as follows:
Saito nowhere states or suggests that its images be refl,ections of
images, but only the actual images themselves. Paragraph 70, as
best understood from . . . the machine translation, appears to
state that an image is a "mirror of the user", which is neither a
mirror [n]or "a specular reflection" of "the image" as claimed
[in claim 11].
(Reply Br. 2.) We agree with the Examiner.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have understood Saito' s
multiple references to "mirror plane" and "mirror plane video" (Saito i-fi-1 7,
9, 10, 20, 44, 46, 67, 70, claims 1, 11, 12; see id. at Fig. 11) to teach
generating a representation of the image that is a reflection of the image,
4 A pertinent definition of "specular reflection" is: "Optics. [R]eflection
from a smooth surface. Also MIRROR REFLECTION, REGULAR REFLECTION."
ACADEMIC PRESS DICTIONARY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 2050 (1992).
5
Appeal2015-000122
Application 12/251,755
such as that produced by a mirror, i.e., a "specular reflection" of the image
generated by Saito's camera 45 (Saito Fig. 1).
For emphasis only, we note that, cumulatively with Saito, Ohba
teaches creating a mirror representation of an image generated by a camera.
(See Ohba Figs. 1, 3.)
Appellants do not persuade us of error in the rejection of claim 11.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 11 and claims 12-14, 16 and
17, which depend from claim 11 and were not separately argued with
particularity.
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-5 is summarily
affirmed.
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 11-14, 16, and 17 is
affirmed.
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 6 and 8-10 is reversed.
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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
6