Ex Parte Egerton

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 27, 2018

14297418 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 27, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
14/297,418 06/05/2014 Jamie Egerton
23410 7590 07/27/2018
Vista IP Law Group LLP
100 Spectrum Center Drive
Suite 900
IRVINE, CA 92618
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.
ACTV-002.101 3037
EXAMINER
LHYMN, SARAH
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2613
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/27/2018 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 JAMIE EGERTON
Appeal2018-005062
Application 14/297 ,418
Technology Center 2600
Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, ALLEN R. MAcDONALD, and
JOHN P. PINKERTON, Administrative Patent Judges.
SAADAT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Non-Final Rejection of claims 1-27. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Activision Publishing,
Inc. App. Br. 2.
Appeal2018-005062
Application 14/297 ,418
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant's invention relates to acquiring facial motion data.
Spec. 1 :4--5. Exemplary claim 1 under appeal reads as follows:
1. A method of acquiring facial motion data comprising:
a) displaying on an electronic display an image of a
person with a first facial expression, for a first time period
having a first start time and a first end time;
b) outputting a first timing cue during the first time
period, the first timing cue including a timing cue representing
the first start time and a timing cue representing the first end
time;
c) displaying on the electronic display an image of the
person with a second facial expression, for a second time period
having a second start time and a second end time;
d) outputting a second timing cue during the second time
period, the second timing cue including a timing cue
representing the second start time and a timing cue representing
the second end time;
e) displaying on the electronic display an image of the
person with the first facial expression, for a third time period
having a third start time and a third end time;
f) outputting a third timing cue during the third time
period, the third timing cue including a timing cue representing
the third start time and a timing cue representing the third end
time;
g) displaying on the electronic display an image of the
person with the second facial expression, for a fourth time
period having a fourth start time and a fourth end time;
h) outputting a fourth timing cue during the fourth time
period, the fourth timing cue including a timing cue
representing the fourth start time and a timing cue representing
the fourth end time;
i) acquiring a first set of facial expression data
comprising facial expressions of an actor mimicking the facial
2
Appeal2018-005062
Application 14/297 ,418
expressions of the person on the display during the
corresponding time periods;
j) associating the acquired facial expressions of the actor
with facial expression data corresponding to facial expressions
of the person on the display during the corresponding time
periods, based at least in part on the timing cues;
k) creating a data file comprising the first set of facial
expression data, including associations of the acquired facial
expressions of the actor with facial expression data
corresponding to facial expressions of the person on the display
during the corresponding time periods, said data file being
configured for use by a facial control system to drive facial
expressions of a character; and
wherein the method of acquiring facial motion data
proceeds continuously without user intervention.
REFERENCES and REJECTION
Claims 1-27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Rosenberg (US 2008/0165195 Al; published July 10, 2008)
("Rosenberg"), Barker et al. (US 2012/0041759 Al; published Feb. 16,
2012) ("Barker"), Menache (US 2004/0179013 Al; published Sept. 16,
2004), Weise et al. (US 2013/0147788 Al; published June 13, 2013)
("Weise"), and Giefing et al. (US 5,864,363; issued Jan. 26, 1999)
("Giefing"). See Non-Final Act. 3-33.
PRINCIPLES OF LAW
The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a
secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the
structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed
invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the
references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of
3
Appeal2018-005062
Application 14/297 ,418
the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill
in the art.
In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413,425 (CCPA 1981) (citations omitted). Indeed,
the Supreme Court made clear that when considering obviousness, "the
analysis need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject
matter of the challenged claim, for a court can take account of the inferences
and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ."
KSR Int 'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007).
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellant's
arguments in the Appeal Brief and Reply Brief that the Examiner has erred.
We are unpersuaded by Appellant's contentions and concur with the
findings and conclusions reached by the Examiner as explained below.
Independent Claims 1 and 22
Appellant contends the combination of cited references fails to teach
or suggest a method of acquiring facial motion data in which the steps of
displaying images of desired posed facial expressions, outputting respective
timing cues, and acquiring images of facial expressions of an actor are
performed "continuously without user intervention," as recited in
independent claim 1, and similarly recited in independent claim 22. See
App. Br. 8-9. More specifically, Appellant contends it would not have been
obvious to modify Rosenberg in view of Barker, Menache, Weise, and
Giefing to continuously, and without user intervention, perform the steps of
displaying images of desired posed facial expressions, outputting respective
timing cues, and acquiring images of facial expressions of an actor for two
4
Appeal2018-005062
Application 14/297 ,418
reasons. See App. Br. 10-11. First, according to Appellant, the combination
of Rosenberg, Barker, Menache, and Weise is explicitly limited to a system
which requires user input to proceed through a sequence of facial poses and
obtaining images, which does not proceed continuously without interruption,
but, instead, requires user activated triggers to proceed through the sequence.
See App. Br. 11-13; see also Reply Br. 3. Second, according to Appellant,
Giefing's mere disclosure of taking a single photo automatically does not
teach or suggest modifying Rosenberg to continuously and automatically
proceed through a process of displaying a sequence of images of desired
posed facial expressions, outputting respective timing cues, and acquiring
images of facial expressions of an actor. See App. Br. 13-15; see also Reply
Br. 2--4.
Appellant's contention is not persuasive. Consistent with the
Examiner's findings, we are persuaded the cited references disclose the
following: (1) Rosenberg teaches an automated method of capturing facial
images of a user including prompting a user to make facial poses and
capturing still images of the user depicting the facial poses; (2) Barker
teaches presenting visual and audio cues to assist in synchronization of
recorded audio dialog with displayed lip movement; (3) Menache teaches
capturing facial images of an actor performing facial poses including
repeating a default pose on a periodic basis and using the captured data to
animate a character having facial features; ( 4) Weise teaches a method of
animating a digital character according to facial expressions of a user
including determining expression parameters for a series of frames which
depict the user's face at different points in time and determining animation
parameters which animate a digital character to mimic the user's facial
5
Appeal2018-005062
Application 14/297 ,418
features; and ( 5) Giefing teaches a method of automatically capturing an
image of a person's face. See Non-Final Act. 4--10 (citing Rosenberg ,r,r 22,
55; Barker ,r,r 35, 43, 55; Menache ,r,r 45, 47; Weise ,r,r 6, 7, 46;
Giefing 2: 17---60). In light of these teachings, we agree with the Examiner
that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, at the
time the claimed invention was made, to combine the teachings of
Rosenberg, Barker, Menache, Weise, and Giefing, so that the facial motion
data acquisition steps taught in Rosenberg, Barker, Menache, and Weise are
performed continuously without user intervention as taught by Giefing. See
Non-Final Act. 10; see also Ans. 5. Such a combination would merely be a
combination of familiar elements according to known methods yielding no
more than predictable results. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 416.
Appellant's argument that Giefing merely teaches automating a single
step of the claimed process without user intervention (i.e., automating
capturing a single image of an actor mimicking a single facial expression
without user invention) (see App. Br. 13-15; see also Reply Br. 2--4) is not
persuasive because Giefing teaches that the entire image acquisition method
(including processing the image to identify a face and person from the
captured image) is performed automatically without user intervention. See,
e.g., Giefing 5:3-22. Further, Appellant fails to identify a definition, in
either claims 1 and 22 or Appellant's Specification, that distinguishes
"wherein the method of acquiring facial motion data proceeds continuously"
without user invention, as recited in the aforementioned claims, that
distinguishes the aforementioned element from the combined teachings of
the cited references. See, e.g., Spec. 13:22-23 ("A facial expression data
6
Appeal2018-005062
Application 14/297 ,418
capture session may proceed continuously by, e.g., playing the entire video
deck with no interruptions").
Thus, we agree with the Examiner that the combination of cited
references teaches or suggests all the elements of claims 1 and 22.
Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claims 1 and 22 under
35 U.S.C. § 103.
Remaining Claims
No separate arguments are presented for the remaining dependent
claims. See App. Br. 7-15. We, therefore, sustain their rejections for the
reasons stated with respect to independent claims 1 and 22.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-27 under
35 U.S.C. § 103.
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
7