Ex Parte Gay et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 15, 2017

12828859 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 15, 2017)

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.
12/828,859 07/01/2010 Michael F. Gay 8386-0004 7559
63653 7590 09/19/2017
McCormick, Paulding & Huber LLP
Gerald L. DePardo
c/o DISNEY ENTERPRISES, INC.
185 Asylum Street, City Place II
Hartford, CT 06103
EXAMINER
CHIU, WESLEY JASON
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2663
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/19/2017 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):
depardo@ip-lawyers.com
patentdocket @ ip-lawyers .com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MICHAEL F. GAY and ANTHONY BAILEY
Appeal 2015-007319
Application 12/828,8591
Technology Center 2600
Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, LARRY J. HUME, and KAMRAN JIVANI,
Administrative Patent Judges.
JIVANI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner’s final decisions rejecting claims 1—24. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 Appellants identify Disney Enterprises, Inc. as the real party in interest.
App. Br. 2.
Appeal 2015-007319
Application 12/828,8590F
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The present application relates to efficiently overlaying remote and
local video feeds. Spec., 1:5—6.
Claim 1 is illustrative and reproduced below with formatting added:
1. A method, comprising:
receiving a studio video feed, from a studio
video camera, the studio video feed including a
studio subject image;
receiving a remote video feed, from a
remote video camera, the remote video feed
including a remote subject image;
overlaying the remote video feed and the
studio video feed to produce a composite video
signal,
after receiving at least one of the studio
video feed and the remote video feed,
automatically adjusting at least one of the
already received studio video feed and the already
received remote video feed based on dynamic
adjustments being made to the video camera from
which the other video feed is received,
to create an impression that the studio
subject image and the remote subject image
occupy a shared physical space.
The Rejections
Claims 1—3, 6—12, 16—20 and 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) over Ito (US 6,476,874 Bl; Nov. 5, 2002), Kriegman
2
Appeal 2015-007319
Application 12/828,8590F
(US 7,209,181 B2; Apr. 24, 2007), and Malkin (US 6,704,048 Bl;
Mar. 9, 2004).
Claims 4, 5, and 13—15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
Ito, Kriegman, Malkin, and Hoshino (US 7,623,176 B2; Nov. 24, 2009).
Claims 21—23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Ito,
Kriegman, Malkin, and Wang (US 2003/0038892 Al; Feb. 27, 2003).
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed Appellants’ arguments in the Appeal Brief and
Reply Brief, as well as the Examiner’s Answer thereto. We are not
persuaded by Appellants’ arguments for the reasons set forth below, as
discussed in the context of the claims for which they are advanced.
Rejection of Claims 1—3, 6—12, 16—20 and 24
Based on Appellants’ arguments, we select claim 1 as representative.
See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2015).
Appellants contend the Examiner errs in rejecting claim 1 because Ito
fails to teach both the recited “automatically adjusting” step. App. Br. 13—
14. We are not persuaded by this argument because it does not address the
Examiner’s rejection. The Examiner relies on the combination of Ito,
Kriegman and Malkin—not Ito alone—as meeting the recited “automatically
adjusting” step. Final Act. 8—10.
Appellants further contend Ito “teaches away from capturing the main
image data and the background image data simultaneously and automatically
adjusting a feed based on dynamic adjustments to a camera.” App. Br. 14.
We do not agree with Appellants. A reference may be said to teach away
3
Appeal 2015-007319
Application 12/828,8590F
from an invention if it criticizes, discredits, or otherwise discourages
modifying the reference to arrive at the claimed invention. In re Fulton, 391
F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Stated differently, a teaching away from a
proposed modification is one that would have discouraged an ordinarily
skilled artisan from attempting the proposed modification, and caused the
artisan to “be led in a direction divergent from the path that was taken by the
applicant.” In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 990 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (citations
omitted). Appellants do not identify in the record before us any statements
from fto that criticizes, discredits, or otherwise discourages modifying fto
“from capturing the main image data and the background image data
simultaneously and automatically adjusting a feed based on dynamic
adjustments to a camera.” See App. Br. 14. To the contrary, fto teaches
automatically adjusting a feed based on dynamic adjustments to a camera,
fto, 8:15—22 (“That is, for example, when the zooming function of the video
camera 1 is changed while main image data is being produced by imaging
with the video camera 1, background data that is reproduced from the VTR 5
is enlarged or reduced accordingly. When the video camera 1 is turned
rightward, background image data that is reproduced from the VTR 5 may
be modified so as to reflect such a rightward turn.”). Consequently,
Appellants’ fail to persuade us that fto teaches away from the Examiner’s
proposed combination.
Appellants also assert modifying fto to employ a second camera—as
taught by Kriegman—would render fto unsuitable for its intended purpose.
App. Br. 14—17. According to Appellants, “The object of fto is to employ
the same imaging condidions [sic] when merging images captured in the
4
Appeal 2015-007319
Application 12/828,8590F
same physical space at two different times. It would therefore be
nonsensical to modify Ito by using two different cameras simultaneously.”
Id. at 15. Appellants elaborate that modifying Ito to include a second
camera capture video for the main image and the background image
simultaneously because two cameras: “cannot physically be in the same
position at the same time;” “would end up capturing the same image;”
“would not provide completely equal video camera parameters in response
control information;” and, when mounted on different moveable platforms,
“would not provide completely equal position and direction of the video
camera in response to control information.” Id. at 16—17.
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments in this regard. As a
threshold matter, we observe that Ito recites: “an object of the invention is
therefore to provide an image combining apparatus which can combine,
naturally at a low cost, main image data from a video camera with
background image data that has already been obtained by imaging.” Ito,
6:63—67. In light of this passage, we agree with the Examiner that “the
intended purpose of Ito is to combine a subject video and a background
video using a subject video captured under the same imaging conditions of
the background video to produce a natural image.” Ans. 23. Ito’s
description of the imagining conditions it describes replicating from the
recorded video to the live camera to be used “as camera setting information”
include “various parameters such as color temperature correction data, out­
line emphasis data, and gamma correction data, as well as focus data, zoom
data, iris data, etc.” Ito, 6:20—25. This description supports the Examiner’s
finding that “[ajlthough the two cameras would be in two physically
5
Appeal 2015-007319
Application 12/828,8590F
different positions as long as the relative movements of the cameras are the
same (tilt, pan and zoom) during the capture of the main image and the
subject image, a natural image without any sense of incongruity can be
produced since the perspective of the view of the cameras would correspond
to each other.” Ans. 27.
Appellants further contend that modifying Ito according to Malkin
“by removing movable platforms and replacing video cameras with
stationary EPTZ [Electronic Pan/Tilt/Zoom] cameras, as proposed in the
Final Office Action, would leave Ito even further unsuitable for its intended
purpose, since in a stationary EPTZ camera, panning, tilting and zooming
are not completely independent of each other.” App. Br. 20. Appellants
elaborate that replacing a video camera of Ito “and its moving platform
(camera stage) with a stationary EPTZ camera that uses only a fraction of
the pixels in the image sensor in the event of a zoom, would result in an
unsuitable decrease in resolution and image quality, thereby leaving the
system of Ito unsuitable for its intended purpose (a natural combined image
that does not cause a sense of incongruity).” Reply Br. 3.
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments because they are not
responsive to the Examiner’s rejection. The Examiner proposes that “[bjoth
cameras would retain the same resolution relative to each other when
panning, tilting or zooming since the two cameras would pan, tilt or zoom in
the same manner. Therefore, the combined image would have no
incongruity in resolution even if the resolution decreases.” Ans. 31—32.
Appellants do not explain persuasively in the record before us why the
proposed combination would destroy Ito’s stated purpose of providing an
6
Appeal 2015-007319
Application 12/828,8590F
image combining apparatus which can combine, naturally at a low cost,
main image data from a video camera with background image data. Ito,
6:63—67. Rather, Appellants’ arguments reduce to an assertion that Malkin’s
cameras cannot be bodily incorporated into Ito. “The test for obviousness is
not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily
incorporated into the structure of the primary reference .... Rather, the test
is what the combined teachings of those references would have suggested to
those of ordinary skill in the art.” In re Keller, 642 F. 2d 413, 425 (CCPA
1981); accord In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1550 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (“[I]t is not
necessary that the inventions of the references be physically combinable to
render obvious the invention under review.”). Contrary to Appellants’
arguments, the Examiner does not seek to bodily incorporate Malkin’s
cameras into Ito, but instead relies on specific teachings of each reference,
specifically relying on the “electronic pan/tilt/zoom method of Malkin to
achieve the same conditions of shooting as the conditions of the shooting of
the first video feed based on the data from the instrumented video camera.
That is, both the first and second instrumented cameras use electronic pan,
tilt and zoom.” Final Act. 9—10. We note Appellants do not proffer
persuasive evidence that the Examiner’s combination would have been
“uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art.”
Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed.
Cir. 2007).
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection
of claim 1. Appellant advances no further arguments on claims 2, 3, 6—12,
7
Appeal 2015-007319
Application 12/828,8590F
16—20 and 24. App. Br. 21—31. Accordingly, we also sustain the
Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of these claims.
Rejection of Claims 4, 5, and 13—15
Claim 5 recites, in relevant part, “the remote video feed is received via
a high definition serial digital interface signal. . . wherein the high definition
serial digital interface signal is received via at least one of: (i) a fiber cable
or (ii) a satellite transmission.” Appellants contend the portions of Hoshino
cited by the Examiner describe an optical fiber cable as an alternative to a
high definition serial digital interface format. App. Br. 29-30. We disagree.
Hoshino states: “However, the configuration of the meta-data display
system 1 provided by the present invention is not limited to this
embodiment. For example, the imaging apparatus 10 may transmit the video
signal through an HD SDI cable or the like.” Hoshino, 7:4—8 (emphasis
applied).
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection
of claim 5. Appellants advance no further arguments on claims 4 and 13—15.
App. Br. 28—31. Accordingly, we also sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) rejection of these claims.
Rejection of Claims 21—23
Appellants do not present arguments in support of claims 21—23
beyond those addressed above in the context of claim 1. App. Br. 31.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of
these claims for the reasons stated above in the context of claim 1.
8
Appeal 2015-007319
Application 12/828,8590F
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decisions rejecting claims 1—24.
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). See 37
C.F.R. § 41.50(f).
AFFIRMED
9