Ex Parte Katz et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 28, 201612879482 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 28, 2016) Copy Citation 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. 12/879,482 09/10/2010 Sheldon Katz 40189/02102(11-DIS-073) 7065 94470 7590 09/29/2016 DISNEY ENTERPRISES, INC. c/o Fay Kaplun & Marcin, LLP 150 Broadway Suite 702 New York, NY 10038 EXAMINER HUANG, FRANK F ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2485 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/29/2016 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 SHELDON KATZ, GREGORY HOUSE and HOWARD KENNEDY ____________ Appeal 2015-008190 Application 12/879,482 Technology Center 2400 ____________ Before KRISTEN L. DROESCH, JENNIFER L. McKEOWN, and JAMES W. DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judges. McKEOWN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–30, 32, and 33. Claim 31 is withdrawn. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants’ invention relates “to virtual insertions into 3D video.” Spec. ¶ 2. More specifically, the invention uses “[v]irtual camera models enabl[ing] insertions to be reconciled relative to left and right channels of the 3D video to maximize 3D accuracy and realism of the insertions.” Abstract. Appeal 2015-008190 Application 12/879,482 2 Claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed invention and reads as follows: 1. A method comprising: detemining a first camera data parameter of a first camera model based on at least a first channel of a 3D video; determining a second camera data parameter of a second camera model based on at least a relationship between the first channel of the 3D video and a second channel of the 3D video; generating a composite camera model by reconciling the first camera data parameter of the first camera model and the second camera data parameter of the second camera model; and inserting an enhancement into the 3D video based on the composite camera model. THE REJECTION The Examiner rejected claims 1–30, 32, and 33 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Kanbara et al., A Stereoscopic Video See- through Augmented Reality System Based on Real-time Vision-based Registration, IEEE, 2000, and Hoffmann (US 2008/0144924A1, published June 19, 2008). Final Act. 4–13.1 ANALYSIS Claims 1–30, 32, and 33 Based on the record before us, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1–30, 32, and 33 as unpatentable over Kanbara and Hoffmann. 1 Throughout this opinion, we also refer to (1) the Final Action, mailed Sept. 5, 2014 (“Final Act.”); (2) the Appeal Brief filed February 5, 2015 (“App. Br.”); (3) the Examiner’s Answer mailed July 8, 2015 (“Ans.”); and (4) the Reply Brief filed Sept. 8, 2015 (“Reply Br.”). Appeal 2015-008190 Application 12/879,482 3 Appellants contend the Examiner erred in finding Hoffmann teaches the generation of a composite camera model. App. Br. 4–8. Specifically, Appellants allege “[b]ecause Hoffman[n] does not disclose the construction of a first camera model and a second camera model, Hoffman[n] does not disclose or suggest the claim 1 recitation of ‘generating a composite camera model’ by reconciling the data parameters of these camera models.” App. Br. 4. This argument, however, fails to consider the combination of Hoffmann with Kanbara. As the Examiner explains, “Kanbara [] teaches the detail of the camera model, and Hoffman[n] [] teaches the detail of the reconciling the parameters of the existing camera through the detail of how the camera are calibrated.” Ans. 16; see also Ans. 18 (“noting that Hoffman[n] and Kanbara disclose updating the camera model of left/right camera with the information from a calibration of left and right camera based on the object tracking.”). As such, Appellants’ argument solely addressing Hoffmann, without considering the teachings of Kanbara, is unpersuasive. One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Appellants additionally argue “Hoffman[n] does not disclose or suggest the ‘first camera data parameter of the first camera model and the second camera data parameter of the second camera model,’ as recited in claim 1.” App. Br. 8. More specifically, Appellants allege “the pitch and roll angles of Hoffman[n] [,which the Examiner identifies as the first and Appeal 2015-008190 Application 12/879,482 4 second camera data parameters,] are separate components used for calibrating a stereo camera system and determining the distance of a recorded object, but these angles are not reconciled to create the yaw angle. (See id., ¶¶ 20, 24, 66–70, 87–91).” App. Br. 9; see also Reply Br. 3–4. We find this argument unpersuasive. Specifically, the Examiner identifies Hoffman uses “a rectangular camera coordinate system for specifying the location and the position of the single-image cameras 16, 18, in particular of the optical axes of the single-image cameras 16, 18, with respect to one another,” with each of the pitch and roll angles representing a rotation along the X-axis and the Z-axis, respectively. Ans. 20 (citing Hoffman Fig. 2, ¶¶ 62, 67)(emphasis added). The Examiner explains that Hoffmann reconciles each of the pitch and roll angles by updating the preset values. Ans. 20–21; see also Hoffmann ¶¶ 85–86 (explaining that a comparison of image correspondence between single-image cameras 16, 18 is used to update the present pitch and roll angle values). Then, as the Examiner points out, the preset pitch and roll values are used “in the subsequent evaluation of further recorded images, in particular in the distance measurement with the aid of the of the recorded image pairs; i.e. yaw angle determined by object tracking; i.e. correct preset yaw angle.” Ans. 21. In other words, the reconciled pitch and roll angle values are used to determine the yaw angle and, thus, Hoffmann, in view of Kanbara, satisfies the recited generating a composite camera model by reconciling limitation. We are not persuaded of error in these findings. Finally, Appellants allege that it would not have been obvious to combine Kanbara and Hoffmann because the proposed combination would change the principle of operation of Kanbara. App. Br. 10–12. In particular, Appeal 2015-008190 Application 12/879,482 5 Appellants contend that “Kanbara requires the creation of a matrix representing the relationship between the real and virtual environments,” whereas “Hoffman[n] discloses a method for determining a calibration parameter of two cameras within a stereo camera in the real world.” App. Br. 11 (citing Kanbara p. 257 and Hoffmann ¶¶ 13, 13). According to Appellants, Hoffmann’s real-world camera calibration would “change the operating principle of the Kanbara augmented reality method, because Kanbara requires the calculation of the relationships between real-world and virtual images for constructing a projection matrix.” App. Br. 12. We disagree. As the Examiner explains, Hoffmann is directed to a calibration method to correct parameters between camera models and Kanbara describes calibrating the stereo cameras in advance by using standard techniques. Ans. 22. Specifically, “[o]nly with the calibrated camera from Hoffman, can Kanbara apply the correct model to generate the augmented reality system.” Id. As such, we are not persuaded Kanbara’s combination with Hoffmann would change the principle operation of Kanbara. Accordingly, for the reasons discussed above and by the Examiner, we sustain the rejection of claims 1–30, 32, and 33 as unpatentable over Kanbara and Hoffmann. DECISION We affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–30, 32, and 33. 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). Appeal 2015-008190 Application 12/879,482 6 AFFIRMED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation