Ex Parte Newton et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 4, 2018

12442722 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 4, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/442,722 12/22/2009 Philip S. Newton
24737 7590 09/06/2018
PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS
465 Columbus A venue
Suite 340
Valhalla, NY 10595
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.
2006P01678WOUS 3368
EXAMINER
YANG, ANDREW GUS
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2619
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/06/2018 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):
patti. demichele@Philips.com
marianne.fox@philips.com
katelyn.mulroy@philips.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte PHILIP STEVEN NEWTON, HONG LI, and DARWIN HE
Appeal2018-001459
Application 12/442,722
Technology Center 2600
Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, CHRIST AP. ZADO, and
MELISSA A. RAAP ALA, Administrative Patent Judges.
MacDONALD, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL 1
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1, 2, 4--8, and 13-22. Appellants have cancelled claims 3 and 9-12.
July 21, 2017 Advisory Act. 1; Dec. 14, 2016 Amendment 9. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
1 Appellants indicate the real party in interest is Koninklijke Philips N.V.
App. Br. 1.
Appeal2018-001459
Application 12/442,722
Illustrative Claims
Illustrative claims 1, 2, 8, and 21 under appeal read as follows
( emphasis, formatting, and bracketed material added):
1. A method of rendering visual information, the method comprising:
[A.] receiving, at an input unit of a system for rendering three-
dimensional visual information, first image data, the first image
data having a first image depth range, wherein the first image
data comprises at least one of video data, static image data, and
graphics;
[B.] receiving at the input unit second image data, the second image
data having a second image depth range, wherein the second
image data comprises at least one of video data, static image
data, and graphics;
[C.] detecting the first image depth range of the first image data;
[D.] detecting the second image depth range of the second image
data;
[E.] determining a first display depth sub-range and a second display
depth sub-range for a three-dimensional display which has a
display depth range, wherein the first display depth sub-range
and the second display depth sub-range are non-overlapping;
[F.] processing the first image data to adjust the detected first image
depth range into the first display depth sub-range;
[G.] processing the second image data to adjust the detected second
image depth range into the second display depth sub-range; and
[H.] combining the processed first image data with the processed
second image data to produce output data be rendered along the
display depth range in a three dimensional space on the three-
dimensional display.
2
Appeal2018-001459
Application 12/442,722
2. The method of claim 1, wherein at least one of:
(1) adjusting the detected first image depth range into the first
display depth sub-range comprises
compressing the detected first image depth range to fit in
the first display depth sub-range, and
(2) adjusting the detected second image depth range into the
second display depth sub-range comprises
compressing the detected second image depth range to fit
in the second display depth sub-range.
8. The method of claim 2,
wherein the first image data is video data and the second image
data is graphics,
wherein said compressing comprises moving the detected first
image depth range of the video data backwards in the
display depth range to make room for the second display
depth sub-range for the graphics to be displayed to a
viewer in front of the video data without any overlap of
depth between the displayed graphics and the displayed
video data.
21. The apparatus of claim 16,
[ ( 1)] wherein the first image data comprises
[a.] a series of two-dimensional images and
[b.] a series of corresponding depth maps for each
two-dimensional image, and
[ (2)] wherein the processor unit is configured to detect the first
image depth range from the depth data for the series of
two-dimensional images.
3
Appeal2018-001459
Application 12/442,722
Re} ections2
A.
The Examiner rejects claims 1, 2, 4, 7, 13, 14, 16, 17, and 22 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Holliman
(WO 2005/060271 Al; pub. June 30, 2005 and Nomura (US 2004/0066555
Al; pub. Apr. 8, 2004). Final Act. 3-10.
Appellants present arguments for claim 1. Appellants argue claims 16
and 22 by reference to the arguments for claim 1. App. Br. 10-13.
Appellants do not argue separate patentability for claims 2, 4, 7, 13, 14, 16,
17, and 22. Except for our ultimate decision, we do not address claims 2, 4,
7, 13, 14, 16, 17, and 22 further herein.
B.
The Examiner rejects claims 8, 15, and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
being unpatentable over the combination of Holliman, Nomura, and Blu-Ray
Disc Association ("Blu-Ray Disc Application Definition Blu-Ray Disc
Format"). Final Act. 15-1 7.
Appellants present arguments for claim 8. Appellants argue claim 18
by reference to the arguments for claim 8. The rejection of claim 18 turns
on our decision as to claim 8. Appellants do not present arguments for claim
15. Thus, the rejection of claim 15 turns on our decision as to claim 1.
Except for our ultimate decision, we do not discuss the § 103 rejection of
claims 15 and 18 further herein.
2 The Examiner has withdrawn the§ 101 rejection of claim 22. Ans. 2.
4
Appeal2018-001459
Application 12/442,722
C.
The Examiner rejects claim 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Holliman, Nomura, and Kanade et al.
(US 6,084,979; iss. July 4, 2000). Final Act. 19-20.
Appellants present arguments for claim 21.
D.
The Examiner rejects claims 5, 6, 19, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over the combination of Holliman and Nomura in
various combinations with other references. Final Act. 12-14, 18-19.
Appellants do not present arguments for claims 5, 6, 19, and 20.
Thus, the rejections of these claims tum on our decision as to claim 1.
Except for our ultimate decision, we do not discuss the § 103 rejections of
claims 5, 6, 19, and 20 further herein.
Issues on Appeal
Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 1, 8, and 21 as being
obvious?
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants'
arguments (Appeal Brief and Reply Brief) that the Examiner has erred.
5
Appeal2018-001459
Application 12/442,722
A.
Appellants raise the following argument in contending that the
Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Holliman does not disclose determining a first display depth
subrange and a second display depth sub-range for a three-
dimensional display which has a display depth range.
App. Br. 7 ( emphasis omitted).
The Examiner presents the following response to Appellants' above
argument.
[T]his argument amounts to a general allegation that the claims
define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out
how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them
from the references. Holliman discloses a 3-D display device
(bottom of page 20 to top of page 21) for displaying the scene,
comprising different regions. These regions correspond to the
different display sub-ranges, as stated on page 4 of the latest
Final Rejection.
Ans. 2.
We agree with the Examiner's response. In particular, we agree that
Appellants' merely pointing out certain claim features recited in claim 1 and
asserting the cited prior art references does not teach or suggest such a
feature does not amount to a separate patentability argument. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 4I.37(c)(l)(iv). Moreover, contrary to Appellants' argument that the cited
pages of Holliman does not mention any regions (Reply Br. 3), Holliman
describes near and further regions of interest of an image. See Holliman,
20-21. We agree with the Examiner's findings that Hollman teaches the
disputed limitation. See Final Act. 4 ( citing Holliman, 9); Ans. 2.
6
Appeal2018-001459
Application 12/442,722
B.
Appellants also raise the following arguments in contending that the
Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a).
In the FINAL Office Action, the Examiner marks-up FIG.
4A of Nomura to artificially designate a first image depth range
and a second image depth range, and marks up FIG. 4A of
Nomura to artificially designate a first display depth sub-range
and a second display depth sub-range for a three-dimensional
display. Here, these mark-ups are described as artificial because
they are arbitrarily chosen by the Examiner and are not
mentioned by Nomura, or even suggested by Nomura to exist,
thus these regions cannot be detected by Nomura.
Specifically, Applicants respectfully submit that Nomura
does not disclose detecting any such depth sub-ranges of any first
and second images. Instead the Examiner has created his own
"ranges" in the virtual space of FIG. 4A by arbitrarily drawing
horizontal lines across the top view of the virtual space. Nomura
does not even describe the areas which the Examiner has defined
by the lines which he has drawn as even corresponding to any
first and second images. The first and second images in Nomura
are instead the images produced by the first camera CL and the
second camera CR.
Furthermore, Nomura does not disclose determining a first
display depth subrange and a second display depth sub-range for
a three-dimensional display which has a display depth range.
Instead the Examiner has created his own "ranges" in the
compressed virtual space of FIG. 48 by arbitrarily drawing
horizontal lines across the top view of the compressed virtual
space.
App. Br. 7-8 (emphasis added).
First, we disagree with Appellants' argument that the Examiner has
created his own depth ranges. Figure 4B of Nomura shows object 1 in the
"stereoscopic viewable range 4" (i-f 23), and Nomura states "objects 2 and 3
7
Appeal2018-001459
Application 12/442,722
are outside the range 4" (i-f 72: 1-2), i.e., are at "a range in which stereoscopic
vision is not possible" (i-f 24). Further, Nomura "scales all objects to
compress the coordinate in the direction of the depth of the stereoscopic
viewable range" (i-f 72:4--5). Based on this, we conclude an artisan would
understand Nomura's objects to have depth ranges.
Second, we disagree with Appellants' argument that Nomura does not
disclose detecting depth sub-ranges. Nomura at Figures 4A--4C is directed
to a special "case" (i-f 71:3) "when the object 1 is the viewpoint OP, the
object 1 placed in a virtual space, with the objects 2 and 3 arranged
respectively on the front and back of the object 1" (i-f 71 :3---6), and where
Nomura then "scales all objects to compress the coordinate in the direction
of the depth of the stereoscopic viewable range" (i-f 72:4--5). Also, Nomura
states that "coordinate data of the objects 2 and 3 is obtained from the
reference camera" (i-f 64). We conclude Nomura provides at least a
suggestion that positions ( depth ranges) of objects 2 and 3 must be
determined ( detected) before the scaling is performed.
Third, we disagree with Appellants' argument that the Examiner's
reasoning is arbitrary (i.e., unsupported). To the contrary, we conclude the
Examiner's reasoning is well supported by the references as discussed
above. The Examiner is not prohibited from drawing additional lines to
assist in explaining his reasoning.
C.
Appellants raise the following argument in contending that the
Examiner erred in rejecting claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
At the outset, the cited Blu-Ray Disc Specification does
not even address or mention any three dimensional displays,
8
Appeal2018-001459
Application 12/442,722
depths, image depth ranges, or display depth sub-ranges. The
cited text at page 32, paragraph 4 of the Blu-Ray Disc
Specification ... is not discussing image depth ranges for a three
dimensional display, but instead is discussing how different
types of image data can be overlaid on top of each other for a
two-dimensional display - for example overlaying image data
for an executing Java applet over top of the video (not in front
of, within a viewable depth range) of a television or movie
program produce "a single image" which displays both sets of
data on a two-dimensional display. This is akin to how picture-
in-picture mode displays a secondary picture over top of (not in
front of, within a viewable depth range) a main picture on a two-
dimensional display.
So no combination of the teachings of Holliman, Nomura
and the Blu-Ray Disc Specification would produce a method
which includes moving the detected first image depth range of
the video data backwards in the display depth range to make
room for the second display depth sub-range for the graphics to
be displayed to a viewer in front of the video data without any
overlap of depth between the displayed graphics and the
displayed video data, as featured in the method of claim 8.
App. Br. 9-10.
The Examiner presents the following response to Appellants' above
arguments.
Holliman and Nomura disclose the image depth ranges for a
three-dimensional display. Blu-Ray Disc Specification discloses
video can be scaled behind the BD-J graphics, i.e., video can be
moved behind graphics. Therefore, in combination, Holliman,
Nomura, and Blu-Ray Disc Specification disclose the claimed
invention of "moving the detected image depth range of the video
data backwards ... " as cited in claim 8.
Ans. 4 ( emphasis added).
As articulated by the Federal Circuit, the Examiner's burden of
proving non-patentability is by a preponderance of the evidence. See In re
9
Appeal2018-001459
Application 12/442,722
Caveney, 761 F.2d 671, 674 (Fed. Cir. 1985) ("preponderance of the
evidence is the standard that must be met by the PTO in making rejections").
"A rejection based on section 103 clearly must rest on a factual basis[.]" In
re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017 (CCPA 1967). "The Patent Office has the
initial duty of supplying the factual basis for its rejection. It may not ...
resort to speculation, unfounded assumptions or hindsight reconstruction to
supply deficiencies in its factual basis." Id.
We conclude, the Examiner has sufficiently shown "moving the
detected image depth range of the video data backwards" to be obvious.
However, claim 8 additionally requires the moving backwards "to make
room ... without any overlap of depth." Consistent with Appellants'
arguments, we conclude there is insufficient articulated reasoning to support
the Examiner's finding as to this additional requirement. Therefore, we
conclude that there is insufficient articulated reasoning to support the
Examiner's final conclusion that claim 8 would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art at the time of Appellants' invention.
D.
Appellants raise the following argument in contending that the
Examiner erred in rejecting claim 21 under 3 5 U.S. C. § 1 0 3 (a).
The Examiner argues that Kanade discloses [the subject
matter of claim 21] in FIG. 7 and col. 8, lines 8-19.
Applicants respectfully disagree. Applicants respectfully
submit that Kanade discloses in FIG. 7 and col. 8, lines 8-19 the
creation of a depth map from images of a scene produced by five
different cameras. In contrast, in claim 21 the first image data
which is received by the apparatus already includes a depth map,
and the apparatus detects a first image depth range for a first
10
Appeal2018-001459
Application 12/442,722
image from the depth data for the series of two-dimensional
images. Applicants submit that Kanade does not disclose this.
App. Br. 11-12 (emphasis omitted).
We are unpersuaded by Appellants' argument. Claim 21 ( reproduced
above) sets forth, (1) "a series of two-dimensional images and a series of
corresponding depth maps for each two-dimensional image" and that
(2) "the processor unit is configured to detect the first image depth range
from the depth data for the series of two-dimensional images." We agree
with the Examiner's reading of Kanade, column 8, lines 8-19, to suggest
both, as Kanade states ( 1) "The depth map has seventy-four levels for a
depth range of two meters to five meters." And (2) "The depth map is
stored in a manner such that it is stored in association with the image
information, e.g., intensity map, for the image from which the depth
information was extracted." (Emphasis added).
CONCLUSIONS
(1) The Examiner has not erred in rejecting claims 1, 2, 4--7, 13-17,
and 19-22 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
(2) Appellants have established that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claims 8 and 18 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
(3) Claims 1, 2, 4--7, 13-17, and 19-22 are not patentable.
( 4) On this record, claims 8 and 18 have not been shown to be
unpatentable.
11
Appeal2018-001459
Application 12/442,722
DECISION
The Examiner's rejections of claims 1, 2, 4--7, 13-17, and 19-22 are
affirmed.
The Examiner's rejection of claims 8 and 18 as being unpatentable
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) 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 )(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
12