Ex Parte Purvis et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 30, 2016

12914476 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 30, 2016)

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.
12/914,476 10/28/2010 Christopher James Purvis 10DIS109PRUSUTL
820.044
5867
77755 7590 07/01/2016
DISNEY ENTERPRISES, INC.
c/o Ference & Associates LLC
409 Broad Street
Pittsburgh, PA 15143
EXAMINER
WALKER, JARED T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2486
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/01/2016 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 CHRISTOPHER JAMES PURVIS,
JOSHUA B. GORIN, and CLIFF WONG1
Appeal 2014-005932
Application 12/914,476
Technology Center 2400
Before DEBRA K. STEPHENS, JASON V. MORGAN, and
MICHAEL J. ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judges.
MORGAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Introduction
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s Final
Rejection of claims 1—20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
Invention
Appellants disclose a system that is configured for combining video
data and position tracking data to record a group guest experience or show
and automatically provide custom media products. Abstract.
1 Appellants identify Disney Enterprises, Incorporated, a wholly owned
subsidiary of The Walt Disney Company, as the real party in interest. Br. 3.
Appeal 2014-005932
Application 12/914,476
Exemplary Claims
Claims 1, 5, and 9, reproduced below with key limitations
emphasized, are representative:
1. A method for generating a custom media product comprising:
receiving tracking data derived from a position tracking
system, the tracking data corresponding to locations of a plurality
of guests within a predefined area;
receiving video data derived from one or more cameras
placed at one or more predetermined positions about the
predefined area;
correlating one or more locations of the plurality ofguests
within the predefined area with one or more areas of one or more
frames of video data;
sub-sampling the one or more areas of the one or more
frames of video data; and
generating a custom media product for a guest of the
plurality of guests including the one or more areas sub-sampled
from the one or more frames of video data.
5. The method according to claim 1, wherein the custom media
product further comprises stock media content combined with
one or more areas sub-sampled that include the guest, the stock
media content being arranged with the one or more areas sub­
sampled that include the guest according to a script to generate
the custom media product for the guest.
9. The method according to claim 8, further comprising utilizing
video data from the array of cameras to produce a virtual
cinematography effect for the custom media product.
Rejections
The Examiner rejects claims 1—8, 10-18, and 20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Wagg (US 2009/0059007 Al; publ. Mar. 5,
2009). Final Act. 5-10.
2
Appeal 2014-005932
Application 12/914,476
The Examiner rejects claims 9 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Wagg and Ahiska (US 2010/0002070 Al; publ. Jan.
7,2010). Final Act. 10-11.
ISSUES
1. Did the Examiner err in finding Wagg discloses: (1) “receiving
tracking data derived from a position tracking system”; (2) “correlating one
or more locations of the plurality of guests”; and (3) “generating a custom
media product for a guest of the plurality of guests,” as recited in claim 1?
2. Did the Examiner err in finding Wagg discloses “wherein the
custom media product further comprises stock media content. . . , the stock
media content being arranged with the one or more areas sub-sampled that
include the guest according to a script. . . ,” as recited in claim 5?
3. Did the Examiner err in concluding that it would have been
obvious to an artisan of ordinary skill to combine the teachings and
suggestions of Wagg and Ahiska in the manner recited in claim 9?
ANALYSIS
We agree with and adopt as our own the Examiner’s findings of facts
and conclusions as set forth in the Answer and in the Action from which this
appeal was taken. We have considered Appellants’ arguments, but do not
find them persuasive of error. We provide the following explanation for
emphasis.
Claims 1—4, 8, 10 14, 17, 18, and 20
In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner find’s Wagg’s tracking of objects
on a plane by processing captured video images discloses receiving tracking
3
Appeal 2014-005932
Application 12/914,476
data derived from a position tracking system. Final Act. 5 (citing Wagg
17).
Appellants contend the Examiner erred because “there is no separate
teaching of a position tracking system (or any use thereof) in Wagg.” Br.
12. Rather, Appellants argue, the Examiner admits that Wagg does not
receive tracking data derived from a position tracking system and receive
video data derived from one or more cameras (Br. 11) “by stating ‘tracking
data is obtained by the method of tracking objects (guests) by the video
camera system’ and [by] citing to paragraph 7 of Wagg” (Br. 12).
Appellants’ argument is not commensurate with the scope of the
claimed invention, and is thus unpersuasive. In particular, the claimed
position tracking system, given a reasonably broad interpretation in light of
the Specification, encompasses tracking using video image data. The
Specification explicitly notes that “a tracking system can include . . .
environmental sensors such as visual. . . sensors.” Spec. 122. Appellants
argue the “specification indicates that the tracking data is not reliant on the
video data.” Br. 13 (citing Spec. 123). However, this lack of reliance is not
claimed, nor does the Specification explicitly define a tracking system as not
being reliant on video data. Thus, Appellants do not persuasively
distinguish the claimed position tracking system from Wagg’s system for
tracking objects on a plane within one of more video images of objects on a
plane captured by a video camera. Wagg 17. Therefore, we agree with the
Examiner Wagg discloses “receiving tracking data derived from a position
tracking system,” as recited in claim 1.
4
Appeal 2014-005932
Application 12/914,476
The Examiner further finds Wagg’s derivation of x-y coordinates of a
player with respect to time discloses correlating one or more locations of the
plurality of guests, as recited in claim 1. Final Act. 6 (citing Wagg 1 64).
Appellants contend the Examiner erred because Wagg is “directed to
tracking objects (players during a game) for the purpose of identifying the
objects (players).” Br. 12 (citing Wagg, Abstract); see also Br. 14 (“the
Office’s apparent assumption that ‘objects’ may be equated to [Appellants’]
claimed ‘plurality of guests’ [is] not supported by the facts”). However, we
agree with the Examiner that a reasonably broad interpretation, in light of
the Specification, of a plurality of guests encompasses Wagg’s objects (e.g.,
players). Ans. 13. Appellants have not persuasively distinguished the
claimed plurality of guests from Wagg’s players. Nor have Appellants
distinguished the claimed correlating of one or more locations from Wagg’s
x-y coordinates for players. Therefore, we agree with the Examiner that
Wagg discloses “correlating one or more locations of the plurality of
guests,” as recited in claim 1.
The Examiner also finds Wagg’s generation of path data for each
player discloses “generating a custom media product for a guest of the
plurality of guests,” as recited in claim 1. Final Act. 6 (citing Wagg Tfl[ 50,
57).
Appellants contend the Examiner erred because Wagg tracks players
rather than guests. Br. 12, 14. However, as discussed above, Appellants do
not persuasively distinguish the claimed plurality of guests from Wagg’s
players.
Appellants further argue Wagg’s “‘path data’ (i.e., lines) are simply
included into a three dimensional model according to Wagg [and
5
Appeal 2014-005932
Application 12/914,476
Appellants] respectfully submit that these teachings are not relevant to
[Appellants’] claimed limitation of ‘generating a custom media product for a
guest. . . Br. 14—15. However, Appellants’ conclusory assertion fails to
persuasively distinguish the claimed custom media product from Wagg’s
path data. For example, paragraph 50 of Wagg discusses Figure 3B, which
illustrates a “3D model of the football pitch . . . augmented with lines to . . .
[each] graphic indication of the position of the players [such as 230.1
through 240.1] to reflect the relative direction of motion of the players.”
Wagg also discloses the 3D model can be depicted in a “2D image view.”
Wagg 151. Wagg similarly discloses tracking “position with respect to
time.” Id. 1 57. Appellants have not sufficiently explained how a 3D model
or 2D image view depicting player direction or path over time would not
constitute a “custom media product.” Therefore, we agree with the
Examiner that Wagg discloses “generating a custom media product for a
guest of the plurality of guests,” as recited in claim 1.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) of claim
1, and claims 2-4, 8, 10-14, 17, 18, and 20, which Appellants do not argue
separately.
Claims 5—7, 15, and 16
In rejecting claim 5, the Examiner finds Wagg’s augmenting of a
three-dimensional model with lines positioned relative to a graphic
indication of the players to reflect the relative direction of motion of the
players discloses “wherein the custom media product further comprises
stock media content. . ., the stock media content being arranged with the
one or more areas sub-sampled that include the guest according to a script.”
Final Act. 7—8 (citing Wagg Fig. 3B, | 50).
6
Appeal 2014-005932
Application 12/914,476
Appellants “respectfully disagree that a line 230.1 (specifically
referred to as being included in a three dimensional model) may be equated
with ‘stock media content’. [Appellants] furthermore respectfully disagree
that the content... is arranged according to a script. . . .” Br. 16. However,
the Examiner correctly finds that “the line is used to customize the media
and enhance the experience of the viewer.” Ans. 15; see also Wagg Fig. 3B,
1 50 (“the 3D model. . . can be augmented with lines . . . [2]30.1,. . .
[2]32.1 . . . [and], 240.1 which are positioned relative to the graphic
indication of the position of the players”). In particular, the Examiner
correctly finds “[t]his process is scripted and performed automatically
(without user intervention) therefore it is arranged according to a script.”
Ans. 15; see also Wagg 1 50 (“step S60 includes a process in which the
motion of the player being tracked is also included”). The Examiner further
finds that because “[t]his script is set to perform the same editing of the
media content[,] therefore[,] it can be referred to as stock.” Ans. 15.
Appellants do not present arguments or evidence that persuasively
distinguish the claimed stock media content from Wagg’s three-dimensional
model augmentation lines. Nor do Appellants persuasively rebut the
Examiner’s finding that the automation of Wagg’s line positioning means
that the lines are arranged according to a script. Therefore, we agree with
the Examiner that Wagg discloses “wherein the custom media product
further comprises stock media content. . . , the stock media content being
arranged with the one or more areas sub-sampled that include the guest
according to a script. . .,” as recited in claim 5.
7
Appeal 2014-005932
Application 12/914,476
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection
of claim 5, and claims 6, 7, 15, and 16, which Appellants do not argue
separately.
Claims 9 and 19
In rejecting claim 9, the Examiner relies on Ahiska’s virtual camera
mechanical pan emulation to teach or suggest utilizing video data from the
array of cameras to produce a virtual cinematography effect for the custom
media product. Final Act. 11 (citing Ahiska 1123).
Appellants contend the Examiner erred because:
the inclusion of “emulating a mechanical pan motion in each
virtual camera”, i.e., more than one camera, as allegedly taught
in Ahiska would render Wagg unfit for its stated purpose
inasmuch as Wagg states that “Furthermore, it is desirable to use
a single camera to capture the video footage of the match
so as to enable virtual zooming and panning without physically
moving the camera. ...”
App. Br. 16—17 (citing Wagg 5—6).
Appellants’ arguments are unpersuasive because, as the Examiner
correctly notes, Wagg also allows for multiple cameras. Ans. 16 (citing
Wagg 131). Specifically, Wagg teaches that “[a] 1 though, embodiments of
the present invention can be used to track objects in video images from more
than one camera, in some examples only a single camera is used.” Wagg
131 (emphases added). Because Wagg allows for multiple cameras to be
used, the Examiner’s proffered combination of the teachings and suggestions
of Wagg and Ahiska would not have rendered Wagg unfit for its stated
purpose. Therefore, we agree with the Examiner that it would have been
obvious to an artisan of ordinary skill to combine the teachings and
suggestions of Wagg and Ahiska in the manner recited in claim 9.
8
Appeal 2014-005932
Application 12/914,476
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection
of claim 9, and claim 19, which Appellants do not argue separately. Br. 17.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—20.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.50(f).
AFFIRMED
9