Ex Parte Seshadri et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 10, 2016

12982377 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 10, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/982,377 12/30/2010
68365 7590 08/12/2016
FIALA & WEA VER P.L.L.C.
C/O CPA GLOBAL
900 2nd A venue South, Suite 600
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Nambirajan Seshadri
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.
AOS.01440000 8256
EXAMINER
BAILEY, FREDERICK D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2483
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/12/2016 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):
DOCKETING@CPAGLOBAL.COM
docketing@fwiplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte NAMBIRAJAN SESHADRI,
JEYHAN KARAOGUZ, and JAMES D. BENNETT
Appeal2015-001976
Application 12/982,377
Technology Center 2400
Before JOHNNY A. KUMAR, NATHAN A. ENGELS, and
CARLL. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
ENGELS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection
of claims 1-3, 5-11, 13-15, 17, 18, and23-27. Claims 4, 12, 16, and 19-22
are canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Appeal2015-001976
Application 12/982,377
ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
Claim 1, reproduced below with emphasis added, is illustrative of the
claimed subject matter:
1. A method supporting a viewer of a three-dimensional
visual presentation within a premises, the viewer having a first
orientation within the premises, the method comprising:
identifying at least one positional characteristic relating to
the first orientation of the viewer within the premises;
delivering a video output, tailored based at least in part on
the at least one positional characteristic, for the three-
dimensional visual presentation to the viewer in the first
orientation; and
delivering an audio output, tailored based at least in part
on the at least one positional characteristic, to audibly
supplement the video output for the viewer in the first
orientation, the tailoring of the audio output based at least in part
on image data captured within the premises, the image data
indicating the at least one positional characteristic.
THE REJECTIONS
Claims 1-3, 5-11, 13-15, 17, 18, and 23-27 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable in view of various combinations of Vogel
(US 2007/0096125 Al; May 3, 2007), Yamada (US 5,959,597; Sept. 28,
1999), Kikinis (US 2009/0238378 Al; Sept. 24, 2009), Swift (US
2004/0036763 Al; Feb. 26, 2004), Kasahara (US 6,697,687 Bl; Feb. 24,
2004), and Hiramatsu (US 2008/0192112 Al; Aug. 14, 2008).
Claim 24 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as claiming non-
statutory subject matter.
2
Appeal2015-001976
Application 12/982,377
ANALYSIS
Appellants contend the cited combination of references fails to teach
or suggest the "the tailoring of the audio output based at least in part on
image data captured within the premises, the image data indicating the at
least one positional characteristic" as required by claim 1. Specifically,
Appellants argue the Examiner erred in relying on Kikinis for the disputed
limitation because ( 1) Kikinis determines the position of the sound sources
solely by using audio data, not image data, and (2) the positions of sound
sources in Kikinis are only determined during the recording of video
content, not during the playback of video content. App. Br. 7-11.
We find Appellants' arguments unpersuasive and agree with the
Examiner that Kikinis teaches tailoring audio output based on image data
captured within the premises as claimed. See Ans. 3-5. As the Examiner
finds, Kikinis teaches that in an "immersive interactive virtual reality
environment, the correct sound position changes following a participant's
movements in both direction and location for interactions." Kikinis i-f 10.
Further, Kikinis teaches calibrating sound locations with an immersive video
system (see Kikinis i-fi-116, 64) to produce "enhanced immersive audio and
videos, with which participants can enjoy [a] true interactive, immersive
audio-visual virtual reality experience" (Kikinis i-f 64).
We are unpersuaded by Appellants' arguments that Kikinis describes
actors, as opposed to participants, wearing motion sensors during certain
recording processes (see, e.g., Kikinis i-f 91 ), because, as Appellants
acknowledge, Kikinis additionally teaches participants wearing such sensors
"during playback" (App. Br. 10). We are also unpersuaded by Appellants'
argument that Kikinis describes motion sensors to monitor participants' head
3
Appeal2015-001976
Application 12/982,377
position and movement rather than using captured "image data."
Appellants' Specification describes the claimed captured images to include
infrared images or other types of images outside of the human visible
spectrum. Spec. i-fi-1 65 (stationary location support circuitry "may capture
images of the viewing environment (perhaps even in infrared spectrum and
with a lesser resolution camera) to support identification of viewer 1-6 and
gathering the viewer's associated location, eye/ear orientation or some other
reference"); 106 ("images of a resolution or frequency range that is beyond
the rods/cones capability of the human eye").
Although this disclosure is not limiting of the claimed invention, it
provides context for interpretation of the disputed limitations. The Examiner
has identified the relevant portions of Kikinis and has provided sufficient
explanation with corresponding citations to various parts of the reference for
disclosing the disputed limitations. Ans. 3-5.
Accordingly, having considered the Examiner's rejection of claim 1 in
view of each of Appellants' arguments and the evidence of record, we are
unpersuaded of error and sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1, as well
as claims 2-3, 5-11, 13-15, 17, 18, and 23-27 for which Appellants do not
advance independent arguments (see App. Br. 12-15). We agree with and
adopt as our own the Examiner's findings and conclusions consistent with
the above.
Additionally, Appellants do not rebut or address the Examiner's
rejection of claim 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-
statutory subject matter. Final Act. 2-3. Accordingly, we affirm this
rejection proforma.
4
Appeal2015-001976
Application 12/982,377
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's rejections of claims 1-3, 5-11, 13-15, 17,
18, and 23-27 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). We affirm the Examiner's
rejection of claim 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended. 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
5