Ex Parte Suzuki

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 29, 2016

13045806 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 29, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/045,806 03/11/2011
27562 7590 07/01/2016
NIXON & V ANDERHYE, P,C
901 NORTH GLEBE ROAD, 11 TH FLOOR
ARLINGTON, VA 22203
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Toshiaki SUZUKI
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.
MEN-723-3027 3641
EXAMINER
HARRISON, CHANTE E
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2619
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/01/2016 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):
PTOMAIL@nixonvan.com
pair_nixon@firsttofile.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte TOSHIAKI SUZUKI
Appeal2014-009840
Application 13/045,806
Technology Center 2600
Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, JOHN D. HAMANN, and
STACY B. MARGOLIES, Administrative Patent Judges.
NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final
Rejection of claims 1, 2, 4 through 11, 20, 22, and 25 through 30. Claim 3
has been withdrawn from consideration; claims 12 through 19, 21, 23, and
24 are indicated as allowable. Answer 12, 15.
We reverse.
Appeal2014-009840
Application 13/045,806
fNVENTION
Appellant's invention relates to a method which uses a predetermined
area of an image captured by a real camera as a texture to be placed in a
virtual world image, the object placed in the virtual world is presented as
viewed from a virtual camera. See Abstract. Claim 1 is illustrative of the
invention and reproduced below:
1. A computer-readable storage medium having stored
thereon an image processing program to be executed by a
computer of an image processing apparatus that displays an
image on a display device, the image processing program
causing the computer to function as:
captured image acquisition unit acquiring a captured
image captured by a real camera;
virtual world image generation unit, using as a texture of
an object to be placed in a virtual world an image included in a
predetermined area in the captured image acquired by the
captured image acquisition unit, generating a virtual world
image in which the object placed in the virtual world is viewed
from a virtual camera, wherein the virtual world image
generation changes a direction of viewing from the virtual
camera the texture of the object to be placed in the virtual world
in accordance with a direction of the virtual camera relative to
the object;
image combination unit combining the captured image
acquired by the captured image acquisition unit with the virtual
world image; and
display control unit for displaying the image combined
by the image combination unit on the display device.
2
Appeal2014-009840
Application 13/045,806
REJECTION AT ISSUE
The Examiner has rejected claims 1, 2, 4 through 11, 20, 22, and 25
through 30 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Block et al. (US
2011/0183732 Al; July 28, 2011). Answer 3-12. 1
ANALYSIS
Appellant has presented several arguments directed to the rejection of
independent claims 1, 28, 29, and 30. Appeal Br. 7-12. The dispositive
issue presented by these arguments is whether the Examiner erred in finding
Block teaches changing a direction of viewing from the virtual camera the
texture of the object placed in the virtual world in accordance with a
direction of the virtual camera relative to the object, as recited in each of
independent claims 1, 28, 29, and 30.
Appellant argues that in Block's system the direction of the real world
image as a texture inserted into the virtual world does not change as claimed.
Appeal Br. 10 (citing Fig. 1 ). In response, the Examiner finds Block
teaches:
to maintain the status of an object such as a patron that is
recorded with a real camera (Fig. 1) and display the patron
correctly with its virtual object, such as an avatar (Para 78),
overlaid on the real object, the system of Block determines the
position of the real camera and generates the virtual objects using
the determined location information . . . . Therefore, Block
discloses changing a direction of viewing from the virtual
camera, the texture of the object to be placed in the virtual world
1 Throughout this Decision we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed April 18,
2014) ("Appeal Br."), Reply Brief (filed September 15, 2014) ("Reply Br."),
and the Examiner's Answer (mailed July 14, 2014) ("Answer").
3
Appeal2014-009840
Application 13/045,806
in accordance with a direction of the virtual camera relative to
the object.
Answer 13 (citing Block i-fi-162, 79, 80).
We have reviewed the cited teachings of Block, and do not find
sufficient evidence to support the finding that the direction of the texture of
the object placed in the virtual world is changed in accordance with a
direction of the virtual camera, as claimed. Accordingly, we do not sustain
the Examiner's anticipation rejection of claims 1, 2, 4 through 11, 20, 22,
and 25 through 30.
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1, 2, 4 through 11, 20,
22, and 25 through 30 is reversed. 2
REVERSED
2 We have decided the appeal before us. However, should there be further
prosecution of claims 1 through 2 and 4 through 27, which recite a computer
readable storage medium, the Examiner's attention is directed to In re
Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1356-57 (Fed. Cir. 2007) and the Director's Memo
on Subject Matter Eligibility of Computer Readable Media dated January 26,
2010.
4