Ex Parte Suzuki et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 31, 2017

13875436 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 31, 2017)

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.
13/875,436 05/02/2013 Toshiaki SUZUKI N033 - 0008US 6443
124675 7590
Lee & Hayes PLLC
601 W Riverside Avenue
Suite 1400
Spokane, WA 99201
EXAMINER
BEUTEL, WILLIAM A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2616
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/02/2017 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):
lhpto@leehayes.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte TOSHIAKI SUZUKI and RORY JOHNSON
Appeal 2017-006364
Application 13/875,43 61
Technology Center 2600
Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, LARRY J. HUME, and
JOYCE CRAIG, Administrative Patent Judges.
CRAIG, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Non-Final Rejection of claims 1, 2, 4—17, and 19—22, which constitute all of
the claims pending in this application.2 We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 According to Appellants, Nintendo Co., Ltd. is the real party in interest.
App. Br. 3.
2 Claims 3 and 18 are canceled. App. Br. 6.
Appeal 2017-006364
Application 13/875,436
INVENTION
Appellants’ claimed invention relates to “a display control system, a
display control apparatus, a storage medium having stored therein a display
control program, and a display control method which change a line-of-sight
direction and display an image of a three-dimensional space.” Spec. 11.
Claim 1 is illustrative of the appealed subject matter and reads as
follows (emphasis and formatting added):
1. An apparatus, comprising:
a processor;
a display device; and
a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium
having instructions stored thereupon which, when executed by
the processor, cause the apparatus to:
display, on the display device, a panoramic image
in a field-of-view range determined on the basis of a line-of-sight
direction of a virtual camera,
display an object on the panoramic image on the
basis of the line-of-sight direction of the virtual camera,
wherein
the object is displayed in a plurality of control
modes for arranging the object, the plurality of control
modes comprising
a first control mode in which the object is
arranged on or at a reference distance from a
reference plane corresponding to a ground in the
panoramic image regardless of change of the line-
of-sight direction of the virtual camera, and
a second control mode in which the object is
arranged in the panoramic image at a distance from
the reference plane that is greater than the reference
distance, and
2
Appeal 2017-006364
Application 13/875,436
switch between the first control mode and the
second control mode in accordance with an extent
to which the line-ofisight direction of the virtual
camera is directed to the reference plane in the
panoramic image.
REJECTIONS
1. Claims 1, 2, 4—14, 16, 17, 19 and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as unpatentable over the combination of Chau (US 2008/0292213 Al;
published Nov. 27,2008), Bing Maps Streetside Innovations,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pgPkmzjCFMO, last accessed May 5,
2015 (“Bing”) and MCARDLE et al. (US 2012/0086728 Al; published April
12, 2012) (“McArdle”). App. Br. 2.
2. Claim 15 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over the combination of Chau, Bing, McArdle and Kawahara et al. (US
2008/0092110 Al; published April 17, 2008) (“Kawahara”). App. Br. 27.
3. Claims 21 and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over the combination of Chau, Bing, McArdle, and Google
Street View Tutorial, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uDGQEBisw-
c, last accessed January 27, 2016 (“Google”). App. Br. 28.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
contentions that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants’
contentions. Except as noted below, we adopt as our own: (1) the findings
and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is
taken and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner's
Answer in response to Appellants’ Appeal Brief. We concur with the
3
Appeal 2017-006364
Application 13/875,436
conclusions reached by the Examiner. We highlight the following additional
points.
Appellants contend McArdle does not teach the limitation “switch
between the first control mode and the second control mode in accordance
with an extent to which the line-of-sight direction of the virtual camera is
directed to the reference plane in the panoramic image, ” recited in claim 1.
App. Br. 17. Specifically, Appellants contend McArdle does not teach
switching between “control modes” regarding the placement of an object
displayed on a panoramic image, a “virtual camera,” or a “reference plane”
in a “panoramic image.” Id.
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments because Appellants
argue the references separately. Nonobviousness cannot be established by
attacking the references individually when the rejection is predicated upon a
combination of prior art disclosures. In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091,
1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Appellants argue that “neither Bing nor Chau nor
McArdle teach or suggest” the disputed limitation. App. Br. 18. The test for
obviousness, however, is not whether the claimed invention is expressly
suggested in any one or all of the references, but whether the claimed subject
matter would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art in light
of the combined teachings of those references. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413,
425 (CCPA 1981).
Here, the Examiner found the known technique for changing display
modes based on a virtual direction as provided by McArdle, combined with
the first and second viewing display modes for a virtual camera viewport for
a panoramic image with virtual direction objects as provided by Chau and
Bing, teaches or suggests the disputed limitation. Ans. 37—38.
4
Appeal 2017-006364
Application 13/875,436
In particular, the Examiner relied on Chau, not McArdle, as teaching a
“virtual camera,” and a “reference plane” in a “panoramic image.” Non-
Final Act. 3 (citing Chau, Figs. 1, 7A—7B, pars. 32—33, 12, 42, 25, 23); Ans.
32—34. The Examiner relied on the combination of Chau and Bing as
teaching a first control mode and a second control mode for an object
displayed on a panoramic image based on the line-of-sight direction of a
virtual camera. Ans. 35. The Examiner further relied on McArdle as
teaching the switch between a first control mode and a second control mode.
Id. at 36.
Because Appellants’ arguments have not persuasively addressed the
combined teachings and suggestions of the cited references, we are not
persuaded the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Chau, Bing and
McArdle teaches or suggests the disputed limitations recited in claim 1.
Appellants also argue the references cannot be properly combined
because the combination would change the principle of operation of Bing
and Chau. App. Br. 18. In particular, Appellants argue, if McArdle were
combined with Chau and Bing to arrive at the claimed invention, the arrow
described by Chau would have to move relative to the street and would not
always be displayed in the same plane relative to the street as Chau requires.
Id. Appellants further argue, if McArdle were combined with Chau and
Bing, the position indicator described by Bing would need to be stationary at
least some of the time and, therefore, would not always move when the
viewport into the virtual environment moves as required by Bing. Id.
However, after reviewing the record, we are not persuaded the
Examiner erred. It is well settled that “a determination of obviousness based
on teachings from multiple references does not require an actual, physical
5
Appeal 2017-006364
Application 13/875,436
substitution of elements.” In reMouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1332 (Fed. Cir.
2012) (citations omitted). Nor is the test for obviousness whether a
secondary reference's features can be bodily incorporated into the structure
of the primary reference. See Keller, 642 F.2d at 425. The Supreme Court
has held that “analysis need not seek out precise teachings directed to the
specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can take account
of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art
would employ.” KSR Inti Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007).
Consistent with this guidance, the Examiner concluded it would have
been obvious to an artisan of ordinary skill to
modify the mapping system of Chau for displaying an indicator
on a street reference level and the additional perspective of
having the indicator always in view as provided by Bing, with
change of image display modes based on line-of-sight taught by
Mcardle and also using stored computer instructions as
provided by Mcardle, using known electronic interfacing and
programming techniques. The modification uses two known
projection conditions for indicators combined with changing
conditions based on line-of-sight, to yield predictable results of
switching between the indicator positions when the line-of-sight
indicates a change in image conditions for viewing.
Furthermore, the modification provides an improved user
interface by changing the displayed information based on the
line of sight to provide a more interactive viewing experience
and providing the user with more useful information based on
the user's perspective. In addition, the modification provides an
improved system by allowing for direction of a general
computer using stored instructions rather than transient
instructions that would waste time and resources to load and/or
write every single time the program executes.
Non-Final Act 6—7.
The Examiner has articulated (Non-Final Act. 3—7; see also Ans. 32—
40) how the claimed features are taught or suggested by the references’
6
Appeal 2017-006364
Application 13/875,436
teachings with some rational underpinning to combine Chau's and Bing’s
teachings with those of McArdle. Non-Final Act. 6—7; seeKSR 550 U.S.
at 418. Appellants have not presented persuasive evidence that combining
Chau and Bing with McArdle would have been “uniquely challenging or
difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art” or “represented an unobvious
step over the prior art.” Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485
F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing KSR, 550 U.S. at 418-19).
On this record, Appellants have not presented sufficient persuasive
argument or objective evidence to rebut the Examiner's findings or persuade
us of error in the Examiner's ultimate legal conclusion of obviousness.
Accordingly, we sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of
representative independent claim 1, as well as grouped independent
claims 2, 19 and 20, for which Appellants present arguments similar to those
made in claim 1. App. Br. 19—22, Reply Br. 4—5. We also sustain the
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejections of grouped dependent claims 4—17, 21 and 22,
for which Appellants make no separate, substantive arguments for
patentability. See App. Br. 23; see also 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1,2, 4—17, and
19-22.
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). See
37 C.F.R. §41.50(f).
AFFIRMED
7