Patrick Neill et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

May 5, 2020

14604563 - (D) (P.T.A.B. May. 5, 2020)

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.
14/604,563 01/23/2015 Patrick NEILL 13-BV-0656US02/334337 4238
158652 7590 05/05/2020
SHOOK, HARDY & BACON LLP
NVIDIA CORPORATION
2555 GRAND BLVD
KANSAS CITY, MO 64108-2613
EXAMINER
DRENNAN, BARRY T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2618
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/05/2020 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):
IPDocket@shb.com
docket.shb@clarivate.com
lcook@shb.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte PATRICK NEILL, ROCHELLE PEREIRA,
VUKASIN MILOVANOVIC, and DAVID COOK

Appeal 2018-005959
Application 14/604,563
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before JUSTIN BUSCH, LINZY T. McCARTNEY,
and NORMAN H. BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judges.

BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Non-Final Rejection of claims 1, 4–14, and 17–21. Claims 2, 3, 15, and 16
are cancelled. We have jurisdiction over the pending rejected claims under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as NVIDIA
Corporation. (Appeal Br. 2.)
Appeal 2018-005959
Application 14/604,563

2
THE INVENTION
Appellant’s disclosed and claimed invention is directed to
stereoscopically presenting visual content. (Abstract.)
Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject
matter on appeal:
1. A method for stereoscopically presenting visual content,
comprising:
identifying and distinguishing between a first type of
content and a second type of content of a frame to be
stereoscopically displayed;
rendering the first type of content in a first left and a first
right frame from a single perspective using a first stereoscopic
rendering method, wherein the first stereoscopic rendering
method is a depth-image based rendering method;
rendering the second type of content in a second left and
a second right frame using a second, different stereoscopic
method from two different perspectives, wherein the second
stereoscopic rendering method is a 3D vision method, wherein
the two different perspectives correspond to replicated draw
calls for left and right eyes; and
merging the first and second left frames and the first and
second right frames to produce a resultant left frame and a
resultant right frame;
displaying the resultant left frame and the resultant right
frame for stereoscopic perception by a viewer.
REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 4, 5, 7, 14, 17, 18, and 20 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Newton et al. (US 2011/0128351
A1, pub. June 2, 2011), Newton et al. (US 2010/0091012 A1, pub. Apr. 15,
2010) (“Newton 2”), and Yamaji et al. (US 2010/0226628 A1, pub. Sept. 9,
2010). (Non-Final Act. 3–19.)
Appeal 2018-005959
Application 14/604,563

3
The Examiner rejected claims 6 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Newton, Newton 2, Yamaji, and Would et al. (US
2006/0086022 A1, pub. Apr. 27, 2006). (Non-Final Act. 19–20.)
The Examiner rejected claims 8 and 10–12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Newton and Yamaji. (Non-Final Act. 20–28.)
The Examiner rejected claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Newton, Yamaji, and Would. (Non-Final Act. 28–29.)
The Examiner rejected claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Newton, Yamaji, and Ming Wan et al., “Interactive
Stereoscopic Rendering Of Volumetric Environments,” IEEE Transactions
on Visualization and Computer Graphics, Vol. 10, No. 1 (2004), 15–28.
(Non-Final Act. 29–31.)
The Examiner rejected claim 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Newton, Newton 2, and Yamaji. (Non-Final Act. 31–34.)
ISSUES ON APPEAL
Appellant’s arguments present the following dispositive issues:2
Issue One: Whether the Examiner erred in finding the combination of
Newton, Newton 2, and Yamaji taught or suggested the subject matter of the
independent claim 1 requirement:
rendering the second type of content in a second left and
a second right frame using a second, different stereoscopic
method from two different perspectives, wherein the second
stereoscopic rendering method is a 30 vision method, wherein

2 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellant and the positions of the
Examiner, we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed Sept. 28, 2017); the Non-Final
Office Action (mailed May 30, 2017); and the Examiner’s Answer (mailed
Feb. 6, 2018) for the respective details.
Appeal 2018-005959
Application 14/604,563

4
the two different perspectives correspond to replicated draw
calls for left and right eyes,
and the commensurate requirement of independent claim 14. (Appeal Br.
12–22.)
Issue Two: Whether the Examiner erred in finding the combination of
Newton and Yamaji taught or suggested the subject matter of the
independent claim 8 requirement:
merging outputs of the depth-image based rendering and
the 3D-vision rendering to produce a left and a right frame,
wherein the left and the right frames are presented in a merged
fashion wherein both types of content are stereoscopically
perceivable by a user.
(Appeal Br. 22–27.)
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s
arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellant’s
arguments, and adopt as our own: (1) the findings and reasons set forth by
the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken (Non-Final Act.
3–34); and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s
Answer in response to Appellant’s Appeal Brief (Ans. 2–14), and concur
with the conclusions reached by the Examiner.
Issue One
In rejecting the limitation of claims 1 and 14 at issue, the Examiner
relies on the disclosure in Newton of the 3D display of subtitles, overlaid on
other 3D content, by adjusting the depth of the subtitles to be as close as
possible to the screen, which the Examiner finds as teaching the requirement
of “rendering the second type of content using a second, different method.”
Appeal 2018-005959
Application 14/604,563

5
(Non-Final Act. 5; Newton Fig. 9, ¶¶ 17–19, 42–44, 60.) The Examiner
reasons that the subtitles are the claimed “second content” (the overlaid
video content being the claimed “first content”), and the fact that the 3D
depth of the subtitles are adjusted to force them towards the front of the
screen satisfies the required “second, different method” (the first method
being the use of unadjusted depth for the remaining 3D content.) (Non-Final
Act. 5; Ans. 3–4.)
The Examiner also relies on the disclosure in Newton 2 of displaying
different 3D content in four different planes by adjusting depth ranges:
A first plane 21 is positioned closest to the viewer, and is
assigned to display interactive graphics. A second plane 22 is
assigned to display presentation graphics like subtitles, a third
plane 23 is assigned to display video, whereas a fourth plane 24
is a background plane.
(Non-Final Act. 7–8; Newton 2, Fig. 2, ¶ 37.)
In addition, the Examiner relies on the disclosure in Yamaji which
renders 3D images in different planes using calls to an application program,
one call specifying writing to the left-view plane memory and the other
specifying writing to the right-view plane memory. (Non-Final Act. 9–10;
Yamaji ¶¶ 15, 84.) The Examiner finds that this teaches the requirement,
“wherein the second stereoscopic rendering method is a 3D vision method,
wherein the two different perspectives correspond to replicated draw calls
for left and right eyes.” (Non-Final Act. 10–11; Ans. 7–8.)
The Examiner further finds:
The artisan of ordinary skill would have been motivated
to combine Yamaji with Newton as modified by Newton_2 at
least because Yamaji is similarly directed to displaying of
subtitles and menus when displaying stereoscopic video.
Appeal 2018-005959
Application 14/604,563

6
Therefore, a person having ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found
it obvious to combine the rendering of subtitle/menu/gui image
frames for both a right and left image perspective, and
compositing the right video frame with the right image frame
and the left video frame with the left image frame to create right
and left composite stereoscopic images that are to be output for
the user to view of Yamaji with the overlaying of
subtitles/menus onto stereoscopic images based on depth of
components of the stereoscopic video of Newton as modified
by Newton_2, to achieve the well-known and expected benefits
of allowing for accurate representations of interactive 3D
components in real-time while maintaining a high frame rate of
the full-screen stereoscopic video.
(Non-Final Act. 12–13.) The Examiner also finds:
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to
combine the references since they all relate to the displaying
and rendering of video and subtitles/graphics on a stereoscopic
display. This combination would achieve the well-known and
expected benefits of allowing for accurate representations of
interactive 3D components in real-time while maintaining a
high frame rate of the full-screen stereoscopic video, as well as
preventing DIBR 3D content from penetrating or occluding
graphics such as subtitles and graphical menus.
(Ans. 11.)
Appellant argues that Newton and Newton 2 only display 3D content
using the claimed “first method” — i.e., the “depth-image based rendering
method” of the claims. (Appeal Br. 14, 16.) On the other hand, argues
Appellant, Yamaji only discloses the standard process in which the left eye
and right eye images are separately generated to achieve a 3D image, and
thus does not teach or suggest a “second, different stereoscopic process,”
“wherein the second stereoscopic rendering method is a 3D vision method,
Appeal 2018-005959
Application 14/604,563

7
wherein the two different perspectives correspond to replicated draw calls
for left and right eyes.” (Appeal Br. 19–20.)
Appellant’s argument is unpersuasive as arguing the references
separately, whereas the Examiner’s rejection is based on the combination of
references. Non-obviousness cannot be established by attacking references
individually where, as here, the ground of unpatentability is based upon the
teachings of a combination of references. In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d
1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Rather, the test for obviousness is whether the
combination of references, taken as a whole, would have suggested the
patentee’s invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art. In re Keller,
642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). Here, the Examiner has combined the
teachings of Newton and Newton 2, which disclose identifying and
distinguishing two types of content and rendering them differently, albeit
using the depth-image based rendering method for both types of content,
with Yamaji, which discloses the specific second type of rendering required
by the claims. Appellant does not rebut the Examiner’s articulation, set
forth above, of why one of ordinary skill would have combined the
references to reach the claimed subject matter, and we are not persuaded the
Examiner erred in so finding.
To the extent that Appellant argues that Yamaji does not disclose a
“second stereoscopic rendering method” that “is a 3D vision method,
wherein the two different perspectives correspond to replicated draw calls
for left and right eyes,” as opposed to some other 3D vision method, we are
unpersuaded. The Examiner explicitly found otherwise, and Appellant
offers only conclusory attorney argument in opposition. In re Geisler, 116
F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“attorney argument [is] not the kind of
Appeal 2018-005959
Application 14/604,563

8
factual evidence that is required to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness”);
Meitzner v. Mindick, 549 F.2d 775, 782 (CCPA 1977) (“Argument of
counsel cannot take the place of evidence lacking in the record.”).
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent
claims 1 and 14.
Issue Two
In rejecting the limitation of claim 8 at issue, the Examiner relies on
the disclosures in Newton and Yamaji described above. (Non-Final Act. 22–
25.) The Examiner finds:
The artisan of ordinary skill would have been motivated
to combine Yamaji with Newton at least because Yamaji is
similarly directed to displaying of subtitles and menus when
displaying stereoscopic video. Therefore, a person having
ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the
claimed invention would have found it obvious to combine the
rendering of subtitle/menu/gui image frames for both a right
and left image perspective, and compositing the right video
frame with the right image frame and the left video frame with
the left image frame to create right and left composite
stereoscopic images that are to be output for the user to view of
Yamaji with the overlaying of subtitles/menus onto
stereoscopic images based on depth of components of the
stereoscopic video of Newton, to achieve the well-known and
expected benefits of allowing for accurate representations of
interactive 3D components in real-time while maintaining a
high frame rate of the full-screen stereoscopic video.
(Non-Final Act. 25–26.)
Appellant’s arguments contesting this rejection are substantially
similar to those it directs to the rejection of claims 1 and 14. (Appeal Br.
22–27.) We find them unpersuasive for the same reasons as discussed
above. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 8.
Appeal 2018-005959
Application 14/604,563

9
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness
rejections of independent claims 1 and 14 over Newton, Newton 2, and
Yamaji, and of independent claim 8 over Newton, and Yamaji. We also
sustain the obviousness rejections of claims 4, 5, 7, 17, 18 and 20 over
Newton, Newton 2, and Yamaji; of claims 6 and 19 over Newton, Newton 2,
Yamaji, and Would; of claims 10–12 over Newton and Yamaji; of claim 9
over Newton, Yamaji, and Would; of claim 13 over Newton, Yamaji, and
Wan; and of claim 21 over Newton, Newton 2, and Yamaji, which rejections
are not argued separately with particularity. (Appeal Br. 27.)
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)
/Basis
Affirmed Reversed
1, 4, 5, 7, 14,
17, 18, 20,
21
103 Newton,
Newton 2,
Yamaji
1, 4, 5, 7, 14,
17, 18, 20,
21

6, 19 103 Newton,
Newton 2,
Yamaji,
Would
6, 19
8, 10–12 103 Newton
Yamaji
8, 10–12
9 103 Newton,
Yamaji,
Would
9
13 103 Newton,
Yamaji, Wan
13
Overall
Outcome
1, 4–14, 17–
21

Appeal 2018-005959
Application 14/604,563

10
TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED