Philip Mcnally et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 31, 2020

13802671 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jan. 31, 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.
13/802,671 03/13/2013 Philip MCNALLY 15266000-120101 3017
150005 7590 01/31/2020
DENTONS US LLP - San Francisco
P.O. Box 061080
Wacker Drive Station, Willis Tower
Chicago, IL 60606
EXAMINER
ZHOU, ZHIHAN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2482
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/31/2020 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):
dentons_PAIR@firsttofile.com
patent.docket@dentons.com
patents.us@dentons.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte PHILIP McNALLY and MATTHEW LOW
Appeal 2018-003042
Application 13/802,671
Technology Center 2400
Before JEREMY J. CURCURI, BARBARA A. BENOIT, and
PHILLIP A. BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.
BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–7, 10–16, and 19–25. Claims 8, 9,
17, 18, 26, and 27 have been withdrawn. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “Applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as
DreamWorks Animation LLC. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2018-003042
Application 13/802,671

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
In 3D animation, the illusion of depth perception is provided by using
stereoscopic filming techniques which simulate human binocular vision and
present slightly different viewpoints to a viewer’s right and left eyes.
Spec. ¶ 3. This illusion of depth perception makes computer-generated
objects appear to extend outward from a two-dimensional screen. Id. One
problem commonly faced by 3D animators is the problem of visual paradox.
A visual paradox occurs when an object that protrudes from the screen plane
is cutoff by the edge of the screen so as to appear simultaneously both in
front of and behind the screen. Id. ¶ 6. Appellant’s claims are directed to
address problems related to visual paradox by inserting an opaque window
object at the edge of the screen which is positioned between the computer-
generated object and the viewer. Spec. ¶¶ 8–11. Because the window object
appears in front of the computer-generated object, the computer-generated
object is no longer cutoff by the screen behind the computer-generated
object. Spec. ¶¶ 37–38. Instead, the visual paradox is resolved by masking
or clipping the computer-generated object with the window object which
appears to the viewer to be in front of, and not behind, the computer-
generated object. Spec. ¶¶ 41–42.
Claim 1, reproduced below with the key limitation in italics, is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A computer-implemented method for placing a window
object within a computer-generated scene, the computer-
generated scene including a pair of stereoscopic cameras adapted
to capture an image of at least one computer-generated object
and the window object, the method comprising:
obtaining a left portion and right portion of the image
along the left and right edges of the image;
Appeal 2018-003042
Application 13/802,671

3
identifying the nearest computer-generated object to the
pair of stereoscopic cameras within the left and right portions of
the image;
placing the window object between the identified
computer-generated object and the stereoscopic cameras at an
offset distance from the identified computer-generated object;
and
storing, in a computer memory, the location of the window
object.
Appeal Br. 36 (Claims Appendix).
REFERENCES
Name Reference Date
Montgomery US 6,512,892 B1 Jan. 28, 2003
Redmann US 2013/0010093 A1 Jan. 10, 2013
Ronfard et al., “Image and Geometry Processing for 3-D
Cinematography,” Geometry and Computer, Vol. 5, ISBN 978-3-
642-12391-7, 2010 (“Ronfard”)
Autodesk, Stereoscopic Filmmaking Whitepaper (2008)
(“Autodesk”)
1080p, Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, downloaded from Internet
Wayback Machine, October 8, 2010 (“Wiki-1080p”)
REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 10, 11, 15, 16, 19, 20, 24, and 25 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Redmann and Ronfard.
Final Act. 2–6.
Claims 2, 11, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Redmann, Ronfard, and Montgomery. Final Act. 6–7.
Claims 3, 12, and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Redmann, Ronfard, and Autodesk. Final Act. 7.
Appeal 2018-003042
Application 13/802,671

4
Claims 4, 5, 13, 14, 22, and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Redmann, Ronfard, and Wiki-1080p.
Final Act. 7–8.
ISSUE
Has the Examiner erred in finding Redmann and Ronfard teach or
suggest “identifying the nearest computer-generated object to the pair of
stereoscopic cameras within the left and right portions of the image,” as
recited in claim 1?
ANALYSIS
The Examiner rejects claim 1 as being obvious over Redmann and
Ronfard. Relevant here, the Examiner relies primarily on Redmann as
teaching “identifying the nearest computer-generated object to the pair of
stereoscopic cameras within the left and right portions of the image.” Final
Act. 3 (citing Redmann ¶¶ 62, 68, 80, and 81), 4 (citing Ronfard § 4.1).
With respect to Redmann, the Examiner explains:
Redmann discloses scenarios for identifying the nearest
computer-generated object to a viewer first on a left side and then
on a right side. The claim language does not explicitly require
identifying the nearest computer-generated object to a viewer
within the left and right portions of the image at the same time,
only that the nearest computer-generated object to a viewer is
identified for both the left side and the right side.
Ans. 10. The Examiner additionally cites Ronfard, finding that “Ronfard
teaches a pair of stereoscopic cameras adapted to capture the stereoscopic
image pair and identifying a computer-generated object to the pair of
stereoscopic camera within the left and right portions of the image.” Ans. 11
(internal citations omitted). The Examiner explains that “[s]ince Ronfard
Appeal 2018-003042
Application 13/802,671

5
discusses placing a floating window object relative to the 3-D scene and the
stereoscopic (left and right) cameras that shoot the object in the 3-D scene,
Examiner maintains that Ronfard discloses identifying a computer-generated
object to the pair of stereoscopic cameras within the left and right portions of
the image.” Ans. 11.
Appellant contends the Examiner erred because neither reference,
alone or in combination, teaches “identifying the nearest computer-generated
object to the pair of stereoscopic cameras within the left and right portions of
the image.” Appeal Br. 10–16. Specifically, Appellant argues the claim is
properly understood to require that the recited “identifying” must yield a
single object that is nearest to the pair of stereoscopic cameras (i.e., the
viewer). Appeal Br. 15. That is, the identifying step considers the objects in
the left portion of the image and the objects in the right portion of the image,
and selects the single, closest object from among them. Appellant asserts
that neither reference teaches identifying a single object that is nearest the
stereoscopic cameras.
With respect to Redmann, Appellant argues “the cited portions of
Redmann teach identification of at least two objects, one for a left side of an
image and another for a right side of an image, respectively.” Reply Br. 6.
Thus, according to Appellant, “Redmann discloses identification of two
distinct objects, a first within [] a left region and a second within a right
region, in distinct contrast to the singular object set forth in claim 1.” Reply
Br. 6. Appellant also disputes the Examiner’s findings with respect to
Ronfard, arguing that “Ronfard makes no reference to identifying any object
in any manner, much less the manner claimed.” Appeal Br. 16.
Appeal 2018-003042
Application 13/802,671

6
We are persuaded by Appellant’s arguments. As discussed above,
Appellant’s invention seeks to correct the visual paradox problem which
occurs when a foreground object is cut off by the edge of the viewing area
causing the object to simultaneously appear to be both in front of the screen
and behind the screen. Claim 1 recites placing a window between the
viewer and the identified, forward-most object so that the object appears to
be behind the window and no longer appears to be cutoff by the background
screen.
Redmann teaches a process by which two objects—the foremost
object in the left side of the image and the foremost object in the right side
of the image—are separately identified and used to create floating edges on
each side. Redmann ¶ 51, 53. We agree with Appellant that Redmann does
not describe identifying the single, closest object of the two identified
objects. Nor does the Examiner provide any reasoning for why a skilled
artisan would have been motivated to modify Redmann to make such an
identification. Without any such reasoning, we are constrained by the record
before us to conclude the Examiner has erred in finding Redmann teaches
the “identifying” step of claim 1.
We find Ronfard similarly deficient. Ronfard generally describes the
use of a floating window to address conflicting visual cues in 3-D animation.
Ronfard §§ 4.1–4.3. However, we agree with Appellant that Ronfard does
not teach or suggest identifying the single, closest object to the cameras as
required by the claim 1. As such, we are persuaded the Examiner erred in
rejecting claim 1, and we do not sustain its rejection. For the same reasons,
we also do not sustain the rejection of independent claims 7, 10, 16, 19, and
25 which recite the same “identifying” limitation.
Appeal 2018-003042
Application 13/802,671

7
Remaining Claims
The remaining claims depend from one of independent claims 1, 7,
10, 16, 19, and 25. By virtue of their respective dependencies, these claims
also stand.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejections are reversed.

DECISION SUMMARY

Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 2, 6, 7,
10, 11, 15,
16, 19, 20,
24, 25
103 Redmann, Ronfard 1, 2, 6, 7, 10,
11, 15, 16,
19, 20, 24,
25
2, 11, 20 103 Redmann, Ronfard,
Montgomery
2, 11, 20
3, 12, 21 103 Redmann, Ronfard,
Autodesk
3, 12, 21
4, 5, 13,
14, 22, 23
103 Redmann, Ronfard,
Wiki-1080p
4, 5, 13, 14,
22, 23
Overall
Outcome
1–7, 10–16,
19–25

REVERSED