Ex Parte Bruls et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 28, 2018

14397404 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 28, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
14/397,404 10/27/2014 Wilhelmus Hendrikus Alfonsus Bruis
24737 7590 11/30/2018
PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS
465 Columbus A venue
Suite 340
Valhalla, NY 10595
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.
2011P02143WOUS 9007
EXAMINER
NOH,JAENAM
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2481
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/30/2018 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):
patti. demichele@Philips.com
marianne.fox@philips.com
katelyn.mulroy@philips.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte WILHELMUS HENDRIKUS ALFONSUS BRULS
and
BARTOLOMEUS WILHELMUS DAMIANUS SONNEVELDT 1
Appeal2018-001940
Application 14/397 ,404
Technology Center 2400
Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, HUNG H. BUI, and JON M. JURGOV AN,
Administrative Patent Judges.
KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 1 and 3-21, which are all the claims pending in the
application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm-in-part.
1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Koninklijke Philips N.V.
(see App. Br. 1 ).
Appeal2018-001940
Application 14/397 ,404
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants' invention is directed to a method and device for
"generating and/or adapting views based on the 3D video signal for a
respective 3D display" using "a parameter for targeting ... [the] 3D video
signal to ... [the] respective 3D display based on a quality metric" and
"optimizing the perceived 3D image quality of ... [the] respective 3D
display" (Spec. 1 :7-8, 27-29).
Claims 1, 13, and 15 are independent. Independent claim 1,
reproduced below, is exemplary of the subject matter on appeal.
1. A device for processing a three dimensional video
signal, the three dimensional video signal comprising three
dimensional image data to be displayed on a three dimensional
display, wherein the three dimensional display requires multiple
views for creating a three dimensional effect for a viewer, the
device comprising:
a receiver for receiving the three dimensional video
signal, and
a processor configured to:
determine at least a first processed view based on
the three dimensional image data adapted by a parameter
for targeting the multiple views to the three dimensional
display,
calculate a quality metric indicative of perceived
three dimensional image quality, wherein the quality
metric is based on a combination of image values of the
first processed view and a further view, wherein the
further view is one of: ( 1) a second processed view based
on the three dimensional image data adapted by the
parameter, (2) a two dimensional view available in the
three dimensional image data, and (3) a third processed
view based on the three dimensional image data adapted
by the parameter and the processed view, and
2
Appeal2018-001940
Application 14/397 ,404
determine a preferred value for the parameter
based on performing the determining and the calculating
for multiple values of the parameter.
REJECTIONS and REFERENCES
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 3, 5, 9--16, 18, and 19 under
35 U.S.C. § I02(e) as anticipated by Izzat (US 2012/0249750 Al; published
Oct. 4, 2012).
The Examiner rejected claims 4, 6-8, 17, 20, and 21 under
35 U.S.C. § I03(a) based upon the teachings ofizzat and Chen (US
2014/0044348 Al; published Feb. 13, 2014).
ANALYSIS
Rejection of claims 1, 3, 5, 9--16, 18, and 19 under§ 102(e)
Claims 1, 3, 9--16, 18, and 19
Appellants contend the Examiner erred in finding Izzat discloses all
the limitations of independent claim 1 (App. Br. 5-12). Specifically,
Appellants contend Izzat does not disclose "a parameter," "a first processed
view [ determined] based on the three dimensional image data adapted by a
parameter," calculating "a quality metric indicative of perceived three
dimensional image quality" based on "a combination of image values of the
first processed view and a further view," and "determining and calculating
operations for multiple values of a parameter for targeting [] multiple views
to a three dimensional display to determine a preferred value of the
parameter" (App. Br. 6-8, 11; Reply Br. 2---6). We do not agree.
We agree with and adopt the Examiner's findings as our own (Final
Act. 7-9; Ans. 17-24). Initially, we note that a cited reference need not
recite the claim language ipsissimis verbis (see Kennametal, Inc. v. Ingersoll
3
Appeal2018-001940
Application 14/397 ,404
Cutting Tool Co., 780 F.3d 1376, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ("a reference can
anticipate a claim even if it 'd[ oes] not expressly spell out' all the limitations
arranged or combined as in the claim, if a person of skill in the art, reading
the reference, would 'at once envisage' the claimed arrangement or
combination." quoting In re Petering, 301 F.2d 676,681 (CCPA 1962)).
The Examiner's findings persuade us that Izzat discloses the contested claim
limitations. That is, the broad language of claim 1 allows a reading of
Appellants' claim on Izzat. For example, Appellants' claimed "parameter"
(that adapts 3D image data "for targeting the multiple views to the three
dimensional display") is commensurate with Izzat's disparity adjustment
which modifies a disparity range (maximum/minimum disparity) in a stereo-
image pair (Ans. 17, 21; see Izzat ,r,r 21, 42, 64, 75-76; Spec. 2:22-23,
7:14--15, 9:6-8). 2 Izzat's disparity adjustment (parameter) targets multiple
views (Izzat's stereo pair of images) to a three dimensional display, as
claimed (Final Act. 8; Ans. 18; see Izzat ,r,r 25, 40, 71, 104).
Izzat also discloses a visual quality measure for a stereo-image pair,
the measure assessing "[d]isparity range and disparity rate of change [that]
can have strong impact on a viewer's visual fatigue in stereo-image
playback" (see Izzat ,r,r 22, 42; Ans. 17-18). Thus, Izzat's quality measure
indicates a likelihood of visual discomfort in stereo-image playback, which
is commensurate with the claimed "quality metric indicative of perceived
2 Appellants' Specification describes "a parameter for targeting the multiple
views to the 3D display[, t]he parameter may for example be an offset,
and/or a gain, applied to the views for targeting the views to the 3D display"
(Spec. 9:6-8 (emphasis added)). For example, a "parameter may be applied
to the views to control the amount of disparity" for "mapp[ing] onto a
disparity range of the target display device" (Spec. 2:22-23, 7: 14--15).
4
Appeal2018-001940
Application 14/397 ,404
three dimensional image quality" and with the broad description of "quality
metric" in Appellants' Specification (Ans. 18 (citing Izzat ,r,r 42, 59)). 3
Appellants contend Izzat does not teach the claimed quality metric
based on a combination of image values of a first processed view and a
further view, because Izzat's "processing [of views in Figure 3] happens in
the subsequent step 340 using the accessed (unprocessed) images and a
subsequently determined quality metric (from step 330)" (App. Br. 8; Reply
Br. 5---6). We are unpersuaded because the claim "term 'processed' ... is a
broad term that is deemed to be met by ... [Izzat' s] stereo pair of images"-
previously adjusted/processed for disparity in post-production (Ans. 19; see
Izzat ,r 39, Fig. 2). Thus, Izzat's stereo pair of images teaches the claimed
"first processed view" and "further view [that] is ... a second processed
view based on the three dimensional image data adapted by the parameter"
(Ans. 19, 21). Additionally, Izzat's quality metric (quality measure) is based
on a combination of image values of the first processed view and the further
view (Izzat's stereo pair of images), as claimed (Ans. 20-21 (citing Izzat
,r,r 42, 59)).
We are also not persuaded by Appellants' argument that Izzat does
not teach determining a preferred parameter value by performing
determining and calculating/or multiple values of the parameter, as required
3 Appellants' Specification provides "a quality metric is calculated
indicative of perceived 3D image quality" of a "3D display [that] can be ...
any stereoscopic display (STD)," the quality metric being "based on the
combination of image values" (see Spec. 7:7-11, 9:11-12). The "quality
metric may effectively be calculated in horizontal direction of the images"
because "disparity differences always occur in horizontal direction
corresponding to the orientation of the eyes of viewers" (see Spec.
14:28-31).
5
Appeal2018-001940
Application 14/397 ,404
by claim 1 (App. Br. 6, 11). Appellants argue "the flowchart of FIG. 3 in
Izzat ... is not iterative and does not indicate any feedback" (App. Br. 10-
11 ). Izzat, however, expressly discloses "modify[ing] [in an image adjuster
device] the images using one or more of the techniques described with
respect to FIGS. 3-5, and provid[ing] the modified picture(s) .... to a
display device" (Izzat ,r 104 ( emphasis added)). Izzat' s disparity adjustment
techniques described with respect to Figures 3-5 include "shifting in the
x-direction, scaling+shifting, and/or interpolation" (see Izzat ,r,r 64, 75-76).
For example, "if we want to increase the parallax [ enlarge disparity range]
between the stereo-image pair by 1.5 times, then we scale the disparity map
by 1.5 and use it for image warping" followed by "natural coordinate
interpolation" (see Izzat ,r 75).
Accordingly, we find that a person of ordinary skill in the art reading
Izzat's disclosure would "at once envisage" that, if a disparity adjustment
has not produced good results for a stereo-image pair ( e.g., good visual
quality without exposed occlusions, see Izzat ,r,r 64, 70), then a second
disparity adjustment would be performed for that stereo-image pair (see Blue
Calypso, LLCv. Groupon, Inc., 815 F.3d 1331, 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("[A]
reference may still anticipate if that reference teaches that the disclosed
components or functionalities may be combined and one of skill in the art
would be able to implement the combination." (Citing Kennametal, 780
F.3d at 1383))). We, therefore, agree with the Examiner that Izzat discloses
determining a preferred parameter value (a preferred disparity adjustment)
by determining and calculating/or multiple parameter values, as required by
claim 1 (Ans. 22-23).
6
Appeal2018-001940
Application 14/397 ,404
Thus, for the above reasons, we sustain the Examiner's anticipation
rejection of independent claim 1, independent claims 13 and 15 argued for
substantially the same reasons (App. Br. 14), and dependent claims 3, 9--12,
14, 16, 18, and 19, argued for their dependency on claims 1 and 13 (App. Br.
18).
Claim 5
Appellants contend Izzat does not disclose a parameter used for
adapting three dimensional data to a three dimensional display by "at least
one of: an offset; a gain; and a type of scaling" as recited in claim 5 (Reply
Br. 7; App. Br. 13).
We are not persuaded by Appellants' argument and note Izzat' s
disparity adjustment (parameter) may be "a type of scaling" as claimed (see
Izzat ,r,r 64 ("methods for adjusting disparity information .... include ...
scaling+shifting"), 7 5 ("scale the disparity map by 1. 5 and use it for image
warping")). As Appellants' argument has not persuaded us of error, we
sustain the Examiner's anticipation rejection of claim 5.
Rejection of claims 4, 6-8, 17, 20, and 21 under§ 103(a)
Claim 4
Appellants contend the combination of Izzat and Chen does not teach
the use of a sharpness calculation in a quality metric based on a combination
of image values, as required by claim 4 (Reply Br. 8; App. Br. 15-16).
Appellants also argue Chen "teaches away from fusing different aspects of
an image's quality which are measured separately such as contrast,
sharpness, resolution, geometry, pose, etc." (Reply Br. 8.)
We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments. As the Examiner
explains, Chen discloses the benefit of using a sharpness metric for
7
Appeal2018-001940
Application 14/397 ,404
assessing image quality (Ans. 25; Final Act. 16; see Chen ,r,r 5---6, 25). We
agree with the Examiner that a skilled artisan would have recognized the
benefit of using the sharpness calculation taught by Chen on Izzat's
stereo-image pair, to determine the likelihood of visual discomfort in
stereo-image playback (Ans. 19, 25).
We also find Appellants' teaching away arguments are without merit
(see Reply Br. 8-9). Chen's failure to disclose a metric based on a
combination of views is not a criticism against the use of such metrics.
Mere description of an implementation in the prior art that differs from
Appellants' claimed invention, without more, does not show the prior art is
"teaching away" from the claimed invention (see In re Fulton, 391 F.3d
1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004)).
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding the
prior art of record suggests a quality metric based on a sharpness calculation
of a combination of image values as recited in claim 4. We, therefore,
sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejection of claim 4.
Claims 6 and 21
Appellants contend the combination of Izzat and Chen does not teach
a quality metric based on "a central area formed by ignoring border zones,"
as "[ n ]either Izzat nor Chen teaches or makes obvious that a device or
method should ignore border zones" (Reply Br. 9; App. Br. 17).
Appellants' argument is not persuasive because claims 6 and 21 do
not specify or impose any bounds on the claimed "central area" and "border
zones." Therefore, "any area of Izzat-Chen that does not include the 'border
zone' ... [ such as] any portion or outer edge of the screen, is considered to
be formed or labeled as a 'central portion"' (Ans. 26). Additionally, Izzat's
8
Appeal2018-001940
Application 14/397 ,404
paragraph 60 discloses the quality metric may "focus[] on object-related
rates of disparity change" and "maximum (and/or minimum) disparity ...
associated with different objects," also suggesting a quality metric based on
a central area (e.g., objects in the image's interior) formed by ignoring
border zones (image margins away from the interior objects) (see Izzat
,r 60). Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding the
prior art of record teaches or suggests the quality metric recited in claims 6
and 21. Therefore, we sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejection of
dependent claims 6 and 21. Additionally, we sustain the Examiner's
obviousness rejection of dependent claims 7, 8, and 20, argued for their
dependency on independent claims 1 and 13 (App. Br. 18).
Claim 17
Claim 17 recites calculating "the quality metric by applying a
weighting on the combination of image values in dependence on
corresponding depth values." The Examiner finds the combination of Izzat
and Chen teaches the limitations of claim 1 7 because "Chen discloses
general use of weighting when assessing quality of images using sharpness
and Izzat teaches assessment of quality of 3D images (inherently including
depth values[)]" (Ans. 27; Final Act. 19 (citing Chen ,r 83)).
Appellants argue although Chen mentions a weighting, the weighting
is not "a weighting on a combination of image values in dependence on
corresponding depth values" as recited in claim 17 (App. Br. 18). We
agree with Appellants. Chen teaches a "quality score is based on weighted
summation of probabilities, entropy or weighted summation of logarithm of
probabilities," the "probabilities" reflecting similarity between a generic face
model and segments of a face image, and the "quality score" detecting if the
9
Appeal2018-001940
Application 14/397 ,404
face image "is sufficient for face recognition" (see Chen ,r,r 76, 83-84).
Thus, Chen's quality score does not include a quality metric that applies a
weighting to a combination of image values in dependence on
corresponding depth values, as claimed (Reply Br. 10). Izzat does not cure
this deficiency (Reply Br. 10).
The Examiner has not identified sufficient evidence in the
combination of Chen and Izzat to support a rejection of obviousness.
Therefore, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of dependent claim
17.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1, 3, 5, 9-16, 18, and 19
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) is affirmed.
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 4, 6-8, 20, and 21 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is affirmed.
The Examiner's decision rejecting claim 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
is reversed.
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).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
10