Ex Parte Bai et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 26, 2016

12721801 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 26, 2016)

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.
12/721,801 03/11/2010 Fan Bai P009291-US-NP/RD/MJL 1843
81466 7590 04/26/2016
MacMillan, Sobanski & Todd, LLC - GM
One Maritime Plaza
720 Water Street
5th Floor
Toledo, OH 43604
EXAMINER
ANDERSON II, JAMES M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2486
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/26/2016 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte FAN BAI, WENDE ZHANG, and CEM U. SARAYDAR
____________________

Appeal 2014-006408
Application 12/721,801
Technology Center 2400
____________________

Before JEFFREY S. SMITH, JON M. JURGOVAN, and
MICHAEL M. BARRY, Administrative Patent Judges.

JURGOVAN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appellants seek review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of
claims 1–21. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Appeal 2014-006408
Application 12/721,801

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The claims are directed to video sharing in a vehicle-to-entity
communication system. (Spec. Abstract.) Claims 1 and 12, reproduced
below, are illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method for scene information sharing in a vehicle-to-
entity communication system, the method comprising the steps
of:
capturing scene data by an image capture device of an
event in a vicinity of a source entity, wherein the image capture
device is associated with the source entity;
determining a spatial relationship between a location
corresponding to the captured event and a location of a remote
vehicle, wherein the source entity and associated image capture
device is at a location remote from a location of the remote
vehicle;
determining a temporal relationship between a time-stamp
of the captured scene data and a current time;
determining a utility value as a function of the spatial
relationship and the temporal relationship;
determining a network utilization parameter of a
communication network for transmitting and receiving the scene
data;
applying a selected level of compression to the captured
scene data as a function of the utility value and available
bandwidth; and
transmitting the compressed scene data from the source
entity to the remote vehicle.

12. A vehicle-to-entity communication system having
adaptive scene compression for video sharing between a source
entity and a remote vehicle, the system comprising:
an image capture device of the source entity for capturing
video scene data of an event in a vicinity of the source entity;
an information utility module for determining a utility
value that is a function of a spatial relationship between a
location corresponding to the captured event and a location of the
Appeal 2014-006408
Application 12/721,801

3
remote vehicle and a temporal relationship between a time-stamp
of the captured scene data and a current time;
a network status estimation module for determining a
network utilization parameter of a communication network;
a processor for applying a selected amount of compression
to the captured scene data as a function of the utility value and
the network utilization parameter of the communication network;
and
a transmitter for transmitting the compressed scene data to
the remote vehicle.

REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 2, 6, and 7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on
Franks (US 2006/0082730 A1; Apr. 20, 2006) and Cohen-solal (US
2003/0052911 A1; Mar. 20, 2003). (Final Act. 10–12.)
Claims 3 and 4 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on
Franks, Cohen-solal, and Fong (US 8,174,375 B2; May 8, 2012). (Final
Act. 12–13.)
Claim 5 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on Franks,
Cohen-solal, Fong, and Tokoro (US 7,689,359 B2; Mar. 30, 2010). (Final
Act. 14–15.)
Claim 8 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on Franks,
Cohen-solal, Williams (US 7,394,877 B2; July 1, 2008), and Zhang (US
2008/0059861 A1; Mar. 6, 2008). (Final Act. 15–16.)
Claim 9 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on Franks,
Cohen-solal, Williams, and Davis (US 2008/0317111 A1; Dec. 25, 2008).
(Final Act. 16.)
Claim 10 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on Franks,
Cohen-solal, and Jannard (US 8,174,560 B2; May 8, 2012). (Final Act. 17.)
Appeal 2014-006408
Application 12/721,801

4
Claim 11 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on Franks,
Cohen-solal, and Kostrzewski (US 6,167,155; Dec. 26, 2000). (Final Act.
17–18.)
Claims 12–15 and 17–19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
based on Fong and Lu (US 2009/0045323 A1; Feb. 19, 2009). (Final Act.
18–22.)
Claim 16 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on Fong, Lu,
and Tokoro. (Final Act. 23.)
Claim 20 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on Fong, Lu,
Williams, and Zhang. (Final Act. 23–24.)
Claim 21 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on Fong, Lu,
and Kostrzewski. (Final Act. 24–25.)

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants’
conclusions. We adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth by the
Examiner in the Final Office Action (2–25) from which this appeal is taken
and the reasons set forth in the Examiner’s Answer (14–29) in response to
Appellants’ Appeal Brief. We highlight and address specific findings and
arguments for emphasis as follows.
Regarding claim 4, Appellants argue Fong only describes the basic
concept of displaying images captured by the image capture device, and that
the combination of Fong with other references fails to describe the claimed
feature of “applying image abstraction to the capture[d] scene data for
extracting a still image.” (App. Br. 15.) We interpret claims in light of the
Appeal 2014-006408
Application 12/721,801

5
specification. In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed.
Cir. 2004); In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
The Specification (¶ 19) discloses:
Image abstraction includes extracting a still image from either
the compressed video scene data or a still scene image may be
extracted directly from captured video scene data. Image
abstraction may further include decreasing the resolution and
compression quality of the still image.
(Emphasis added). Thus, paragraph 19 of Appellants’ Specification does not
require image abstraction to do anything more than extract a still image.
The Examiner finds, and we agree, that Fong teaches a video frame is
captured and displayed on an LCD screen, which is “image abstraction” as
described by the examples in Appellants’ Specification. In other words, a
video sequence is composed of still images displayed one after the other.
Extracting a still image for display necessarily entails “image abstraction”
within the meaning of claim 4, when read in light of the examples given in
Appellants’ Specification. Thus, we do not find Appellants’ argument
persuasive of Examiner error.
Regarding claim 5, Appellants argue Tokoro’s edge detection does not
involve generating a feature sketch from a still image as part of an image
abstraction. (App. Br. 16.) The Specification (¶ 19) states:
a feature sketch of the extracted image may be generated through
scene understanding techniques.
No further explanation of “feature sketch” or “scene understanding
techniques” is given in the Specification. This fact suggests Appellants
regard “feature sketch” and “scene understanding techniques” to be well
known in the art. Moreover, Tokoro’s edge extraction certainly suggests to
Appeal 2014-006408
Application 12/721,801

6
a person of ordinary skill the ability to generate a sketch or outline of objects
in an image (see Ans. 21 citing Tokoro 8:1–5). Accordingly, we are not
persuaded by this argument.
Regarding claim 8, Appellants argue Franks, Cohen-solal, Williams,
and Zhang fail to describe that the network utilization parameter utilizes a
performance history of the communication network where the performance
history is based on a function of a packet delivery ratio, a latency, a jitter,
and a throughput of previous broadcast messages (App. Br. 16–17.) While
acknowledging the claimed elements are known terms, Appellants argue the
Examiner used impermissible hindsight to pick and choose elements from
the prior art. The Examiner cited Zhang (¶ 8) which states:
A good error resilient application system is Quality of Service
(QoS) adaptive. QoS may be used to describe the overall
performance of a communication system. To be QoS adaptive is
to trade off different QoS requirements. For wireless video
applications, QoS may be measured by the reliability, latency
and bandwidth usage, which are in terms of Peak Signal to Noise
Ratio (PSNR), Packet Loss Rate (PLR), Delay, Delay
Variation/Jitter and Bit Throughput Rate (BTR).

The person of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate the benefit of
combining this teaching of resilient communication of Zhang with the
communication methods taught by the other references, yielding the
predictable result of adaptive error resilience for streaming video
transmission over a wireless network as suggested by the title of Zhang.
Thus, we agree with the Examiner no impermissible hindsight was used in
the rejection. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 1395 (CCPA 1971)
(“[a]ny judgment on obviousness is in a sense “necessarily a reconstruction
based upon hindsight reasoning, but so long as it takes into account only
Appeal 2014-006408
Application 12/721,801

7
knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the
claimed invention was made and does not include knowledge gleaned only
from applicant’s disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper.”).
Claims 14–16 and 20, though dependent from claim 12 rather than
claim 1, contain similar features to those previously discussed. Accordingly,
our analysis applies to these claims as well.

CONCLUSION
To support a rejection under § 103(a), “there must be some articulated
reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of
obviousness.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007)
(quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)). On this record,
we find the Examiner’s reasoning and underpinning adequate to support the
conclusion of obviousness. Furthermore, in light of the claim scope, we find
the claimed invention is no more than the predictable use of prior art
elements according to their established functions. Id. at 417. Appellants
have provided no persuasive evidence to show combining features from the
references was “uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in
the art.” See Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157,
1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing KSR 550 U.S. at 419.) Thus, we are not
persuaded of reversible Examiner error, and we sustain the Examiner’s
rejections.

DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner’s Decision to reject claims 1–21
is affirmed.
Appeal 2014-006408
Application 12/721,801

8
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