Ex Parte Bryant et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 16, 2017

13471474 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 16, 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.
13/471,474 05/15/2012 Andrew Bryant APLE.P0324 8064
62224 7590
ADELI LLP
11859 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 408
LOS ANGELES, CA 90025
EXAMINER
CHEN, YU
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2613
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/20/2017 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):
mail@ adelillp.com
PatentOffice @ adelillp.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ANDREW BRYANT, PETER WARNER, and
DANIEL PETTIGREW
Appeal 2016-006348
Application 13/471,4741
Technology Center 2600
Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, JON M. JURGOVAN, and
KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, Administrative Patent Judges.
JURGOVAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants seek review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final
rejection of claims 1—31. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm-in-part.
1 Appellants identify Apple, Inc. as the real party in interest. (App. Br. 2.)
Appeal 2016-006348
Application 13/471,474
CLAIMED INVENTION
The claims are directed to displaying and editing media using
composite bumps on a tonal adjustment graph, in which the bumps are
blended and independently adjustable. (Spec. Abstr., 2-4.) Claim 1,
reproduced below, is exemplary of the claimed subject matter:
1. A non-transitory machine readable medium storing a
computer program for adjusting color values of an image
represented in a color space, the image comprising a set of pixels,
each pixel comprising a set of color values, the computer
program comprising sets of instructions for execution by at least
one processing unit, the sets of instructions for:
displaying a plurality of bumps and a composite bump on
a tonal adjustment graph, the composite bump generated by
blending the plurality of bumps on the tonal adjustment graph;
in response to receiving an input on a location on the tonal
adjustment graph, creating and displaying a new bump based on
the input and blending the new bump with the composite bump
to create a modified composite bump, while maintaining the
display of the new bump and the plurality of bumps, wherein the
new bump and each of the plurality of bumps are independently
adjustable after the modified composite bump is created; and
adjusting the color values of the image based on the
modified composite bump.
(App. Br. 15.)
REJECTIONS
Claims 1—6 and 29 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on
Pettigrew A (US 2010/0188415 Al, pub. July 29, 2010) and USDA
(“Viewing and Stretching the Image Histogram in ArcGIS 8.3/9.X,”
USDA/FSA/Aerial Photography Field Office, Salt Lake City, Utah,
Wayback Machine, dated 1/11/2009.) (Final Act. 12—19.)
2
Appeal 2016-006348
Application 13/471,474
Claims 1—31 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on
Pettigrew B (US 2009/0297022 Al, pub. Dec. 3, 2009) and Sphoto (“A
Practical Guide to Interpreting Histograms,” Wayback Machine dated
12/05/2008.) (Final Act. 19-46.)
ANALYSIS
Claim 1 — Pettigrew A and USD A
Appellants argue USD A does not disclose displaying a composite
bump generated by blending a plurality of bumps; and blending a new bump
with the composite bump to create a modified composite bump while
maintaining the display of the new bump and the plurality of bumps, where
the bumps are independently adjustable after the modified bump is created,
as claimed. (App. Br. 8—9, Reply Br. 4—5.) Specifically, Appellants argue
“Figures 18, 19, and 22 of USDA do not disclose displaying a modified
composite bump while maintaining the display of the new bump and
plurality of bumps.” (App. Br. 8—9.) In this regard, Appellants argue
Figures 18 and 19 show only one curve, and argue the curve of Figure 22 is
not the result of blending the darker shapes in the background. (Id.)
Appellants also argue the cumulative button mentioned regarding Figure 22
does not disclose the argued limitation. (Id. at 9.) Appellants further argue
that the displayed curves of USDA are not independently adjustable, and
that USDA does not disclose that a new bump is blended with an existing
composite bump. (Id.)
Claim terms are given their broadest reasonable interpretation
consistent with the Specification. In re Am. Acad. ofSci. Tech. Ctr., 367
F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The Examiner finds that Appellants
3
Appeal 2016-006348
Application 13/471,474
provide no special definition of “bump.” (Ans. 4.) Accordingly, the
Examiner interprets “bump” according to the ordinary and plain meaning of
the term as each up or down hill of a curve. (Id.) Appellants argue the
Specification describes each bump to be a separate curve. (App. Br. 9.)
We agree with the Examiner that the language in the Specification and
claims fall short of defining the term “bump” to mean a separate curve, as
opposed to an up or down hill of a curve. Although Appellants state that a
“bump” is used to reference a separate curve as described throughout the
claimed invention (id.), there is no restrictive language in the Specification
or claims that precludes the Examiner’s interpretation that a “bump” may be
one of many up or down hills on a single curve. Thus, the Examiner did not
err in the interpretation of the term “bump” under these circumstances.
The Examiner also finds that Pettigrew A teaches that each bump is
adjustable. (Ans. 3, Final Act. 13, citing Pettigrew A, || 48 and 49, Figs. 4h
and 4i.) The Examiner finds Figure 22 of USDA blends the stretched
(modified) graphs of Figures 18 and 19, to create a modified composite
graph. (Id.) The Examiner further finds the display of the bumps are
maintained after selecting points on the graph to stretch the histogram. (Id. )
We agree with the Examiner’s findings. Pettigrew A discloses an
editable curve flflf 48 and 49) and USDA states histogram stretching can be
performed as composite stretching of all bands (RBG) or as custom
stretching of individual bands (p. 5, Figs. 18, 19). We agree these actions
would result in any bumps on the red, green, blue, or composite curve being
modified yet still displayed, as shown in Figures 18, 19, or 22 of USDA.
Further, in Figure 22 of USDA, the subtraction of the darker curves results
in the solid line curve, and therefore may be viewed as a blending of bumps.
4
Appeal 2016-006348
Application 13/471,474
Thus, we are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments that the Examiner
errs.
Claims 1, 7, and 25 — Pettigrew B and Sphoto
Appellants argue similar limitations with respect to the obviousness
rejection of the stated claims. (App. Br. 10-11, Reply Br. 5—6.)
Specifically, Appellants contend the individual RGB curves of the
composite in Sphoto are not used for adjusting the color values of the image
based on the modified composite bump. (App. Br. 10.) According to
Appellants, Sphoto discloses interpreting RGB histograms and not
independently adjusting them, and does not disclose a new bump is blended
with a composite of bumps. (Id.) Appellants also argue Pettigrew B and
Sphoto do not disclose a composite of bumps independently adjustable after
the modified composite bump is created. (App. Br. 11.)
The Examiner finds that Pettigrew B shows a media editing interface
with Gain RGB option. (Ans. 4—7, Final Act. 20—22, 25—28, and 41—44,
citing Pettigrew B, Fig. 20, | 111.) The Examiner also finds “gain RGB”
represents the gain for the RGB color channels. (Ans. 5.) The Examiner
further finds Pettigrew B can display a composite bump generated by
blending a plurality of bumps on the tonal adjustment graph (Fig. 20 — Gain
RGB, Red, Green, Blue graphs), the blending of a new bump with a
composite bump to create a modified composite bump (Figs. 20 and 21 show
creating the new bump applied to R, G, and B graphs so that the modified
RGB gain graph will have a modified composite graph after the editing of
the individual R, G, and B graph), and adjusting the bumps after creating the
modified bump (editing can be repeated multiple times after creating the
modified composite bump). (Ans. 5—6.) The Examiner finds that checking
5
Appeal 2016-006348
Application 13/471,474
the appropriate box in Figures 20 and 21 of Pettigrew B results in display of
the graphs. (Ans. 6.)
The Examiner relies on Sphoto to teach a composite bump, and states
the combination of Pettigrew B and Sphoto teach a composite adjustable
bump. (Ans. 6, Final Act. 22.) Thus, in response to Appellants’ arguments
that Sphoto teaches interpretation, but not adjustment, of RGB histograms,
the Examiner states that Appellants are considering Sphoto individually and
not in combination with Pettigrew B which teaches such adjustment. (Id.)
We agree with the Examiner’s findings and conclusion of obviousness
for claims 1,17, and 25. The Examiner showed the argued limitations are
present in the combination of Pettigrew B and Sphoto. Moreover,
Appellants’ arguments against Sphoto individually fail to adequately address
its combination with Pettigrew B which teaches the adjustment of RGB
graphs. Non-obviousness cannot be established by attacking references
individually where the rejection is based upon the teachings of a
combination of references.” In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed.
Cir. 1986) (citing In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981)).
Accordingly, we find Appellants’ arguments unpersuasive to show Examiner
error.
Claim 12 — Pettigrew B and Sphoto
Appellants argue the combination of Pettigrew B and Sphoto fails to
disclose identifying a particular bump of a plurality of bumps based on the
position of the cursor, and providing a visual indicator to indicate that the
particular bump identified based on the cursor position is selectable and
modifiable, as claimed. (App. Br. 11, Reply Br. 6—7.) Although Appellants
acknowledge Pettigrew B displays control points that can be used to modify
6
Appeal 2016-006348
Application 13/471,474
a graph, they argue these control points are displayed on the graph regardless
of the positioning of the cursor. (Id.) The Examiner finds that Pettigrew B
teaches a control point can be added to the graph by mouse clicking, and
thus concludes this claim limitation is taught. (Ans. 7—8 citing Pettigrew B
1117.)
We agree with Appellants this feature is not disclosed by the
combination of Pettigrew B and Sphoto. A person of ordinary skill would
have understood that adding a control point to a graph to modify it is not the
same as identifying a bump based on cursor position, nor does it provide a
visual indication to indicate the bump is selectable and modifiable. Thus,
we do not sustain the rejection of claim 12.
Claim 20 — Pettigrew B and Sphoto
Appellants argue that the combination of Pettigrew B and Sphoto do
not disclose displaying a plurality of independently selectable bumps and a
composite bump and modifying a composite bump in response to receiving a
vector input on an end portion of the composite bump, as claimed. (App. Br.
11—12, Reply Br. 7—8.) Appellants argue that, in Figure 16 of Pettigrew B,
the cited point 1640 is at the middle of curve 1610, not an end portion.
(App. Br. 12.)
The Examiner states item 1640 of Figure 16 is the top of a bump and
can be seen as an end portion. (Ans. 8—9 citing Pettigrew B, Figures 16 and
20—26.) The Examiner also states that a control point can be placed on any
location of the curve for modification, as shown in Figures 21—26 of
Pettigrew B. (Ans. 9.)
The Examiner has not provided sufficient findings to explain how the
top of a bump in Figures 16 and 21—26 of Pettigrew B can be considered an
7
Appeal 2016-006348
Application 13/471,474
end portion as claimed, or how placing a control point at any location on a
curve for modification constitutes a vector input on the end portion of a
composite bump. Thus, on this record, we do not sustain the rejection of
claim 20.
Claim 11 — Pettigrew B and Sphoto
Appellants argue the combination of Pettigrew B and Sphoto do not
disclose that modifying a particular bump has no effect on other bumps, as
claimed. (App. Br. 12—13.) Specifically, Appellants argue Figure 8 of
Pettigrew B only shows one curve (i.e., one bump) being displayed and
modified, and does not disclose modifying a particular bump has no effect
on others. (App. Br. 13.)
The Examiner contends the limitations of claim 11 are disclosed in
Pettigrew B’s teaching that using a control point to modify a curve will only
adjust a defined range of values within the curve, and will not affect values
outside of the range. (Ans. 9—10, Pettigrew B, 178, Fig. 8.) The Examiner
further cites Figure 20 of Pettigrew B to show a plurality of bumps. (Ans.
10.)
For reasons explained, we agree with the Examiner’s interpretation of
“bump” to mean an up or down hill on a curve, not the entire curve. Under
this interpretation, we agree with the Examiner that Pettigrew B discloses
that modification of one bump does not affect the others on the curve. Thus,
we agree with the Examiner this feature is disclosed in the cited
combination.
Claim 13 — Pettigrew B and Sphoto
Appellants argue that the cited combination does not disclose that
providing a visual indication includes highlighting a particular bump to
8
Appeal 2016-006348
Application 13/471,474
indicate the particular bump of a plurality of bumps from which a composite
bump is created, is selectable and modifiable. (App. Br. 13, Reply Br. 8—9.)
This limitation is similar to that of claim 12, and for similar reasons as stated
with respect that claim, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 13.
DECISION
We sustain the rejection of claims 1—11, 25—27, 29, and 30.
We do not sustain the rejection of claims 12—24, 28, and 31.
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
9