Ex Parte Cilia et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 31, 2017

12371189 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 31, 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.
12/371,189 02/13/2009 Andrew Cilia 47565-P007US 7125
120607 7590
Winstead PC (IF)
P.O. Box 131851
Dallas, TX 75313-1851
EXAMINER
NANO, SARGON N
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2457
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/04/2017 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):
ifdocket @ winstead. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ANDREW CILIA and ROBERT V. VANMAN
Appeal 2016-000511
Application No. 12/371,1891
Technology Center 2400
Before MARC S. HOFF, JAMES R. HUGHES, and KAMRAN JIVANI,
Administrative Patent Judges.
HOFF, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35U.S.C. § 134 from a final rejection of
claims 1—7, 9—20, and 22—28.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b)
We affirm-in-part.
Appellant’s invention, a system and method for high-resolution
storage of images, includes capturing an image as digital data. An area of
interest of the captured image is located. The method steps further include
extracting at least some data corresponding to the located area of interest;
digitally magnifying the extracted data; and combining the digitally
1 The real party in interest is Enforcement Video, LLC.
2 Claims 3, 4, 12, 13, and 18—74 have been cancelled.
Appeal 2016-000511
Application No. 12/371,189
magnified data with at least some of the digital data of the captured image to
yield data representing a modified image. The data representing the modified
image are then compressed. See Abstract; Spec. 118.
Claim 1 is exemplary of the claims on appeal:
1. An image-creation method comprising:
capturing an image as digital data;
locating an area of interest of the captured image;
extracting, from the digital data, at least some data corresponding to
the located area of interest;
digitally magnifying the extracted at least some data corresponding to
the located area of interest to yield a magnified area-of-interest image;
combining the digitally magnified extracted data with at least some of
the digital data of the captured image to yield data representing a modified
image
comprising the magnified area-of-interest image and at least a portion
of the captured image; and
compressing the data representing the modified image.
The Examiner relies upon the following prior art in rejecting the
claims on appeal:
Claims 1—7, 9-20, and 22—28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Higgins (US 2004/0252193 Al; Dec.
16, 2004) and Ciolli et al. (US 6,546,119 B2; Apr. 8, 2003).
2
Appeal 2016-000511
Application No. 12/371,189
Throughout this decision, we make reference to the Appeal Brief
(“App. Br.,” filed Mar. 11, 2015), the Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed Oct. 7,
2015), and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed Aug. 7, 2015) for their
respective details.
ISSUES
Appellant’s arguments present us with the following issues:
1. Does the combination of Higgins and Ciolli teach or fairly suggest
combining the digitally magnified extracted data with at least some of the
digital data of the captured image to yield data representing a modified
image comprising the magnified area-of-interest image and at least a portion
of the captured image?
2. Does the combination of Higgins and Ciolli teach or fairly suggest
compressing the data representing the modified image?
3. Does the combination of Higgins and Ciolli teach or fairly suggest
identifying an area of low interest of the image, or locating the magnified
area-of-interest image in an area of low interest of the image, or replacing a
portion of the captured image with the magnified area-of-interest image?
ANALYSIS
Claims 1-7,12-20,25, and 26
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument that the combination
of Higgins and Ciolli fails to disclose combining the digitally magnified
extracted data with at least some of the digital data of the captured image to
yield data representing a modified image comprising the magnified area-of-
3
Appeal 2016-000511
Application No. 12/371,189
interest image and at least a portion of the captured image,” as recited in
representative claim 1. See App. Br. 8—10.
We agree with the Examiner that Higgins discloses providing “a low-
resolution version representative from a digital version of the original
image” and “a high-resolution extraction of the license plate area only.”
Higgins 1191; Ans. 10. “An image of the offense is displayed in display
area 502. A close-up image of the license plate of the offending vehicle is
shown in display area 504.” Higgins 1192 and Figure 5. We agree with the
Examiner’s finding that display area 502 corresponds to the claimed “at least
a portion of the captured image” and display area 504 “the magnified area-
of-interest image.” See Ans. 2—3, 10. We further agree with the Examiner’s
finding that Higgins’s disclosure corresponds to “data representing a
modified image.” We perceive no functional difference between the
modified image represented by Higgins’s display areas 502 and 504 relative
to Appellants’ display in drawing Figures 3-5 of “at least a portion of the
captured image” and a “magnified area-of-interest image.”
For reasons similar to those stated supra, we also do not agree with
Appellants that Higgins does not disclose the claimed combining. We agree
with the Examiner that Figure 5 of Higgins illustrates a display that places
the original image, and a magnified area-of-interest, together to yield “data
representing a modified image” as claimed. See Ans. 2-3; Higgins 192—
193.
Appellants’ argument that there is no factual support for Higgins and
Ciolli disclosing compression of the data representing the modified image is
also unpersuasive to show Examiner error. See App. Br. 12. The Examiner
finds, and we agree, that Higgins discloses that a “low resolution JPEG
4
Appeal 2016-000511
Application No. 12/371,189
compressed image representing the entire image is then produced, and a high
resolution JPEG compressed image crop of the license plate area only is
made.” Higgins 1198; Ans. 11. Contrary to Appellants’ contention, we find
that Higgins thus teaches compression of “data representing the modified
image.”
We find that the Examiner did not err in combining Higgins and Ciolli
to arrive at the invention recited in representative claim 1. We sustain the
Examiner’s § 103 rejection of representative claim 1, as well as claims 2—7,
12—20, 25, and 26 not separately argued, over Higgins and Ciolli.
Claims 9-11,22-24,27, and 28
Appellants are unable to determine from the cited sections of Ciolli3
what features or aspects of the combination of Higgins and Ciolli the
Examiner believes correspond to the limitations of these claims, which
concern identifying an area of low interest of the image and locating the
magnified area-of-interest image in an area of low interest. See App. Br. 15—
19. Appellants further contend that the cited sections of Ciolli fail to disclose
or suggest the claim limitations. Id. The Examiner’s Answer does not offer
any rebuttal of Appellants’ contentions.
We have reviewed the sections of Ciolli cited by the Examiner at
various points of the Final Rejection. We agree with Appellants, at least, that
the Examiner’s cited sections of Ciolli fail to disclose or suggest “the
combining step results in the magnified area-of-interest image being located
3 The Examiner cites Figures 2, 5, and 11, and paragraphs 14, 15, 85, 123,
125, 142—146, and 171 of the Ciolli U.S. Patent Application Publication
(2002/0141618 Al), and column 11, lines 50—61 and column 19, lines 38-49
of the Ciolli patent. See Final Act. 5, 9, 10.
5
Appeal 2016-000511
Application No. 12/371,189
in an area of low interest of an image represented by the combined data”
(claims 9 and 22), “further comprising an area of low interest of the image”
(claims 10 and 23), “the combining step results in the magnified area-of-
interest image being located in the area of low interest” (claims 11 and 24),
or “in the modified image, a portion of the captured image is replaced by the
magnified area-of-interest image” (claims 27 and 28).
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of
claims 9—11, 22-24, 27, and 28 over Higgins and Ciolli.
CONCLUSION
1. The combination of Higgins and Ciolli fairly suggests combining
the digitally magnified extracted data with at least some of the digital data of
the captured image to yield data representing a modified image comprising
the magnified area-of-interest image and at least a portion of the captured
image.
2. The combination of Higgins and Ciolli teaches compressing the
data representing the modified image.
3. The combination of Higgins and Ciolli does not teach or fairly
suggest identifying an area of low interest of the image, or locating the
magnified area-of-interest image in an area of low interest of the image, or
replacing a portion of the captured image with the magnified area-of-interest
image.
ORDER
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1—7, 12—20, 25, and 26 is
affirmed. The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 9—11, 22—24, 27, and 28
is reversed.
6
Appeal 2016-000511
Application No. 12/371,189
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal nay be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136 (a).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
7