Ex Parte ICHIHASHI

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardMar 27, 2019

14620391 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Mar. 27, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 14/620,391 02/12/2015 Hideyuki ICHIHASHI 60803 7590 03/27/2019 Paratus Law Group, PLLC 1765 Greensboro Station Place Suite 320 Tysons Corner, VA 22102 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. 1946-0694 8721 EXAMINER RICHER, AARON M ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2618 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/27/2019 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 HIDEYUKI ICHIHASHI 1 Appeal 2018-006631 Application 14/620,391 Technology Center 2600 Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, HUNG H. BUI, and JON M. JURGOV AN, Administrative Patent Judges. KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from the Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1-3, 5, and 10-20, which are all the claims pending in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b ). We affirm. 1 Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Sony Corporation (see App. Br. 3). Appeal2018-006631 Application 14/620,391 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant's invention is directed to a method and apparatus for "reducing electricity consumption when displaying an image" on a display while keeping deterioration of the image's appearance "in a predetermined range ... using color conversion" (Spec. 3:2-5). Claims 1, 11-13, 18, and 19 are independent. Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is exemplary of the subject matter on appeal. 1. An image processing apparatus comprising: circuitry configured to determine a distance between potential candidate pixel values of a uniform pixel value after color conversion and an actual pixel value out of a plurality of pixel values before color conversion in a uniform color space, wherein an amount of the distance is determined for each pixel based on a combination of a spatial frequency of a region centering on each actual pixel value, an operation mode of the image processing apparatus, and a residual amount of a battery used to supply electrical power to a display associated with the image processing apparatus; select an electricity consumption minimum pixel value from the potential candidate pixel values within the determined distance from each actual pixel value before conversion in the uniform color space based on electricity consumption information acquired for the display, which is controlled by the circuitry to perform display based on the selected electricity consumption minimum pixel value out of the plurality of pixel values within the determined distance from each actual pixel value of an input image in the uniform color space for each particular pixel being used as a converted pixel value for each actual pixel, in 2 Appeal2018-006631 Application 14/620,391 order to generate an output image after color convers10n, wherein the operation mode of the image processing apparatus is set by a user of the image processing apparatus and indicates an overall level of reduction in electricity consumption for the image processing apparatus. App. Br. 27 (Claims App.). REJECTIONS and REFERENCES The Examiner rejected claims 1-3, 5, and 10-12 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 based upon the teachings of Daly (US 2015/0029210 Al, published Jan. 29, 2015), Cok (US 2009/0002349 Al, published Jan. 1, 2009), and Akahori (US 2003/0179945 Al, published Sept. 25, 2003). The Examiner rejected claims 13-19 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 based upon the teachings of Daly, Cok, Akahori, and Sullivan (US 2013/0093783 Al, published Apr. 18, 2013). The Examiner rejected claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 based upon the teachings of Daly, Cok, Akahori, and Baaijens (US 2009/0278470 Al, published Nov. 12, 2009). ANALYSIS With respect to claim 1, Appellant contends the combination of Daly, Cok, and Akahori does not teach or suggest an amount of the distance is determined for each pixel based on a combination of a spatial frequency ofa region centering on each actual pixel value, an operation mode of the image processing apparatus, and a residual amount of a battery used to supply electrical power to a display associated with the image processing apparatus, 3 Appeal2018-006631 Application 14/620,391 as claimed (App. Br. 18-19). Particularly, Appellant argues Daly's Contrast Sensitivity Function (CSP) filtering is not based "on a spatial frequency of a region centering on each actual pixel value, as the filter of Daly is actually applied to the 'opponent color space"' (App. Br. 20-21). Appellant also argues Akahori's "low-pass filter would not teach or suggest any determination of a spatial frequency of a region centering on each actual pixel value" (App. Br. 21). Rather, Akahori's filter merely enhances high frequency components in an overall image by adding luminance components for improved sharpness (id.). Appellant further contends Cok merely changes a device's white point based on a battery charge (Reply Br. 5). As such, "there is no reason why the teachings of Cok would remedy the deficiencies of Daly regarding the [ claimed] determination of an amount of distance based on an operation mode and a residual amount of a battery" (id.). We do not agree. We agree with and adopt the Examiner's findings as our own. Particularly, we agree with the Examiner that Daly determines an amount of a distance between actual pixel values and potential candidate pixel values (shifted from actual pixel values by a JND (just-noticeable-difference) color offset) in a uniform color space (e.g., L*a*b* color space) as claimed (Ans. 4, 16 (citing Daly ,r,r 15, 36)). 2,3 Daly's distance calculation is additionally modified by a CSP filter applied to pixel values of "the entire image" (see Daly ,r,r 3 6-3 7, Fig. 2 ( distance is output from blocks 208, 212, 216 after CSP filtering in blocks 206,210,214); Final Act. 4). Thus, Daly determines 2 Citations are to the Examiner's second Answer filed April 17, 2018. 3 Appellant's Specification similarly describes a "uniform color space is an L*a*b* color space" (Spec. 13:9-10). 4 Appeal2018-006631 Application 14/620,391 an amount of the distance for each pixel based on a spatial frequency ( associated with the CSP filter) of a region ( the entire image) on each actual pixel value, as claimed (Ans. 4, 14).4 Daly further suggests the distance amounts are based on a spatial frequency of a region centering on each actual pixel value, as claimed (Ans. 14). Because Daly "CSP filter[s] the entire image," distance amounts for the image's centermost pixels are determined based on a region (the entire image) centering on each of these pixels (see Daly ,r,r 3 6-3 7). 5 Additionally, Akahori discloses applying a low-pass filter in sequential 11 x 11 or 3 x3 moving windows centering on each pixel value, also suggesting spatial frequency-based filtering could be applied to "a region centering on each actual pixel value" as claimed (Ans. 15-16 (citing Akahori ,r,r 61, 70, 75)). We are also not persuaded by Appellant's argument that Daly's CSP filtering is not based "on a spatial frequency o(a region centering on each actual pixel value ... [because] the filter of Daly is actually applied to the 'opponent color space"' (App. Br. 20-21). Appellant's claim 1 does not preclude actual pixel values in an "opponent color space" (Ans. 14). Rather, 4 The Contrast Sensitivity Function (CSP) is known to depend on the spatial frequency of the visual stimuli-see, e.g., Denis G. Pelli & Peter Bex, Measuring Contrast Sensitivity, Vision Research 90, 12 (2013) (describing "visual contrast sensitivity as a function of spatial frequency"); https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contrast_(vision) (last accessed Mar. 7, 2019) ( describing CSP as a function of contrast sensitivity vs spatial frequency). Daly's CSP filter, which is a low-pass filter shaped like a contrast sensitivity function, modifies pixels "depending on their spatial frequency and velocity" (see Daly ,r 36). 5 We note Appellant's claim I merely requires determining a distance for two pixels (i.e., for each "actual pixel value out of a plurality of pixel values"). 5 Appeal2018-006631 Application 14/620,391 claim 1 merely requires actual pixel values in a "uniform color space."6 As discussed supra, Daly discloses actual pixel values in a uniform color space L *a*b*. Daly also discloses the uniform color space can also be the original (not opponent) color space of the input image (see Daly ,r 35). We are also unpersuaded by Appellant's argument "there is no reason why the teachings of Cok would remedy the deficiencies of Daly regarding the determination of an amount of distance based on an operation mode and a residual amount of a battery" (Reply Br. 5). We find the Examiner has articulated sufficient reasoning for combining Daly and Cok to result in the claimed limitations (Ans. 11, 17; Final Act. 5). Particularly, the Examiner finds a user sets an operation mode in Cok for a "power savings function" upon receiving an "alert ... as to the low-charge condition [ of the mobile device battery]" (see Cok ,r,r 33, 40; Ans. 11, 17). Cok's power savings function "[ s ]hift[ s] the white point of the display [which] will impact primarily the luminance component of the [color] signal" (see Cok ,r,r 33, 42). Thus, Cok teaches white point and luminance are affected by "an operation mode [indicating an overall level of reduction in electricity consumption] of the image processing apparatus, and a residual amount of a battery" as recited in claim 1. The Examiner reasons a skilled artisan would have added Cok's low power mode to Daly's mobile device to reduce power consumption and extend the battery's operational life (Final Act. 5). We 6 Appellant's Specification similarly describes actual pixel values of an input image in a uniform color space (see Spec. 8: 16-1 7, 13: 11-16). For example, page 8 in the Specification determines a distance between pixel values "in a perception uniform color space," one of the pixel values being "a uniform pixel value of an input image before color conversion in [the] perception uniform color space" (see Spec. 8: 16-17). 6 Appeal2018-006631 Application 14/620,391 agree with the Examiner, as the asserted combination involves the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions. See KSR!nt'l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398,417 (2007). Appellant asserts Cok' s low power operation mode would merely reduce Daly's device power, but would not lead a skilled artisan to modify Daly's distance based on the operation mode and residual battery amount as claimed (App. Br. 19--20). We remain unpersuaded because (i) Daly teaches the distance (between actual pixel values and potential candidate pixel values) is based on JND color offsets that depend on luminance (see Daly ,r,r 16, 20, 30) and (ii) Cok teaches luminance is modified by the operation mode and residual battery amount as discussed supra. Thus, we agree with the Examiner combining Cok's operation mode with the teachings of Daly would result in Daly determining a distance based on the operation mode and residual battery amount, as required by claim 1 (Ans. 11, 17 ( citing Daly ,r 30); Final Act. 5). Thus, Appellant has failed to clearly distinguish the claimed invention over the prior art relied on by the Examiner. We, therefore, sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent claim 1, independent claims 11-13, 18, and 19 argued for substantially the same reasons as claim 1, and dependent claims 2, 3, 5, 10, 14--17, and 20 for which no separate arguments are provided (App. Br. 23-25). OTHER ISSUES In the event of any further prosecution, the Examiner may wish to consider whether Appellant's Specification describes sufficient structure corresponding to claimed "nonce" words in claims 1 and 13. Each claim 7 Appeal2018-006631 Application 14/620,391 recites "circuitry configured to" perform recited functions, and thus could be considered as means-plus-function claim terms underÂ§ 112(f), such that independent claims 1 and 13 may be indefinite under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 112(b). We particularly note Figure 1 of Appellant's drawings merely provides boxes with labels for the claimed circuitry: color space conversion section, determination section, candidate determination section, color space reverse conversion section, and selection section. We leave it to the Examiner to determine whether, as a computer-implemented claim limitation, the claim, interpreted under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 112(f), has corresponding structure that must include the algorithm needed to transform the general purpose computer disclosed in the specification into the special purpose computer programmed to perform the disclosed algorithm. Aristocrat Techs. Australia Pty Ltd. v. Int'! Game Tech., 521 F.3d 1328, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2008). If the recited "circuitry" is not considered by the Examiner as a "nonce" means-plus-function claim term, the Examiner may wish to consider whether independent claims 1 and 13, as "single means claims" ( a processor comprising processing circuitry), lack an enabling disclosure commensurate with the scope of the claims under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 112(a) for failing to provide "enabling disclosure . . . commensurate in scope with the claim under consideration." See In re Hyatt, 708 F.2d 712, 714 (Fed.Cir.1983). A single means claim "covers every conceivable means for achieving the stated result, while the specification discloses at most only those means known to the inventor." Id. See also MPEP Â§ 706.03(c). The claimed "circuitry configured to" is recited purely in terms of the functions it is intended to perform. Such pure functional claiming broadly covers all 8 Appeal2018-006631 Application 14/620,391 structures, program products, or other means for performing the recited "circuitry" functions. DECISION The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-3, 5, and 10-20 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 is affirmed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED 9