Ex Parte KOZAK et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 14, 2018

14638546 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 14, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 14/638,546 03/04/2015 142052 7590 Wong & Rees LLP Dolby Laboratories Inc. 4340 Stevens Creek Blvd. Suite 106 San Jose, CA 95129 09/18/2018 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Eric KOZAK 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. D100l5US02 (60175-0286) 5816 EXAMINER DOBBS, KRISTIN SENSMEIER ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2486 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/18/2018 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): docketing@wongrees.com patents@dolby.com mguo@dolby.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte ERIC KOZAK and ROBIN ATKINS Appeal2018-003560 Application 14/63 8,546 1 Technology Center 2400 Before MARC S. HOFF, MATTHEW R. CLEMENTS, and STEVEN M. AMUNDSON, Administrative Patent Judges. HOFF, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134 from a Final Rejection of claims 1-19.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). We reverse. Appellants' invention is a display operable in 2D and 3D display modes. The colors and brightness of the image data, and/or the intensity of the display backlight, are adjusted based on the current display mode and/or color grading of the image data. When switching to a 3D display mode, 1 The real party in interest is Dolby Laboratories Licensing Corporation. App. Br. 1 2 Claims 20 and 21 have been cancelled. App. Br. 29 Appeal2018-003560 Application 14/638,546 color mapping may be performed on left and right eye image data to increase color saturation in particular regions. See Abstract. Claim 1 is reproduced below: 1. A method for switching a display having a 2D display mode and a 3D display mode, from the 2D display mode to the 3D display mode, the method comprising: displaying first image data in the 2D display mode; switching to the 3D display mode; upon switching to the 3D display mode, performing a color mapping on left and right image data, the left and right image data provided for viewing respectively by viewers' left and right eyes; and displaying the color-mapped left and right image data on the display, wherein each of the color-mapped left and right image data comprises image data comprising R, G, B values for display and the color mapping compensates for differences in color and/or brightness between the first image data and the left and right image data upon switching from the 2D display mode to the 3D display mode at least in part by increasing color saturation of the left and right image data. The Examiner relies upon the following prior art in rejecting the claims on appeal: Robinson et al. US 2010/0208044 Al Aug. 19, 2010 Divelbiss et al. US 2004/0218269 Al Nov. 4, 2004 Kuga et al. us 5,604,529 Feb. 18, 1997 Yamada et al. US 2011/0090216 Al Apr. 21, 2011 Ellinger et al. US 2011/0285962 Al Nov. 24, 2011 Claims 1-5 and 11-15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ I03(a) as being unpatentable over Robinson and Divelbiss. Final Act. 3-9. 2 Appeal2018-003560 Application 14/638,546 Claim 6, 7, and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Robinson, Divelbiss, and Kuga. Final Act. 9-10. Claims 8-10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Robinson, Divelbiss, and Yamada. Final Act. 11-13. Claims 17-193 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Robinson, Divelbiss, and Ellinger. Final Act. 13-16. Throughout this decision, we make reference to the Appeal Brief ("App. Br.," filed Sept. 20, 2017), the Reply Brief ("Reply Br.," filed Feb. 14, 2018), and the Examiner's Answer ("Ans.," mailed Dec. 29, 2017) for their respective details. ISSUE Does the combination of Robinson and Divelbiss disclose or suggest that "the color mapping compensates for differences in color and/or brightness between the first image data and the left and right image data upon switching from the 2D display mode to the 3D display mode at least in part by increasing color saturation of the left and right image data," as recited in independent claim 1 and similarly recited in independent claim 11? ANALYSIS CLAIMS 1-5 AND 11-15 Independent claim 1 recites, inter alia, that upon switching a display from 2D display mode to 3D display mode, a color mapping is performed that compensates for differences in color and/or brightness "at least in part 3 The Appeal Brief also lists claims 20 and 21 as forming part of this ground of rejection (App. Br. 4), but claims 20 and 21 have been cancelled (Final Act. 2). 3 Appeal2018-003560 Application 14/638,546 by increasing color saturation of the left and right image data." Independent claim 11 recites an analogous limitation. The Examiner finds that Robinson discloses this limitation. Final Act. 4; Ans. 3; Robinson ,r 58. Specifically, the Examiner further finds that "the various color mappings ... are used to calibrate the color reproduction for the viewer. In addition, the color channel mixing of Robinson is affected by saturation level which offers more flexibility to control the subtle color/fusion trade-off." Ans. 20-21; Robinson ,r,r 55-58. We do not agree with the Examiner's interpretation of Robinson. We agree with Appellants that Robinson discloses that, in anaglyph imaging, "there may be significant retinal rivalry where objects often appear to have significant brightness differences between left and right eyes. This may lead to problematic image fusion and related eyestrain, and is particularly noticeable for saturated colored objects." App. Br. 17; Robinson ,r 19. Appellants contend, and we further agree, that to address this problem, Robinson discloses "trading-off the color saturation against the retinal rivalry that occurs should obiect intensities differ significantly between eyes. Unlike the conventional approaches, it does this symmetrically by adding obiect brightness information into both eyes." App. Br. 17; Robinson ,r 49. Appellants assert that a skilled artisan would have understood that adding object brightness information into both eyes, as Robinson discloses, would lead to decreased color saturation. App. Br. 17. Appellants' assertion is corroborated by Robinson's disclosure that retinal rivalry is more noticeable for saturated colored objects. Robinson ,r 19. "[T]rading- off the color saturation against retinal rivalry" (Robinson ,r 49) would 4 Appeal2018-003560 Application 14/638,546 therefore mean reducing color saturation, rather than increasing it. The Examiner has not rebutted Appellant's argument. We further agree with Appellants that Robinson discloses counteracting retinal rivalry by performing color mapping such that "saturated red objects may be seen in both eyes with equal brightness allowing for some red color reproduction and good fusion." App. Br. 17-18; Robinson ,r 54. We agree with Appellants' argument that "[b ]y adding cyan colors for the saturated red objects in the cyan image to increase brightness in the eye viewing the cyan image, the saturated red objects clearly will be reproduced as less saturated red objects." App. Br. 18. Because we find that Robinson discloses reducing, rather than increasing, color saturation, we find that the combination of Robinson and Divelbiss fails to disclose or suggest the "by increasing color saturation" limitations of independent claims 1 and 11. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner'sÂ§ 103(a) rejection of claims 1-5 and 11-15. CLAIMS 6-10 AND 16-19 Each of these claims depends from claim 1 or claim 11, the rejection of which we do not sustain, supra. We find that the further references cited by the Examiner (Kuga, Yamada, and Ellinger) do not remedy the deficiencies identified in Robinson and Divelbiss. Thus, we do not sustain the Examiner'sÂ§ 103(a) rejection of claims 6, 7, and 16 over Robinson, Divelbiss, and Kuga; we do not sustain the Examiner'sÂ§ 103(a) rejection of claims 8-10 over Robinson, Divelbiss, and Yamada; and we do not sustain the Examiner'sÂ§ 103(a) rejection of claims 17-19 over Robinson, Divelbiss, and Ellinger. 5 Appeal2018-003560 Application 14/638,546 CONCLUSION The combination of Robinson and Divelbiss does not disclose or suggest that the color mapping compensates for differences in color and/or brightness between the first image data and the left or right image data upon switching from the 2D display mode to the 3D display mode at least in part by increasing color saturation of the left and right image data. ORDER The Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-19 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) is reversed. REVERSED 6