Ex Parte Muijs et al

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardFeb 28, 2019

14003832 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Feb. 28, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 14/003,832 09/09/2013 Remco Theodorus Johannes Muijs 24737 7590 03/04/2019 PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS 465 Columbus A venue Suite 340 Valhalla, NY 10595 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. 2011P00368WOUS 5529 EXAMINER MCCULLEY,RYAND ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2611 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/04/2019 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): patti. demichele@Philips.com marianne.fox@philips.com katelyn.mulroy@philips.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte REMCO THEODORUS JOHANNES MUIJS, MARK JOZEF WIIIEM MERTENS, WILHELMUS HENDRIKUS ALFONSUS BRULS, CHRIS DAMKAT, MARTIN HAMMER, and CORNELIS WILHELMUS KWISTHOUT Appeal2018-006517 Application 14/003,832 Technology Center 2600 Before TERRENCE W. McMILLIN, KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, and SCOTT B. HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judges. McMILLIN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) of the final rejection of claims 1, 3, 7-10, 13, 14, 17-19, and 21. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b ). We AFFIRM. Appeal2018-006517 Application 14/003,832 THE CLAIMED INVENTION The present invention relates generally to "methods and apparatuses for comparing different gradings, in particular an LDR [low dynamic range] and HDR [high dynamic range] variant, and resulting products such as signals and carriers carrying those signals, which at least comprise a data structure describing the difference between the two gradings." Spec. 1, 11. 2-5. Independent claim 1 is directed to a method; independent claim 14 is directed to an image processing apparatus; and independent claim 21 is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium. Appeal Br. 28-31. Claim 1, reproduced below with the disputed limitations in italics, is representative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A method of processing an image, comprising: obtaining a first graded picture with a first luminance dynamic range; obtaining data encoding a grading of a second graded picture with a second luminance dynamic range, the second luminance dynamic range being higher than the first luminance dynamic range; determining a grading difference data structure comprising a geometric specification of at least one region containing a difference in grading between the first graded picture and the second graded picture and a mathematical representation of the difference, based on at least the data encoding the grading of the second graded picture; and deriving a third graded picture based on the grading difference data structure and on at least one of the first graded picture and the second graded picture whether pre-existing or derivable from the data encoding the grading of the second graded picture, the third graded picture having a grading that is 2 Appeal2018-006517 Application 14/003,832 different from that of both the first graded picture and the second graded picture; wherein the first, second, and third graded pictures represent the same image content; and wherein the grading of the image content to form the first graded picture is based on the first luminance dynamic range, and the grading of the image content to form the second graded picture is based on the second luminance dynamic range. Appeal Br. 28 (Claims Appendix). REJECTIONS ON APPEAL Claims 1, 3, 7-10, 13, 14, 17-19, and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ I03(a) as being unpatentable over Seetzen et al. (US 2013/0038790 Al; published Feb. 14, 2013) ("Seetzen") and Marcu et al. (US 2010/0046855 Al; published Feb. 25, 2010) ("Marcu"). Final Act. 6. ANALYSIS Claim 1 recites "obtaining a first graded picture" and "obtaining data encoding a grading of a second graded picture." Appellants argue the references fail to teach or suggest these limitations. App. Br. 10. Specifically, Appellants argue Seetzen teaches LDR video input and HDR video input are graded, and it is "understood that one grading may be created for an LDR picture and another grading may be created for an HDR picture," but Seetzen does not teach that the "gradings ... be created" and the claimed "a first graded picture and a second graded picture." Appeal Br. 14; see Appeal Br. 11-13. According to Appellants, "even if Seetzen appears to suggest that an input could be graded, Seetzen does not disclose the LDR and HDR inputs are graded" because the "mere 3 Appeal2018-006517 Application 14/003,832 possibility that a LDR and a HDR image could be graded fails to convert Seetzen's LDR and HDR inputs to a graded picture." Reply Br. 3. We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments. Specifically, we agree with the Examiner that Seetzen's different versions of the same video content received at inputs 12 and 22A as different video signals that may be "individually optimized for displays having different color gamuts and/or dynamic range" teach the claimed first graded picture and data encoding a grading of a second graded picture. Final Act. 6 ( citing Seetzen ,r 82); see also Ans. 2-5. Appellants' Specification describes that grading means "how the luminances (/colors) of all image objects are coordinated in a picture, which may e.g. be encoded as RAW" and "grading has to do with the allocation of objects of a captured scene to specific luminance ranges of the final picture encoding, based on aesthetic principles." Spec. 9, 11. 22-26; see also Spec. 2, 11. 21-23 ("grading has a commonly known meaning comprising the artistic improvement of all colors (/luminances ), so that the image looks optimal"). The claimed "graded picture," under the broadest reasonable interpretation and in light of the Specification, encompasses an encoding of a raw image that considers how luminances and colors of the image objects are coordinated. See Ans. 2-3. As cited by the Examiner (see Final Act. 6), Seetzen teaches "cases in which different video signals each carrying a different version of the same video content are received at inputs 12 and 22A," and the "two different versions may, for example, be individually optimized for displays having different color gamuts and/or dynamic range." Seetzen ,r 82; see also Ans. 4 ( citing Seetzen ,r 128, Fig. 6A). In other words, Seetzen teaches two 4 Appeal2018-006517 Application 14/003,832 versions of the same video content (i.e., a first version of the video content and a second version of the video content) that have each been optimized for displays with different color gamuts and/or dynamic ranges (i.e., the first version of the video content is graded or optimized for the first color gamut and/ or dynamic range, and the second version of the video content is graded or optimized for the second color gamut and/or dynamic range). Appellants have not provided persuasive evidence or argument that the claimed first graded picture and data encoding a grading of a second graded picture, encompassing encodings of raw images that consider luminances and colors, are not taught or suggested by Seetzen's two versions of the same video content that are each optimized for color gamuts and/or dynamic ranges (i.e., two graded images that are each optimized for luminances and colors). Claim 1 further recites: [D]etermining a grading difference data structure comprising a geometric specification of at least one region containing a difference in grading between the first graded picture and the second graded picture and a mathematical representation of the difference, based on at least the data encoding the grading of the second graded picture. Appellants contend that Seetzen teaches LDR and HDR input video signals, and a difference between values in the first and second video signals, but does not teach "a difference between the corresponding.first and second graded picture" or the claimed "a difference in grading between the first graded picture and the second graded picture." Appeal Br. 15. Specifically, Appellants argue Seetzen's masks defining pixels of an image to be affected "differ from Appellant's 'determined grading difference data structure."' Appeal Br. 17; see Reply Br. 7-8. Appellants contend Marcu 5 Appeal2018-006517 Application 14/003,832 teaches "images that are clearly NOT graded." Appeal Br. 18; see Appeal Br. 19; see Appeal Br. 22-23; see Reply Br. 9. According to Appellants, "neither Seetzen nor Marcu ever consider 'a grading difference,"' and "[n]either Seetzen nor Marcu teach or suggest 'a grading difference data structure."' Appeal Br. 22. We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments. Specifically, we agree with the Examiner that Seetzen's mask "is related to grading differences between first and second video signals" and "can be considered a grading difference data structure." Ans. 6-7 (citing Seetzen ,r,r 120-121); see Final Act. 6 (citing Seetzen ,r,r 84, 120). We also agree with the Examiner's finding that Marcu teaches "a geometric specification of a region that contains image differences between two input images," and "[ w ]hen the geometric specification of Marcu is applied to the grading differences of Seetzen, the combination renders obvious a data structure specifying a geometric region of grading differences." Ans. 7 ( citing Marcu Fig. 1). As cited by the Examiner (see Ans. 6-7; Final Act. 6), Seetzen describes "color appearance controller 88 outputs one or more masks 88A that define which pixels of an image are to be affected ( or not affected) by mappings performed by mapping unit 80 and mapping control parameters 88B that control the mappings performed by mapping unit 80." Seetzen ,r 120. Seetzen teaches "the control value is applied in interpolation/extrapolation block 64 to multiply a difference between the corresponding values in the first and second video signals." Seetzen ,r 84. Marcu describes, in relation to Figure 1, cited by the Examiner (Ans. 7), "a mask ( 111) is generated ( 131) from the high exposure image ( 101) to 6 Appeal2018-006517 Application 14/003,832 capture the saturated area which can be better represented by the corresponding portion of the low exposure image (103)." Marcu ,r 35. Marcu also describes "low dynamic range images (101 and 103) capture the details in different ranges and in different regions of a scene" (Marcu ,r 31 ), and "low dynamic range images are blended according to a weight distribution (113) which based on the distribution of different ranges in different locations in the scene and this blending and the calculation of the weight distributions may be performed automatically (e.g., by a computer or camera or other data processing system)" (Marcu ,r 34). In other words, Seetzen teaches multiplying a difference between the values in the signals, and masks defining pixels to be affected (i.e., grading difference information), and Marcu teaches blending images by considering the different ranges in different locations and the calculated weight distribution. Appellants have not provided persuasive evidence or argument that the claimed determining a grading difference data structure is not taught or suggested by the combination of Seetzen's masks defining pixels to be affected (i.e., data structures defining grading difference information), considering the differences between signal values (i.e., grading difference information), combined with Marcu's blending of images by considering different ranges in different locations using the calculated weight distribution (i.e., grading differences between two images as a geometric specification that considers the calculated weight distribution). Claim 1 recites: [D]eriving a third graded picture based on the grading difference data structure and on at least one of the first graded picture and the second graded picture whether pre-existing or derivable from the data encoding the grading of the second graded picture, the third graded picture having a grading that is 7 Appeal2018-006517 Application 14/003,832 different from that of both the first graded picture and the second graded picture. Appellants argue that "[b ]ecause Seetzen does not disclose or suggest 'determining a grading difference data structure' it follows that Seetzen does not disclose or suggest 'deriving a third graded picture based on the grading difference data structure," as claimed. Appeal Br. 19; see Reply Br. 10. We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments. Specifically, we agree with the Examiner that Seetzen's deriving an "output signal by interpolating between the two input video signals or extrapolating from the two input signals" and "multiply[ing] a difference between the corresponding values in the first and second video signals" teaches the claimed deriving a third graded pictured based on the grading difference data structure and at least one of the first graded picture and second graded picture. Final Act. 7 ( citing Seetzen ,r,r 82, 84 ); see Ans. 9. We also agree with the Examiner that Marcu's determining "regions of the high dynamic range image containing pixels having values that are outside a first range and inside a second range" teaches the claimed "creation of a third graded picture ... from first and second graded pictures." Final Act. 7 ( citing Marcu ,r 10, Fig. 5). Appellants have not provided persuasive evidence or argument that the claimed "deriving a third graded picture based on the grading difference data structure and on at least one of the first graded picture and the second graded picture" is not taught or suggested by Seetzen's interpolating and extrapolating from the first and second video signals to generate an output (i.e., deriving a third graded picture based on the first and second video signals and their differences) (see Seetzen ,r 84) and Marcu's blending images into one image by considering the different ranges in different 8 Appeal2018-006517 Application 14/003,832 locations and calculating the weight distribution (i.e., deriving a third graded picture based on the first and second graded pictures) (see Marcu ,r,r 33-34). Accordingly, we sustain the 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 rejection of independent claim 1, as well as independent claims 14 and 21, argued for the same reasons as claim 1, and dependent claims 3, 7-10, 13, and 17-19, not separately argued. See Appeal Br. 23-26. DECISION TheExaminer'srejectionofclaims 1, 3, 7-10, 13, 14, 17-19, and21 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