Ex Parte OHKI

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 9, 2017

13960081 (P.T.A.B. May. 9, 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.
1946-0537 4460
EXAMINER
LHYMN, SARAH
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2613
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
13/960,081 08/06/2013
60803 7590 05/09/2017
Paratus Law Group, PLLC
1765 Greensboro Station Place
Suite 320
Tysons Corner, VA 22102
Mitsuharu OHKI
05/09/2017 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 MITSUHARU OHKI
Appeal 2016-003389
Application 13/960,0811
Technology Center 2600
Before KRISTEN L. DROESCH, JOHN P. PINKERTON, and
ALEX S. YAP, Administrative Patent Judges.
DROESCH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant seeks review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’
Final Rejection of claims 1—9, all of the pending claims in the application.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
BACKGROUND
The disclosed invention relates to an image processing apparatus and
method for generating a movement illusion effect of a subject in an image
input. Spec. Abstr., || 1, 8, 18, 21.
1 Appellant indicates the real party-in-interest is Sony Corporation. App.
Br. 3.
Appeal 2016-003389
Application 13/960,081
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Representative claim 1, reproduced from the Claims Appendix of the
Appeal Brief, reads as follows (disputed limitation in italics)'.
1. An image processing apparatus comprising:
an edge detection part that detects an edge of a subject
depicted within an input image;
a luminance change determination part that determines
whether a luminance value in a vicinity of the edge in the input
image is increased or decreased in a predetermined direction
from the edge', and
a contour supplement part that supplements a contour to
the edge in the input image, the contour having the luminance
value changed over a period of time depending on a result of the
determination,
wherein the edge detection part, the luminance change
determination part, and the contour supplement part are each
implemented via at least one processor.
REFERENCES AND REJECTIONS ON APPEAL
Claims 1—3 and 8—9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Matsuo et al. (JP 05-314273 A ; Nov. 26, 1993)
(“Matsuo”), Dellon et al. (US 2011/0043537 Al; Feb. 24, 2011) (“Dellon”),
and Stuart Anstis, Factors affecting footsteps: contrast can change the
apparent speed, amplitude and direction of motion, 44 Vision Research,
2171-78 (2004) (“Antis”).
Claims 4—7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Mitsuhiro, Dellon, Antis, and Ming-Te Chi et al., Self-Animating
Images: Illusory Motion Using Repeated Asymmetric Patterns, 27 ACM
Transactions on Graphics, 62:1-8 (2008).
2
Appeal 2016-003389
Application 13/960,081
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s
arguments in the Appeal Brief, the Examiner’s Answer, and Appellant’s
arguments in the Reply Brief. We agree with Appellant’s arguments. We
highlight and address specific findings and arguments below for emphasis.
As an initial matter, Appellant appeals the Examiner’s objections to
the Drawings under 37 C.F.R. § 1.83(a) and objections to the Specification.
See App. Br. 11—13. We need not, and do not, address Appellant’s
arguments in this regard because objections are not subject to review by the
Board on appeal; rather objections may be reviewed upon petition to the
Director. See 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), 37 C.F.R. §§ 1.113, 1.181.
Turning to the rejections, the Examiner finds that Matsuo teaches the
limitations of the claims, except for
a luminance change determination part that determines
whether a luminance value in a vicinity of the edge in the input
image is increased or decreased in a predetermined direction
from the edge; and
a contour supplement part that supplements a contour to
the edge in the input image, the contour having the luminance
value changed over a period of time depending on a result of the
determination.
See Final Act. 18—19. The Examiner relies on Dellon and Anstis for
teaching or suggesting the aforementioned limitations and determined the
claimed invention would have been obvious over the combined teachings of
Matsuo, Dellon, and Antis. See id. at 19-24 (citing Dellon || 9, 10, 12, 15,
16, 17, 8, 18,21,91,97-99, 100, 102, 104, 105, 110-117, 197; Anstis
2171).
Appellant argues that Matsuo in view of Dellon and Antis does not
teach or suggest
3
Appeal 2016-003389
Application 13/960,081
a luminance change determination part that determines whether
a luminance value in a vicinity of the edge in the input image is
increased or decreased in a predetermined direction form the
edge; and a contour supplement part that supplements a
contour to the edge in the input image, the contour having the
luminance value changed over a period of time depending on a
result of the determination.
App. Br. 14—15. Appellant contends that Dellon merely describes
characteristics of variable luminance, a luminance gradient, and
temporal modulation of luminance values, as explanation of
luminance relationships between visual elements, but does not
consider the setting of luminance values or for supplementing a
contour based on a result of determining whether a luminance
value in a vicinity of the edse in the input image is increased or
decreased in a predetermined direction from the edse.
Id. at 15. Appellant asserts that Anstis merely describes
characteristics of [a] “footsteps illusion” due to different
contrasts of objects, but does apply a luminance gradient to any
contour supplemented to the edge in the input image based on a
result of determinins whether a luminance value in a vicinity
of the edse in the input image is increased or decreased in a
predetermined direction from the edse.
Id. at 16.
In the Answer, the Examiner changes position and finds that Dellon
alone teaches or suggests the disputed limitations. Ans. 2—6 (citing Dellon
1^9, 10, 12—16, 102, 105, 117, 123, 125). In particular, the Examiner makes
the following findings with respect to Dellon’s teachings:
to create the illusion of a square that is alternately shrinking and
growing, it must be determined whether the luminance, in a
vicinity of the edge of the square (input image) is increasing or
decreasing in a predetermined direction (inward or outward
direction relative to the square). For one edge, when it is
determined that the luminance in the vicinity of said edge is
increasing or decreasing in a direction away from the square, that
determination will establish setting the luminance gradients for
4
Appeal 2016-003389
Application 13/960,081
the remaining edges such that movement in a predetermined
direction can be achieved.
Ans. 4—5. The Examiner presents the following additional findings with
respect to Dellon’s teachings:
to achieve desired motion (whether for rehabilitation or because
one wants to create illusory movement of a square that is
shrinking and growing), it is necessary to determine whether a
luminance value in the vicinity of the edge is increasing or
decreasing in a predetermined direction, to either augment the
edge with a contour to effect the illusory motion, change the
luminance gradient, and so on.
Ans. 6.
In response to the Examiner’s additional findings, Appellant argues
that
Dellon neither determines whether a luminance value in a
vicinity of an edge in an input image is increased or decreased in
a predetermined direction from the edge, nor does Dellon ever
obtain or utilize any result of such a determination in setting or
changing luminance values of a contour that is supplemented to
the edge of the input image.
Reply Br. 4. Appellant further contends that
Dellon’s general disclosure of variable luminance profiles does
not teach or suggest to have a contour having luminance value
changed over a period of time depending on a result of a
determination of whether a luminance value in a vicinity of an
edge in the input image is increased or decreased in a
predetermined direction from the edge.
Id. at 4—5.
We agree with Appellant’s arguments. The Examiner does not direct
us to evidence sufficient to demonstrate that the combination of Matsuo,
Dellon, and Anstis teaches or suggests changing the luminance value of a
contour supplementing the edge of an input image over a period of time
5
Appeal 2016-003389
Application 13/960,081
depending on the result of determining whether a luminance value in the
vicinity of the edge in the input image is increased or decreased in a
predetermined direction from the edge. The Examiner’s findings regarding
the claimed determination are based on the following disclosure of Dellon:
Given a known outcome for perception, and setting the user’s
avatar to be represented by the illusory stimulus, it should be
possible to affect the user’s movement and haptic sensation
during interaction in a virtual environment. But first, it is
necessary to determine the perceived motion properties of the
illusion ....
Dellon 1117; see Final Act. 21—22, 24; Ans. 5. The Examiner, however,
omits the remaining details, in which Dellon discloses that “it is necessary to
determine the perceived motion properties of the illusion by identifying the
visual mass matrices of Eq. (20). To this end, the following psychophysical
experiment was conducted.'’'’ Dellon 1117 (emphasis added). Dellon
describes the psychophysical experiment includes requesting human subjects
to match the perceived motion, both speed and direction, of a moving
illusory stimulus comprising a sphere with internal modulating luminance
gradient with that of a neutral stimulus comprising a flat-shaded white
sphere. See Dellon ]f]f 118—125. Thus, Dellon teaches the determination is
based on human perception of motion, and does not teach the determination
of perceived motion properties is based on an increase or decrease of
luminance values in a predetermined direction from the edge of an input
image. Therefore, because Dellon does not teach or suggest the claimed
determination of increased or decreased luminance values in a
predetermined direction from the edge of an input image, the Examiner’s
findings are not supported by a sufficient factual basis. See Final Act. 21—
22, Ans. 2-6; Dellon H 117-125.
6
Appeal 2016-003389
Application 13/960,081
For at least these reasons, we are persuaded the Examiner erred in
rejecting claim 1, independent claims 8 and 9, which recite substantially the
same limitations as claim 1, and claims 2—7, dependent from claim 1.
DECISION
We REVERSE the rejections of claims 1—9.
REVERSED
7