Ex Parte OHKIDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 9, 201713960081 (P.T.A.B. May. 9, 2017) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation