Ex Parte Raichelgauz et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 26, 2018

14513863 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 26, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
14/513,863 10/14/2014 Igal RAICHELGAUZ
122066 7590 04/30/2018
M&B IP Analysts, LLC
500 Headquarters Plaza
Morristown, NJ 07960-7070
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.
CORT P0178C3 1023
EXAMINER
MUELLER, KURT A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2157
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/30/2018 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):
pair@mb-ip.com
eofficeaction@appcoll.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte IGAL RAICHELGAUZ, KARINA ODINAEV,
and YEHOSHUA Y. ZEEVI
Appeal2017-011607
Application 14/513,863
Technology Center 2100
Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, ALLEN R. MacDONALD, and
JOHN P. PINKERTON, Administrative Patent Judges.
SAADAT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 1--4, 6-14, and 16-20.2 We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Cortica, Ltd. (App.
Br. 3).
2 Claims 5 and 15 were cancelled.
Appeal 2017-011607
Application 14/513,863
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants' invention relates to generation of complex signatures to
enable matches of multimedia content (Spec. i-f 2). Exemplary claim 1 under
appeal reads as follows:
1. A method for generating signatures of an input multimedia
data element (MMDE), comprising:
identifying low-level characteristics of the input MMDE;
identifying a plurality of portions of the input MMDE,
wherein each portion of the plurality of portions of the input
MMDE comprises an identified low-level characteristic of the
inputMMDE;
partitioning the input MMDE into a plurality of minimum
size MMDEs, wherein each minimum size MMDE is a segment
of the input MMDE, wherein each minimum size MMDE
comprises a portion of the plurality of portions of the input
MMDE;
generating a first signature robust to additive noise and a
second signature for each minimum size MMDE of the plurality
of minimum size MMD Es;
assembling at least a complex signature comprising a
plurality of signatures of the minimum size MMD Es; and
storing the signatures of each of the minimum size
MMDEs and the complex signature in association with the
multimedia data element and the plurality of minimum size
MMDEs in a storage.
REFERENCES and REJECTIONS
Claims 1--4, 6, 9--14, 16, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Thomas et al. (US 2002/0163532 Al;
published Nov. 7, 2002) ("Thomas"), and Ching-Yung Lin & Shih-Fu
Chang (Generating Robust Digital Signature for Image/Video
2
Appeal 2017-011607
Application 14/513,863
Authentication, Multimedia and Security Workshop at ACM Multimedia
'98, Bristol, U.K., September 1998) ("Lin") (see Final Act. 2---6). 3
Claims 7, 8, 17, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Thomas, Lin, and H. Wang et al. (A Signature for
Content-based Image Retrieval Using a Geometric Transform, Multimedia
and Security Workshop at ACM Multimedia '98, Bristol, U.K., September
1998) ("Wang") (see Final Act. 6-7). 4
Claim 20 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Thomas, Lin, and Bottou et al. (US 6,144,767 A; issued Nov. 7, 2000)
("Bottou") (see Final Act. 7).
PRINCIPLES OF LAW
Claim Interpretation
A claim under examination is given its broadest reasonable
interpretation consistent with the underlying specification. See In re
American Acad. of Science Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
In the absence of an express definition of a claim term in the specification or
a clear disclaimer of scope, the claim term is interpreted as broadly as the
ordinary usage of the term by one of ordinary skill in the art would permit.
See In re ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1379 (Fed.
Cir. 2007); see also In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
3 The statement of the rejection indicates that claim 20 is also rejected, but
the body of the rejection does not reference claim 20. See Final Act. 2---6.
4 The rejection does not reference claims 17 and 18. See Final Act. 6-7.
However, it appears from the context of the Final Office Action that claims
17 and 18 were also rejected, as claims 17 and 18 recite limitations that are
identical to recited limitations of claims 7 and 8. Thus, we treat this
rejection as also being applied to claims 17 and 18.
3
Appeal 2017-011607
Application 14/513,863
Obviousness
The Supreme Court has rejected the rigid requirement of
demonstrating a teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the references to
show obviousness. See KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Co., 550 U.S. 398, 415-16
(2007); see also In re Ethicon, Inc., 844 F.3d 1344, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2017)
("KSR directs that an explicit teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the
references is not necessary to support a conclusion of obviousness.").
Further, if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of
ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar
devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual
application is beyond his or her skill. KSR, 550 U.S. at 417.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants'
arguments in Appellants' Appeal Brief and Reply Brief that the Examiner
has erred. We are unpersuaded by Appellants' contentions and concur with
the findings and conclusions reached by the Examiner as explained below.
Independent Claims 1, 10, and 11
Appellants contend the combination of Thomas and Lin fails to teach
or suggest "generating a first signature robust to additive noise and a second
signature for each minimum size MMDE of the plurality of minimum size
MMD Es," and "storing the signatures of each of the minimum size MMD Es
and the complex signature in association with the multimedia data element
and the plurality of minimum size MMD Es in a storage," as recited in
independent claims 1 and 10 and similarly recited in independent claim 11
4
Appeal 2017-011607
Application 14/513,863
(see App. Br. 7, 14). As discussed below in greater detail, we are not
persuaded by Appellants' contention.
Regarding "generating a first signature robust to additive noise and a
second signature for each minimum size MMDE of the plurality of
minimum size MMDEs," Appellants argue the aforementioned claim
element requires that each minimum size MMDE have two signatures
generated for it: (1) a first signature robust to additive noise; and (2) a
second signature (which need not be robust to additive noise) (see App.
Br. 8). As argued by Appellants, Thomas merely teaches generating a single
signature (i.e., a block signature) for each block (i.e., the alleged "minimum
size MMDE"), where the other signatures (i.e., region signature and frame
signature) are not generated for each block (see id; see also App. Br. 9;
Reply Br. 2-7).
We are not persuaded by this argument. The Examiner finds:
The claim language currently presented is drafted
broader than [what Appellants argue]. The claim requires
generating "a first signature robust to additive noise" and "a
second signature for [each block of the plurality of blocks]".
While the second signature is associated with each block, the
first signature is not so associated using the broadest
reasonable understanding. There is no clear indication that the
first signature must be for each block . ...
Applicant's desired reading is a narrower version of the
language presented. Because the language is not restricted by
its terms to the narrower suggestion, the alleged failure of the
prior art to teach the narrower suggestion is not dispositive, as
the examiner interprets and applies the art to the claims using
the broadest reasonable understanding. Because the broader
claim language presented is disclosed by the prior art, the
rejection is proper.
5
Appeal 2017-011607
Application 14/513,863
In the alternative, assuming arguendo appellant is
correct that the narrower reading is required by the claims, the
examiner would still reject the claims using the same art. As
appellant notes, Thomas discloses at least generation of one
signature for each block. NPL Lin also teaches generation of a
signature, but not for each block. However, having an explicit
teaching that a signature can be generated for each block, the
examiner would view it as obvious that a signature generated
on the basis of another type of grouping could likewise be
applied on the block level by a person having ordinary skill in
the art. Such a combination would be applying a known
technique to a known device, method, or product, for ready for
improvement to yield predictable results.
Ans. 3--4 (emphasis added).
We agree with the Examiner that, even assuming arguendo that the
aforementioned element requires each minimum size MMDE to have two
signatures, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to
combine the generation of the robust signature taught by Lin (see Lin at 2)
with the generation of the block signature taught by Thomas (see Thomas
i-f 29), so that each block in Thomas includes two signatures, as opposed to a
single signature. We further agree that such a combination would involve
applying a known technique (i.e., generation of robust signature taught by
Lin) to a known device, method, or product ready for improvement (i.e.,
generation of block signatures as taught by Thomas) to yield predictable
results (generation of two signatures for each block).
Further, we also agree with the Examiner that, under the broadest
reasonable interpretation, the aforementioned element does not require that
both the first and second signature be associated with each minimum size
MMDE, and, instead, allows for only the second signature to be associated
with each minimum size MMDE. In other words, the aforementioned
6
Appeal 2017-011607
Application 14/513,863
element may only require that each minimum size MDME includes a single
signature, and further only requires an additional robust signature, such as an
overall region or frame signature, as taught by Thomas (see Thomas i-fi-129,
32, 33). Thus, we agree with the Examiner that, under either interpretation
of the aforementioned element, the combination of Thomas and Lin teaches
or suggests the aforementioned element.
Regarding "storing the signatures of each of the minimum size
MMDEs and the complex signature in association with the multimedia data
element and the plurality of minimum size MMD Es in a storage," we agree
with the Examiner that Appellants' argument relies on the proposition that
the combination of Thomas and Lin does not teach or suggest the generation
of the aforementioned signatures (see Ans. 4 (citing App. Br. 9--10)), which
is not persuasive for the reasons previously discussed. Thus, we also agree
with the Examiner that the combination of Thomas and Lin teaches or
suggests the aforementioned element as well.
Regarding a "signature robust to additive noise," Appellants argue
that Lin merely describes manipulations and transformations of an image
and fails to teach or suggest generating a signature that is robust to additive
noise (see App. Br. 1 O; see also Reply Br. 7). This argument is also not
persuasive. Lin teaches generating a robust authentication signature that
survives JPEG compression, where JPEG compression involves
recompressing, or rounding, noises (see Lin at 2-3 ("[t]his signature can
survive JPEG compression ... [ r ]ounding noises may be added during the
JPEG compression process")). Thus, we agree with the Examiner that Lin
7
Appeal 2017-011607
Application 14/513,863
teaches or suggests a "signature robust to additive noise" (see Final Act. 4;
see also Ans. 4--5). 5
Appellants additionally argue the Final Office Action fails to provide
a motivation to combine Thomas and Lin (see App. Br. 11-12; see also
Reply Br. 8-9). This argument is not persuasive either. As previously
explained, an explicit teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the references is
not necessary to support a conclusion of obviousness. See Eth icon, 844 F .3d
at 1350. As also previously explained, the Examiner's combination of
Thomas and Lin is simply an application of a known technique to a known
device, method, or product ready for improvement that yields no more than
predictable results, and thus, would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art (see Final Act. 4; see also Ans. 6).
Thus, we are not persuaded by Appellants' contentions that the
Examiner erred in finding the combination of cited references teaches or
suggests all the elements of claims 1, 10, and 11. Accordingly, we sustain
the rejection of claims 1, 10, and 11under35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Claims 7, 8, 17, and 18
Appellants further contend the combination of Thomas, Lin, and
Wang fails to teach or suggest "wherein each of the minimum size MMD Es
is associated with signatures respective of at least four angular permutations
of the minimum size MMDE," as recited in claims 7 and claim 17, and
"wherein the at least four angular permutations comprise rotation of the
5 We further note that Wang also describes generating a signature that is
robust against white noise (see Wang at 230 ("[a]nother advantage of our
signature is its robustness against white noise")).
8
Appeal 2017-011607
Application 14/513,863
element by 0 degrees, rotation of the element by 90 degrees, rotation of the
element by 180 degrees, and rotation of the element by 270 degrees," as
recited in claims 8 and 18 (see App. Br. 15). More specifically, Appellants
argue Wang merely describes a transform operation applied to an object at a
pixel level, where the transform operation involves the translation, rotation,
and/or scaling of the object (see id.). Thus, as argued by Appellants, Wang
fails to teach or suggest: partitioning an input MMDE into a plurality of
minimum size MMD Es, where each minimum size MMDE: (1) is a segment
of the input MMDE; (2) comprises a portion of the plurality of portions of
the input MMDE; and (3) is associated with signatures for at least four
angular permutations of the minimum size MMDE (see id).
Appellants' contentions are not persuasive. We agree with the
Examiner's findings that Thomas teaches extracting a plurality of blocks
from an input frame, and Wang teaches generating a signature that involves
transformation, rotation, and/or scaling of an image, where the rotation
generates different angular permutations of the image, and where the
different angular permutations include 0, 90, 180, and 270 degrees (see Final
Act. 3, 6 (citing Thomas i-f 2 9; Wang at 23 0)). In light of this, we find no
error in the Examiner's position that the combination of Thomas, Lin, and
Wang teaches or suggests the aforementioned elements of claims 7, 8, 17,
and 18 (see Final Act. 6-7).
Thus, we agree with the Examiner that the combination of cited
references teaches all the elements of claims 7, 8, 17, and 18. Accordingly,
we sustain the rejection of claims 7, 8, 17, and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
9
Appeal 2017-011607
Application 14/513,863
Claim 20
Appellants further contend the combination of Thomas, Lin, and
Bottou fails to teach or suggest "wherein the partitioning is performed
recursively, each recursion yielding a plurality of partitioned MMD Es,
wherein each minimum size MMDE is one of the partitioned MMD Es
having a size below a predetermined threshold," as recited in claim 20 (see
App. Br. 16). More specifically, Appellants argue there is no motivation to
combine Bottou with Thomas because Thomas teaches that a minimum size
MMDE is a block, and there is no reason to employ recursion to divide an
image into blocks (see id.).
We are not persuaded by Appellants' contention. As the Examiner
correctly finds, Thomas teaches extracting a plurality of blocks from an
input frame, and Bottou teaches partitioning an image into multiple
rectangular regions (i.e., "boxlets") using a recursive process (see Final
Act. 3, 7 (citing Thomas i-f 29; Bottou 6:15-30)). In light of this, we also
agree with the Examiner that the combination of Thomas and Lin teaches or
suggests the aforementioned element (see Final Act. 7). Therefore, we
sustain the rejection of claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Remaining Claims
No separate arguments are presented for the remaining dependent
claims (see App. Br. 14). We therefore sustain their rejections for similar
reasons stated with respect to independent claims 1, 10, and 11.
10
Appeal 2017-011607
Application 14/513,863
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 1--4, 6-14, and 16-20
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
11