Ex Parte Tzur et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 9, 2018

13828226 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 9, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/828,226 03/14/2013 MeirTzur
12811 7590 08/13/2018
Paradice and Li LLP/Qualcomm
1999 S. Bascom Ave.
Suite 300
Campbell, CA 95008
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.
QCM145899 5488
EXAMINER
REN, ZHUBING
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2483
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/13/2018 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):
ocpat_uspto@qualcomm.com
uspto@paradiceli.com
william@paradiceli.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MEIR TZUR and NOAM LEVY 1
Appeal2018-001792
Application 13/828,226
Technology Center 2600
Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, ERIC S. FRAHM, and
MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges.
FRAHM, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of a final
rejection of claims 1-21. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We
reverse.
We have reviewed Appellants' arguments in the Appeal Brief (App.
Br. 7-14) and the Reply Brief (Reply Br. 4--13) that the Examiner's
rejections of (i) claims 1, 2, 8, 9, 15, and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Woodfill (US 7,664,315 B2; issued Feb. 16, 2010)
and Matsuura (US 2011/0109727 Al; published May 12,201 l)(Final Act.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Qualcomm
Incorporated. App. Br. 3.
Appeal2018-001792
Application 13/828,226
2-5; Ans. 2--4); (ii) claims 3, 4, 10, 11, 17, and 18 as being unpatentable
over Woodfill, Matsuura, and Kameyama (US 6,198,484 Bl; issued Mar. 6,
200I)(Final Act. 5---6; Ans. 4---6); and (iii) claims 5, 7, 12-14, and 19-21 as
being unpatentable over Woodfill, Matsuura, and Safaee-Rad (US
2009/0167930 Al; published July 2, 2009)(Final Act. 6-9; Ans. 6-8) are in
error, and the Examiner's response to Appellants' arguments in the Appeal
Brief (Ans. 8-12).
Claim 1 is illustrative, and is reproduced below with bracketed
lettering and emphases added to disputed portions of the claim:
1. A processor based method, comprising:
employing an image sensing device to receive a first set
of two dimensional (2D) images;
employing one or more processors to perform actions,
including:
generating a depth map for a scene, the scene
comprising a plurality of pixels, each of the pixels
corresponding to one of a plurality of depths in the depth map;
[A] identifying a plurality of principal depths for
the scene using the generated depth map, each of the principal
depths having a number of corresponding pixels that is greater
than a number of pixels corresponding to any non-principal
depth of the depth map;
[BJ identifying a plurality of focus positions, the
focus positions respectively corresponding to the principal
depths;
capturing, using the image sensing device, a 2D
image at each of the focus positions to form a second set of 2D
images;
determining a depth correspondence between the
second set of 2D images of the scene and the principal depths
by associating each coordinate in the second set of 2D images
with a principal depth that is closest to an actual depth of
the coordinate; and
2
Appeal2018-001792
Application 13/828,226
for each of a plurality of regions of interest in the
scene, generating a three dimensional (3D) view including a
right-eye image and a left-eye image by:
i) selecting a corresponding principal
depth for a respective region of interest, and
ii) performing a translation and rotation
transformation mapping for each pixel from a 2D image
captured at the focus position for the principal depth for
the respective region of interest.
Appellants argue, inter alia, the combination of W oodfill and
Matsuura fails to teach or suggest either limitation [AJ (App. Br. 8-9; Reply
Br. 4--9); or limitation [BJ as recited in each of independent claims 1, 9, and
16 (App. Br. 10-11; Reply Br. 9-11). And, based on our review of
Appellants' arguments in the Briefs in tandem with the proper interpretation
of independent claims 1, 9, and 16 on appeal, we find the dispositive issue
on appeal to be whether or not the combination of the applied references
would have taught or suggested limitation [BJ recited in claims 1, 9, and 16
to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Appellants' invention. 2
ANALYSIS
Each of independent claims 1, 9, and 16 recite generating a depth map
(of actual depths (see Spec. 13: 1-2)) for a scene, and then "identifying a
plurality of principal depths for the scene using the generated depth map,
each of the principal depths having a number of corresponding pixels that is
2 Appellants rely on the arguments presented as to claims 1, 9, and 16 for the
patentability of claims 2-8, 10-15, and 17-21. See App. Br. 7, 14; Reply
Br. 3, 4, 13.
3
Appeal2018-001792
Application 13/828,226
greater than a number of pixels corresponding to any non-principal depth of
the depth map" (limitation [A]). Then, limitation [BJ recites "identifying a
plurality of focus positions, the focus positions respectively corresponding to
the principal depths" which were identified in limitation [A]. Thus, the
claims require limitation/step [A] be performed prior to limitation/step [BJ.
This order is supported by pages 11 through 13 of Appellants' Specification,
as well as the process flow shown in Figure 4. See also App. Br. 3---6,
Summary of Claimed Subject Matter (describing the support for claims 1, 9,
and 16).
Although Woodfill (col. 2, 11. 58---60; col. 4, 11. 45-56) discloses
identifying a plurality of principal depths and calculating depth and disparity
information, and Matsuura (i1i112-14, 18) discloses identifying a plurality
(e.g., two) focus positions in left and right images, we agree with Appellants
(App. Br. 10-11; Reply Br. 9-11) that neither the Examiner has not
explained how the combination of W oodfill and Matsuura teaches or
suggests identifying plural focus positions corresponding to the plural
principal depths (limitation [BJ), where the principal depths were identified
from a depth map of actual depths which were identified in the same scene,
as set forth in claims 1, 9, and 16.
We also agree with Appellants (Reply Br. 9) that although W oodfill
(col. 4, 11. 10-12) discloses that a closer object has a greater number of
pixels than a farther object of the same size, "there is nothing in Woodfill
that teaches or suggest[s] that 'closer objects' are identified to be processed
in [a] manner that is different from the 'farther objects"' (Reply Br. 9). In
addition, the Examiner has not provide sufficient explanation as to how/why
modifying Woodfill with Matsuura's focus position determination would
4
Appeal2018-001792
Application 13/828,226
result in identifying a plurality of focus positions which correspond to
principal depths identified from a depth map of actual depths identified in
the same scene as claimed.
In view of the foregoing, Appellants' arguments (App. Br. 7, 10-11,
14; Reply Br. 3, 4, 9-11, 13) that the base combination of Woodfill and
Matsuura fails to teach or suggest performing the function of limitation [BJ
as recited in claims 1-21 are persuasive, and we do not sustain the
Examiner's obviousness rejections of claims 1-21 over the base combination
of W oodfill and Matsuura.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner erred in rejecting (i) claims 1, 2, 8, 9, 15, and 16 over
the combination ofWoodfill and Matsuura; (ii) claims 3, 4, 10, 11, 17, and
18 over the combination of Woodfill, Matsuura, and Kameyama; and (iii)
claims 5, 7, 12-14, and 19-21 over the combination ofWoodfill, Matsuura,
and Safaee-Rad.
DECISION3
We reverse the Examiner's rejections of claims 1-21.
REVERSED
3 We recognize that Appellants' arguments present additional issues. We
were persuaded of error by this issue concerning limitation [BJ recited in
claims 1, 9, and 16, and as such we do not reach the additional issues as the
issue with regard to limitation [BJ is dispositive of the appeal.
5