Ex Parte Xu et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardApr 22, 201612621452 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 22, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 12/621,452 11/18/2009 XinyuXu 55648 7590 04/22/2016 CHERNOFF VILHAUER MCCLUNG & STENZEL, LLP 601 SW Second Ave., Suite 1600 PORTLAND, OR 97204 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. SLA2670 (7146.0475) 2486 EXAMINER MA, TIZE ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2613 MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE 04/22/2016 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 XINYU XU, SCOTT J. DALY, and LOUIS JOSEPH KEROFSKY Appeal2014-007297 Application 12/621,452 Technology Center 2600 Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, CHARLES J. BOUDREAU, and ADAM J. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judges. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection of claims 22-29, 32, and 34-39. 1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm-in-part. 1 Claims 1-21 have been canceled, and claims 3 0, 31, 3 3, and 40--4 2 have been objected to for being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form. App. Br. 3; Final Act. 15. Appeal2014-007297 Application 12/621,452 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction Appellants' disclosure is directed "to image enhancement and, in particular, to methods and systems for improving content visibility on a liquid crystal display (LCD) under low-contrast viewing conditions." Spec. ,-i 1. Claims 22, 29, and 3 6 are independent. Claim 22 is reproduced below for reference: 22. A method for enhancing a digital input image received by an automated processing device operably connected to a display, said method comprising the steps of: (a) creating a first component image with said processing device, from the received said input image, by adjusting the luminance of said input image; (b) creating a second component image with said processing device, from the received said input image, said second component image comprising a non-photo-realistic visual depiction that preserves the contours of semantic content in said input image; and (c) blending pixel intensity data from said first component image with pixel intensity data from said second component image. References and Rejections Claims 22-24, 26-28, and 36-39 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Bressan (US 2008/0285853 Al; Nov. 20, 2008), Fergason (US 2010/0253846 Al; Oct. 7, 2010), and Watanabe (US 2007/0273686 Al; Nov. 29, 2007). Final Act. 6. Claim 25 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Bressan, Fergason, Watanabe, and Kerofsky (US 2006/ 0284882 Al; Dec. 21, 2006). Final Act. 11. 2 Appeal2014-007297 Application 12/621,452 Claims 29, 32, 34, and 35 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Bressan, Fergason, Watanabe, and Itoh (US 2010/ 0278423 Al; Nov. 4, 2010). Final Act. 12. ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants' arguments that the Examiner erred. Except as indicated below with respect to claims 29, 32, 34, and 35, we disagree with Appellants that the Examiner erred and adopt as our own the findings and conclusions set forth by the Examiner in the Final Action from which this appeal is taken and the Examiner's Answer. We highlight and address specific findings and arguments for emphasis as follows. A. Independent claim 22 and dependent claims 23-28 Claim 22 requires blending "pixel intensity data" of two component images, in which the "second component image" comprises a non-photo- realistic visual depiction that preserves the contours of semantic content in an input image. Appellants argue the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claim 22: because the proposed modification of the primary reference, Bressan, would ostensibly blend a luminance component of an image with a mere binary mask. Not only does this improperly modify the principle of operation of the primary reference (where the luminance image is intended to be blended with a chrominance image) but the proposed modification makes no sense because a binary image mask lacks pixel intensity data that could be blended with a luminance image. App. Br. 5-6. 3 Appeal2014-007297 Application 12/621,452 Appellants do not persuade us the Examiner erred in finding one of ordinary skill would modify Bressan-in light of Fergason and Watanabe- to blend pixel intensity data from the first and second component image, as required by claim 22. See Ans. 3--4 (citing Bressan Figs. 1, 2, ,-i,-i 53-55; Fergason ,-i 96; Watanabe ,-i,-i 453--455). We agree with the Examiner that one of skill in the art would modify Bressan with Watanabe's pixel blending method, because Bressan is directed to contrast enhancement, and Watanabe's blending can adjust contrast. See Watanabe ,-i 453; Bressan Abstract, ,-i 34 (stating the edge mask 20e is used in the "analysis to generate a contrast-enhancing tone"); see also Final Act. 7 ("Blending is commonly used for combining brightness/intensity data of two images."). Further, Appellants' argument relies on the contention that, in Bressan, the edge mask 20e has no pixel intensity data that can plausibly be blended as claimed. See, e.g., Reply Br. 5. Appellants contend the Specification describes "the pixel intensity data in a component image is the numerical value associated with a pixel from, e.g.[,] 0 to 255 and which represents the relative lightness or darkness of the image sample point that the pixel represents" (Reply Br. 7); however, we do not find such definition provided in the Specification,2 nor do Appellants identify any evidence supporting such definition. Accordingly, we find the recited "pixel intensity data from said second component image" broadly but reasonably encompasses the data provided by Bressan's edge mask,3 which shows the 2 We note the Specification does not include the terms "intensity" or "pixel intensity data." 3 Additionally, we note that, although Appellants' Specification states commonly used edge detectors may not be effective when creating a second component image, the present claims do not recite limitations precluding the 4 Appeal2014-007297 Application 12/621,452 intensity as a binary measurement. See Bressan ii 34 ("[A] binary analysis image mask 20e ... identifies the pixels of the analysis image portion ... [and] the analysis image portion [is] identified by the black pixels of the binary analysis image mask 20e."); see also Ans. 4 (finding Bressan's edge mask data "is considered as intensity data because it has the intensity information to produce the contrast enhanced luminance image 42"). Appellants have not provided persuasive argument or sufficient evidence to show that the binary intensity data of Bressan's edge mask (for example, having numerical values of 0 or 255) could not be blended with the luminance adjusted first component image. See Ans. 3. Thus, Appellants do not persuade us the combination of Bressan's first and second component images with Watanabe's teaching of blending pixel intensity data was "uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art." Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claim 22, or claims 23-28, which depend therefrom and are not separately argued. See App. Br. 7, 8. B. Independent claim 36 and dependent claims 37-39 Claim 36 recites "creating a second component image" similar to claim 22 discussed above, and further recites "combining said first component image and said second component image using the equation I = BI1 + (1-B)b where I is the combined image, I1 is the first component use of such edge detectors in the creation of the second component image. See Spec. ii 40; see also Spec. ii 7. 5 Appeal2014-007297 Application 12/621,452 image and [sic], bis the second component image, and j3 is a blending factor." Appellants argue the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claim 36, because "Bressan discloses that the binary image mask 20e is merely used to identify pixels in the luminance image by which a tonescale adjustment is to be made, and in this use of the primary reference, the blending equation [of claim 36] would be pointless." App. Br. 8. We do not find the Examiner erred, however, in mapping Bressan's binary mask to the recited second component image, for reasons similar to the rejection of claim 22 discussed above. See Ans. 5. That is, as we find an artisan of ordinary skill would blend pixel intensity data from Bressan's edge mask using Watanabe's blending, so we find the artisan would use the equation of Watanabe to blend an image such as Bressan's edge mask. See Bressan Fig. 2, ,-i 53; Watanabe ,-i,-i 453--455. The Examiner correctly finds, and Appellants do not challenge, that claim 36 "only requires combining said first component image and said second component image using the equation. It does not require what quantities in the two images are combined. A broadest reasonable interpretation is that, the step involves combining some quantities or any quantities of two images using the equation." Ans. 5-6; see also Reply Br. 11. Thus, we agree with the Examiner that "[t]he intensity data associated with the image mask [of Bressan] would be able to be combined with other intensity data of other image component[ s], using the equation in the claim and in Watanabe .... " Ans. 6; see also KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007) ("[I]f 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 6 Appeal2014-007297 Application 12/621,452 devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill."). Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claim 36, or claims 37-39, which depend therefrom and are not separately argued. See App. Br. 8. C. Independent claim 29 and dependent claims 32, 34, and 35 Independent claim 29 recites a "gradient map constructed with a filter that computes first-order derivatives of each pixel in respective vertical and horizontal windows, each window comprising at least three pixels and centered around a sequentially-selected pixel." The Examiner finds Itoh teaches this feature, because the "L-shaped window in Itoh et al[.] can be viewed as either one vertical window or one horizontal window. They just happen to be overlapping. The window has three pixels, one pixel is qualified as the center pixel compared to [the] other two." Ans. 8; see also App. Br. 14. Appellants argue the Examiner erred, because Itoh teaches an L- shaped window that is "only two pixels deep in each of the vertical and horizontal directions, centered around the vertex." App. Br. 10. Appellants contend "that single window cannot serve as 'respective' vertical and horizontal windows unless the L-shaped window was subdivided into a two-pixel vertical window and a two-pixel horizontal window, in which case each window would not be three pixels in length." Id. (emphasis omitted). We are persuaded by Appellants' arguments. As found by the Examiner, Itoh teaches an L-shaped window with "at least three pixels, (s,t), (s+ l,t), (s, t+ 1 ), ... with (s,t) as the center pixel." Final Act. 14 (citing Itoh 7 Appeal2014-007297 Application 12/621,452 iJ 54 ). Thus, ltoh discloses a single three pixel window for each center pixel. Regardless of the shape of Itoh's window, we agree with Appellants that Itoh's window of three pixels does not teach the recited windows each having three pixels. Any "overlapping windows" in Itoh (see Ans. 8) would at most have 2 pixels each. See Reply Br. 12-13. Accordingly, we are persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claim 29, and claims 32, 34, and 35, which depend therefrom. DECISION The Examiner's rejections of claims 22-28 and 36-39 are affirmed. The Examiner's rejection of claims 29, 32, 34, and 35 is reversed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § l .136(a)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED-IN-PART 8 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation