Ex Parte DeLuca et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 28, 2013

12035416 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 28, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte MICHAEL J. DELUCA, YURY PRILUTSKY, ERAN
STEINBERG, PETER CORCORAN, ALEXEI POSOSIN, PETRONEL
BIGIOI, ALEXANDRU DRIMBAREAN, ADRIAN CAPATA and,
FLORIN NANU

____________________

Appeal 2011-007374
Application 12/035,416
Technology Center 2600
____________________

Before THU A. DANG, JAMES R. HUGHES, and GREGORY J.
GONSALVES, Administrative Patent Judges.

DANG, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-007374
Application 12/035,416

2
I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 2-23. Claim 1 has been canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

A. INVENTION
According to Appellants, the invention relates generally to the area of
flash photography and more specifically to filtering “red-eye” from a digital
camera image (Spec. 1, ll. 18-19).

B. ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
Claim 2 is exemplary:
2. One or more processor-readable media having code
embodied therein for programming a processor that resides
upon a portable digital camera device to perform within that
device a method of filtering red eye from a digital image,
wherein the method comprises:

providing illumination during image acquisition;

acquiring an image;

analyzing a subsample resolution representation of
selected regions of the image; and

modifying an area within the image indicative of a red-
eye phenomenon based on the analyzing.

Appeal 2011-007374
Application 12/035,416

3
C. REJECTION
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Benati US 5,432,863 Jul. 11, 1995
Sobel US 6,300,935 B1 Oct. 09, 2001

Claims 2-23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Benati and Sobel.

II. ISSUE
The dispositive issue before us is whether the Examiner has erred in
determining that the combination of Benati and Sobel teaches or would have
suggested “analyzing a subsample resolution representation of selected
regions” of an image (claim 2).

III. FINDINGS OF FACT
The following Findings of Fact (FF) are shown by a preponderance of
the evidence.
Benati
1. Benati discloses determining and correcting for eye color
defects in an image due to flash illumination (Abstract), which includes a
detection phase and a fix phase (Fig. 2).
2. The detection phase includes 5 stages: identification of eye
color defect candidate pixels, segmentation, first scoring, region growth (or
pixel score transition identification), and second scoring (col. 3, ll. 46-54);
while the fix phase includes scaling and correcting (col. 3, ll. 56-58).
Appeal 2011-007374
Application 12/035,416

4
3. The method includes scanning an image to produce a digital
image, defining a spatial region within the digital image which includes at
least a portion of the subject’s head, sampling pixels within the spatial
region for their color content, and comparing each such sampled pixel with a
plurality of threshold values which are representative of eye color defects to
identify possible eye color defect pixels (col. 10, ll. 22-32).

IV. ANALYSIS
Appellants contend that “Benati does not analyze a subsample
resolution representation of [a selected] region as required by Applicants’
claims 2-23” (App. Br. 9). Appellants further contend that “Benati also
discloses to use a same or different resolution during a fix phase” and thus
“Benati does not teach nor suggest to use a different resolution, such as a
subsample resolution, during the detection phase” (id.).
However, the Examiner finds that “Benati analyzes segmented regions
of the eye where the red-eye phenomenon occurs during the detection phase
and further analyzes the selected region in the fix phase” (Ans. 7). The
Examiner then finds that “[a]fter the resolution scaling is completed, the
correcting section corrects the red eye phenomenon based on the eye color
defect pixel from the scaling section” (Ans. 7-8).
We give the claim its broadest reasonable interpretation consistent
with the Specification. See In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir.
1997). Claim 2 merely recites “analyzing a subsample resolution
representation” but does not define as to what the “subsample resolution
representation” is except that it is a type of data that is being analyzed.
However, what type of data that is being analyzed does not alter the
Appeal 2011-007374
Application 12/035,416

5
functionality of or provide any additional function to how the data is
analyzed. That is, the limitation is essentially nonfunctional descriptive
material in that the limitation simply describes the type data to be analyzed,
but the underlying functionality remains the same regardless of the data
type. Ex parte Nehls, 88 USPQ2d 1883, 1889 (BPAI 2008) (precedential).
See Ex parte Curry, 84 USPQ2d 1272, 1274 (BPAI 2005) (informative)
(Fed. Cir. Appeal No. 2006-1003), aff’d, Rule 36 (June 12, 2006).
Thus, we interpret claim 2 to merely require analyzing data of selected
regions of an image. We note that although Appellants argue that “Benati
does not teach nor suggest to use a different resolution, such as a subsample
resolution, during the detection phase” (App. Br. 9), such argument is not
commensurate in scope with the recited language of claim 2. That is, claim
2 does not require any “use” of any “resolution,” let alone a “different”
resolution “during the detection phase.”
Like the claimed invention, Benati discloses modifying an area within
an image indicative of a red-eye phenomenon based on analyzing (FF 1),
wherein Benati’s method includes identifying eye color defect candidate
pixels and then correcting the red-eye phenomenon (FF 2). In particular, the
method includes defining a spatial region within the digital image which
includes at least a portion of the subject’s head, sampling pixels within the
spatial region for their color content, and then comparing each such sampled
pixels with threshold values to identify possible eye color defect pixels (FF
3).
We find that Benati’s defined spatial region which includes the
subject’s head comprises a “selected” region of the image. Thus, we find
Benati’s sampling of pixels within the spatial region for their color content
Appeal 2011-007374
Application 12/035,416

6
and comparing the pixels with threshold values comprise analyzing data of
selected regions of the image.
Further, we find no error in the Examiner’s finding that “[a]fter the
resolution scaling is completed, the correcting section corrects the red eye
phenomenon based on the eye color defect pixel from the scaling section”
(Ans. 7-8). That is, the sampled pixels comprise content that represent the
image’s resolution to be scaled. Thus, even if we were to give patentable
weight to the non-functional descriptive material, we find no error in the
Examiner’s finding that such pixels comprise subsample resolution
representation.
Accordingly, we conclude that Benati, combined with Sobel, at least
suggests “analyzing a subsample resolution representation of selected
regions of the image,” as recited by claim 2. Appellants provide no
argument for claims 3-23 separately from those of claim 2 (App. Br. 9), and
thus, claims 3-23 fall with claim 2.

V. CONCLUSION AND DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 2-23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is
affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

peb