Ex Parte El-Mahdy et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 21, 2017

13312786 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 21, 2017)

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.
13/312,786 12/06/2011 Ahmed Hazem El-Mahdy FR920100071US1 2851
75949 7590
IBM CORPORATION
C/O: Fabian Vancott
215 South State Street
Suite 1200
Salt Lake City, UT 84111
12/26/2017 EXAMINER
KWAN, MATTHEW K
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2482
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/26/2017 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):
patents @ fabianvancott.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte AHMED HAZEM EL-MAHDY
and HISHAM EMAD ELSHISHINY
Appeal 2016-004390
Application 13/312,786
Technology Center 2400
Before JUSTIN BUSCH, LINZY T. McCARTNEY, and
SCOTT B. HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judges.
McCARTNEY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 1—
16 and 22—25. The Examiner has allowed claims 17—21. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
Appeal 2016-004390
Application 13/312,786
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The present patent application “relates to High Dynamic Range (HDR)
image processing and in particular to a system and a method for tone mapping
a MPEG HDR video stream.” Specification 12, filed December 6, 2011. Of
the appealed claims, claims 1 and 22 are independent. Claim 1 illustrates the
claimed subject matter:
1. A method for tone-mapping a High Dynamic Range
(HDR) data video stream encoded in MPEG format, the encoded
High Dynamic Range (HDR) data video stream comprising a
frame sequence of intra-coded frames (I-Frames), predictive-
coded frames (P-Frames), and bidirectionally-predictive-coded
frames (B-frames), the method comprising:
decoding the HDR data video stream to generate decoded
I-frames, auxiliary decoded data related to P-Frames, and
auxiliary decoded data related to B-Frames where the auxiliary
decoded data includes an error signal representing an error value
at a pixel location, the method further comprising:
i - applying a tone mapping function to each decoded I-
Frame to provide a tone-mapped I-Frame according to a tone
mapping operator,
ii - for each P-frame depending on a reference 1-frame,
computing the tone-mapped P-frame from the tone-mapped I-
Frame previously determined for the reference 1-frame, the
reference I-Frame, and the auxiliary decoding data related to the
P-Frame; and
iii - for each B-frame, computing the tone-mapped B-
ffame from the tone mapped 1-frame previously determined for
the reference 1-frame, the tone mapped P-frame previously
determined for the reference P-frame, and the auxiliary decoding
data related to the B-Frame.
Appeal Brief 23, filed August 11, 2015 (“App. Br.”).
2
Appeal 2016-004390
Application 13/312,786
REJECTIONS
Claims 1—3, 6—9, 12, 13, 15, 16, and 22—24 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Wu et al. (US 2009/0110073 Al; April
30, 2009), Cheedela et al. (US 2005/0232355 Al; October 20, 2005) and
Ward et al. (US 2008/0310501 Al; December 18, 2008). Final Office
Action 2—9, mailed April 28, 2015 (“Final Act.”).
Claims 14 and 25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Wu, Cheedela, Ward, and Sherigar et al. (US
2006/0222247 Al; October 5, 2006). Final Act. 10.
ANALYSIS
Claim 1 recites in relevant part “computing the tone-mapped P-frame
from [1] the tone-mapped I-Frame previously determined for the reference I-
frame, [2] the reference I-Frame, and [3] the auxiliary decoding data related
to the P-Frame.” App. Br. 23. Claim 22 recites a similar limitation. See
App. Br. 29-30. Appellants argue the Examiner erroneously found a
combination of Wu and Cheedela teaches or suggests this limitation. See,
e.g., App. Br. 13. According to Appellants, the Examiner’s analysis “does
not address that... a tone-mapped P-frame is . . . computed from at least
two disparate types of I-frame, i.e., a tone-mapped I-ffame and a reference I-
frame.” Reply Br. 4 (emphasis altered).
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections, and we agree with
Appellants that the Examiner erred. The Examiner found “Wu discloses
creating tone mapped I-frames from a GOP [Group of Pictures] including
reference I-frames” and “Cheedela teaches that a GOP can include P-frames,
which are generated from 1-frame and error . . . data.” Answer 12, filed
January 15, 2016 (“Ans.”). The Examiner found that “if common P frames
3
Appeal 2016-004390
Application 13/312,786
are added to a GOP composed of tone-mapped I-frames, Cheedela teaches
that they would need to be computed from the I frames (which are tone
mapped and require reference I-frames to be computed). This process would
result in tone-mapped P-frames.” Ans. 12. These findings may teach or
suggest computing a tone-mapped P-frame from a tone-mapped I-frame and
a tone-mapped I-frame from a reference I-frame, but the Examiner has not
adequately explained how these findings teach or suggest computing a tone-
mapped P-frame from a tone-mapped I-frame and a reference I-frame.
The claim expressly recites that the tone-mapped P-frame is
calculated from the reference 1-frame in addition to the tone-mapped I-
frame. According to the Examiner’s implied construction and mapping of
the cited references to the claim limitations, the tone-mapped I-frame is
necessarily computed from the reference I-frame. Thus, the Examiner’s
implied construction would render superfluous the recitation that the tone-
mapped P-frame is also calculated from the reference I-frame. See Stumbo
v. Eastman Outdoors, Inc., 508 F.3d 1358, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2007)
(denouncing claim constructions which render terms in claims superfluous).
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejections of independent
claims 1 and 22 and their respective dependent claims.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1—16 and 22—25.
REVERSED
4