Ex Parte WANG et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 12, 2018

14014077 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 12, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/014,077 08/29/2013
94472 7590 07/16/2018
DISNEY ENTERPRISES, INC.
c/o Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP
12275 El Camino Real, Suite 200
San Diego, CA 92130-2006
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
OLIVER WANG
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.
12-DIS-450-PR-US-UTL 1407
EXAMINER
HE,WEIMING
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2612
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/16/2018 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):
docketing@sheppardmullin.com
SheppardMullin_Pair@firsttofile.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte OLIVER WANG and ALJOSA SMOLIC 1
Appeal2017-011680
Application 14/014,077
Technology Center 2600
Before DEBRA K. STEPHENS, DANIEL J. GALLIGAN, and
DAVID J. CUTITTA II, Administrative Patent Judges.
GALLIGAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Introduction
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1-6, 8-11, 13-16, 18, 19, and 21-24, which are all of the claims
pending in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
Claims 7, 12, 17, and 20 have been cancelled.
We REVERSE. 2
1 Appellant is the Applicant, Disney Enterprises, Inc., which, according to
the Appeal Brief, is the real party in interest. Br. 1.
2 Our Decision refers to Appellant's Appeal Brief filed April 3, 2017
("Br."); Examiner's Answer mailed June 30, 2017 ("Ans."); Advisory
Action mailed December 13, 2016 ("Adv. Act."); and Final Office Action
mailed October 20, 2016 ("Final Act.").
Appeal2017-011680
Application 14/014,077
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Claims on Appeal
Claims 1 and 13 are independent claims. Claim 1 is reproduced
below:
1. A computer-implemented method of detecting object
boundaries in a video, comprising:
identifying a pixel of an image frame of a video;
defining a patch for the pixel;
identifying a set of neighboring image frames for the
image frame, the set of neighboring image frames comprising an
image frame that comes before and an image frame that comes
after the image frame in the video;
detecting a set of patch matches to the patch from the set
of neighboring image frames by searching a plurality of patch
transformations of the patch in each image frame of the set of
neighboring image frames, wherein each patch match of the set
of patch matches is detected by comparing pixels of the patch
with pixels of a patch that is being matched, wherein the set of
patch matches comprises a patch match for each image frame of
the set of neighboring image frames; and
calculating an object boundary probability value for the
patch corresponding to the pixel by applying a difference metric
to the patch and the set of patch matches;
wherein the difference metric distinguishes patches
corresponding to texture edges from patches corresponding to
object boundaries, wherein the difference metric is a function of
the set of patch matches, and wherein the difference metric is
based on color and gradient information of the patch and the set
of patch matches.
Chen
Shechtman
References
US 2010/0104202 Al
US 2013/0129213 Al
2
Apr. 29, 2010
May 23, 2013
Appeal2017-011680
Application 14/014,077
Kim
Chang
Park
US 2014/0064567 Al
US 2014/0146997 Al
US 2014/0270487 Al
Mar. 6, 2014
May 29, 2014
Sept. 18, 2014
Kwai Hung Chan et al., Contour-Based Warping, 60 CVGIP: Graphical
Models and Image Processing 331 (1998) (hereinafter "Chan").
Examiner's Rejections
Claims 1-6, 8, 9, 11, 13-16, 18, 21, 22, and 24 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being unpatentable over Chen, Chang, Shechtman, and
Park. Final Act. 4--12.
Claims 10 and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over Chen, Chang, Shechtman, Park, and Chan. Id. at 12-13.
Claim 23 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. §I03(a) as being
unpatentable over Chen, Chang, Shechtman, Park, and Kim. Id. at 13-14.
ANALYSIS
Appellant contends the Examiner erred in finding the combination of
Chen and Chang teaches "calculating an object boundary probability value
for the patch corresponding to the pixel by applying a difference metric to
the patch and the set of patch matches; wherein the difference metric
distinguishes patches corresponding to texture edges from patches
corresponding to object boundaries," as recited in claim 1 and similarly
recited in claim 13. Br. 12-13. Specifically, Appellant argues Chang's
disclosure of a "probability that a pixel in a frame is located within an
object" does not teach "distinguishing 'patches corresponding to texture
edges from patches corresponding to object boundaries."' Id. at 13.
3
Appeal2017-011680
Application 14/014,077
Appellant further argues Chen does not "differentiat[ e] between texture
edges and object boundaries in an image." Id. at 17.
We are persuaded. The Examiner cites various disclosures of Chen
relating to edge comparisons and summations of edge matches (Chen ,r,r 33,
35, 51) and further cites Chang's disclosure of estimating the probability that
a pixel is located within an object (Chang ,r,r 4, 56-60). Final Act. 6-7;
Ans. 6-7. The Examiner then finds that "the combination of Chen's
'difference metric to the patch' and Chang's 'probability map by estimating
probability of the pixel being located within the object' distinguishes patches
corresponding to the edges based on the edge probabilities of the pixels."
Ans. 7.
It is not apparent how this combination of Chen and Chang teaches
"distinguish[ing] patches corresponding to texture edges from patches
corresponding to object boundaries." Appellant's Specification states that
"texture edges refer to edges moving together with an object, wherein the
edges are not on the outline of the object." Spec. ,r 17. In the Final Action
and the Answer, the Examiner notes that Chen distinguishes various edge
types. Final Act. 6-7 (citing Chen ,r,r 33, 35); Ans. 6-7 (citing Chen ,r,r 51-
52, 66-68, Fig. 6). The Examiner, however, does not explain in either the
Final Action or the Answer which of the various edge types discussed in
Chen, i.e., Vertical Edges, Horizontal Edges, Left Edges, Right Edges, or
indeterminate Mess Edges (Chen ,r,r 41--45), teaches a "texture edge" within
the meaning set forth within the Specification. Final Act. 6-7. Further, the
Examiner does not explain how Chang's determination of whether a pixel is
within an object or object boundary (Chang ,r,r 57-59) teaches a "texture
edge" or teaches distinguishing a texture edge from an object boundary. See
4
Appeal2017-011680
Application 14/014,077
Final Act. 7; see also Ans. 7. In the Answer and the Final Action, the
Examiner finds that the combination of Chen and Chang "distinguishes
patches corresponding to the edges based on the edge probabilities of the
pixels" (Ans. 7; see Final Act. 7-8); however, the Examiner does not
adequately explain how the combination distinguishes or calculates
probabilities between the specifically claimed edge types, i.e., "texture
edges" and "object boundaries." Accordingly, the Examiner has not shown
the combination of Chen and Chang teaches or suggests the disputed
limitation.
Because we agree with at least one of the arguments advanced by
Appellant, we need not reach the merits of Appellant's other arguments. See
Br. 7-12, 14--17. Appellant has shown the Examiner erred in concluding the
combination of Chen, Chang, Shechtman, and Park renders independent
claims 1 and 13 unpatentable. Dependent claims 2---6, 8-11, 14--16, 18, 19,
and 21-24 stand with their respective independent claims. Therefore, we do
not sustain the rejections of claims 1---6, 8-11, 13-16, 18, 19, and 21-24
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1---6, 8-11, 13-
16, 18, 19, and 21-24.
REVERSED
5