Intel Corporation

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Apr 1, 2021

2020000405 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 1, 2021)

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.
15/198,727 06/30/2016 Maha El Choubassi P99852 1020
75343 7590 04/01/2021
Hanley, Flight & Zimmerman, LLC (Intel)
150 S. Wacker Dr. Suite 2200
Chicago, IL 60606
EXAMINER
HASAN, SYED Y
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2484
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/01/2021 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@hfzlaw.com
jflight@hfzlaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MAHA EL CHOUBASSI and OSCAR NESTARES
Appeal 2020-000405
Application 15/198,727
Technology Center 2400
Before JENNIFER L. McKEOWN, JAMES W. DEJMEK, and
JOYCE CRAIG, Administrative Patent Judges.
CRAIG, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–25. See Final Act. 1. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm in part.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42 (2018). Appellant identifies Intel Corporation as the real
party in interest. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2020-000405
Application 15/198,727

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The invention, according to Appellant, generally relates to a high-
speed video from camera arrays. Specification ¶ 6. Claims 1 and 24,
reproduced below, are illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. An apparatus for high-speed video, comprising:
a camera array, wherein each camera of the camera array
is to capture an image at a different time offset resulting in a
plurality of images;
a controller to interleave the plurality of images in
chronological order;
a processor to enable view synthesis to synthesize a
camera view from a virtual camera for each image of the plurality
of images; and
the processor to enable post processing to remove any
remaining artifacts from the plurality of images and to generate
a video with an adaptive frame rate from the plurality of images,
wherein the adaptive frame rate is enabled, in part, by a mask
applied to each image from the virtual camera.
24. A tangible, non-transitory, computer-readable medium
comprising instructions that, when executed by a processor, direct the
processor to:
capture a plurality of frames using the camera array, wherein
each camera of the camera array is to capture an image at a different
time offset resulting in a plurality of images;
stack the plurality of images in chronological order;
synthesize a view from a single perspective for each image of
the plurality of images via content aware warping by synthesizing the
view based on a source image and a target disparity map; and
process the synthesized views to remove artifacts in the images
to render a slow motion video.
Appeal Br. 23, 27–28 (Claims App.).
Appeal 2020-000405
Application 15/198,727

3
REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 5–12, and 14–16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over the combination of Wilburn et al. (US 2007/0030342 A1,
published Feb. 8, 2007) (“Wilburn”) and Chung et al. (KR101451236B1,
published Oct. 15, 2014) (“Chung”). Final Act. 9–12.
Claims 2, 3, and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over the combination of Wilburn, Chung, and Bell et al. (US
8,861,840 B2, issued Oct. 14, 2014) (“Bell”). Final Act. 12–14.
Claims 4, 17, and 20–25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over the combination of Wilburn, Chung, and Ratcliff et al.
(US 2014/0233847 A1, published Aug. 21, 2014) (“Ratcliff”). Final
Act. 14–16.
Claims 18 and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over the combination of Wilburn, Chung, Ratcliff, and Bell.
Final Act. 16–17.
ANALYSIS
Claims 1–23
Appellant contends the cited portions of Chung’s Abstract do not
teach or suggest “an adaptive frame rate,” as recited in independent claim 1.
Appellant argues that the Specification describes that the adaptive frame rate
enables regions of the same frame to be rendered at different frame rates.
Appeal Br. 13, citing Spec. ¶ 67. Appellant further argues that Chung simply
describes a three-dimensional image conversion, and the Examiner did not
point to any portion of Chung that could be interpreted as describing a frame
rate. Id.
Appeal 2020-000405
Application 15/198,727

4
The Examiner relies on Chung’s teaching of a “mask” for a teaching
of “adaptive frame rate.” Ans. 33. Specifically, the Examiner found that
“since an image is already present therefore this mask is utilized to achieve
the frame rate.” Id. The Examiner also found that “[t]he masking process for
both the instant invention and that of Chung appears to be applying the mask
to each image of the virtual camera.” Id. The Examiner further concluded
that “[t]he artisan would have recognized the obviousness of applying the
mask to each image of the virtual camera to achieve an adaptive frame rate,”
with no further explanation. Id. at 34.
Although claim 1 recites “wherein the adaptive frame rate is enabled,
in part, by a mask applied to each image from the virtual camera,” the
Examiner has not identified with sufficient clarity where Chung teaches that
an adaptive frame rate is enabled, in part, by a mask applied to each image
from the virtual camera, as claim 1 requires. The cited portions of Chung
teach “creating a clean plate by performing background processing with
respect to a part of a mask image, from which the object is extracted,” and
“since the clean plate is created from the mask image to acquire multi-view
camera images, more clear rendering images can be acquired” (Chung
Abstract),2 but do not teach an embodiment in which the mask is applied to

2 Appellant argues that the Examiner’s quotation of the Abstract of Chung is
incorrect and misleading because the Examiner quotes KR145126 B1, which
does not appear in the record. Appeal Br. 11, Reply Br. 1–2. Appellant’s
arguments and our decision are based on an English translation of Chung
KR20140025036, which appears in the record. We have, however,
considered the Examiner’s quotations from KR145126 B1, but do not find
them sufficient to change our decision. In the event of further prosecution,
we leave it to the Examiner to clearly identify and make available any
English translations on which the Examiner relies.
Appeal 2020-000405
Application 15/198,727

5
each image of the virtual camera to achieve an adaptive frame rate. For us to
sustain the Examiner’s rejection, we would need to resort to impermissible
speculation or unfounded assumptions or rationales to cure the deficiencies
in the factual bases of the rejection before us. In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011,
1017 (CCPA 1967).
For the reasons discussed above, we are persuaded of Examiner error.
Because it is dispositive that the Examiner has not shown by a
preponderance of evidence that the cited prior art teaches or reasonably
suggests the claimed “adaptive frame rate,” we do not address other issues
raised by Appellant’s arguments related to these claims. See Beloit Corp. v.
Valmet Oy, 742 F.2d 1421, 1423 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (finding an administrative
agency is at liberty to reach a decision based on “a single dispositive issue”).
Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of independent
claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. For similar reasons, we also reverse the
Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 12 and 17, which recite similar
limitations. In addition, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims
2–11, 13–16, and 18–23, which depend directly or indirectly from the
independent claims.

Claims 24 and 25
Unlike independent claims 1, 12, and 17, addressed above,
independent claim 24 does not recite “an adaptive frame rate.” Appellant
contends that Wilburn and Chung do not teach or suggest the limitation
“stack the plurality of images in chronological order,” as recited in claim 24.
Appeal Br. 19.
Appeal 2020-000405
Application 15/198,727

6
The Examiner found Wilburn teaches a set of frames captured in a
linear spatial succession from a linear array of cameras at non-regular, yet
pre-determined, phase delays between cameras. Ans. 29, citing Wilburn,
Figs. 2, 18, ¶¶ 35, 43, 46. The Examiner further found Wilburn teaches that
an aligned and corrected sequence of frames is sent to a module that
interpolates a desired space-time trajectory of a synthetic viewpoint, and that
the final high-speed video is displayed. Ans. 29, citing Wilburn ¶ 63.
We are not persuaded that the Examiner erred because Appellant has
not persuasively rebutted the Examiner’s findings. See, generally, Reply
Br. 2–5. In particular, Appellant did not explain why the portions of Wilburn
cited by the Examiner do not at least suggest the disputed limitation.
Appellant next argues the Examiner did not show that Wilburn,
Chung, or Ratcliff teaches or suggests “a target disparity map,” as recited in
claim 24. Appeal Br. 20. According to Appellant, Wilburn simply discloses
a disparity calculated to determine an alignment error. Id., citing Wilburn
¶¶ 53–54. Appellant argues that Wilburn does not disclose using any
disparity to generate a synthesized view, much less using it in content aware
warping to synthesize a view, as claim 24 requires. Id.
The Examiner found Wilburn teaches that synthesizing the view
includes content aware warping (Ans. 39, citing Wilburn ¶ 58) that
synthesizes a view based on a dense disparity map (id., citing Wilburn ¶¶ 52,
53). The Examiner further found Wilburn teaches that reference camera 20i
is separated from camera 20a by a distance, and there is a disparity d
between images of frames that can be expressed numerically. Id., citing
Wilburn ¶ 53.
Appeal 2020-000405
Application 15/198,727

7
We are not persuaded that the Examiner erred because Appellant has
not persuasively rebutted the Examiner’s findings. See, generally, Reply
Br. 2–5. In particular, Appellant did not explain why the portions of Wilburn
cited by the Examiner do not at least suggest the disputed limitation.
For these reasons, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in
finding that the combination of Wilburn, Chung, and Ratcliff teaches or
suggests the disputed limitations of claim 24.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of
independent claim 24, as well as the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of
dependent claim 25, not argued separately with particularity. Appeal Br. 21.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–23.
We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 24 and 25.
DECISION SUMMARY
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 5–12, 14–16 103 Wilburn, Chung 1, 5–12, 14–16
2, 3, 13 103 Wilburn, Chung,
Bell
2, 3, 13
4, 17, 20–25 103 Wilburn, Chung
Ratcliff
24, 25 4, 17, 20–23
18, 19 103 Wilburn, Chung
Ratcliff, Bell
18, 19
Overall
Outcome:
24, 25 1–23

Appeal 2020-000405
Application 15/198,727

8
TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED IN PART