Conduent Business Services, LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jun 23, 2020

2019002245 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 23, 2020)

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.
13/932,453 07/01/2013 Edgar A. Bernal 20130239-US-NP 6908
144570 7590 06/23/2020
Ortiz & Lopez, PLLC/Conduent
P.O. Box 4484
Albuquerque, NM 87196-4484
EXAMINER
HASAN, MAINUL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2485
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/23/2020 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):
Conduent.PatentDocketing@conduent.com
docketing@olpatentlaw.com
klopez@olpatentlaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte EDGAR A. BERNAL and WENCHENG WU
____________

Appeal 2019-002245
Application 13/932,453
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, JAMES B. ARPIN, and
ADAM J. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judges.

ARPIN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejections of claims 44–63. Final Act. 2.2 Claims 1–43 are canceled. Id.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm-in-part.

1 “Appellant” here refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42.
Appellant identifies the real parties-in-interest as Conduent Business
Services, LLC. Appeal Br. 2.
2 In this Decision, we refer to Appellant’s Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.,” filed
August 13, 2018) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed January 18, 2019); the
Final Office Action (“Final Act.,” mailed January 24, 2018) and the
Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed November 19, 2018); and the
Specification (“Spec.,” filed July 1, 2013). Rather than repeat the
Examiner’s findings and determinations and Appellant’s contentions in their
entirety, we refer to these documents.
Appeal 2019-002245
Application 13/932,453

2

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant’s claimed methods, computer-usable media, and systems
generally relate to enhancement of images obtained from video and, in
particular, to vehicle-velocity aware image enhancement. Spec. ¶ 1.
As noted above, claims 44–63 stand rejected. Claims 44, 55, and 59
are independent. Appeal Br. 25 (claim 44), 28 (claim 55), 29 (claim 59)
(Claims App.). Claim 44 recites “[a] computer implemented method”;
claim 55 recites “[a] non-transitory computer-usable medium for producing
an enhanced image, the computer-usable medium embodying computer
program code, the computer program code comprising computer executable
instructions configured for” performing functions substantially as recited in
claim 44; and claim 59 recites “[a] system comprising: a video camera
producing video data wherein the video camera images a road,” which
system performs functions substantially as recited in claim 44. Claims 45–
54 depend directly from claim 44, claims 56–58 depend directly or indirectly
from claim 55, and claims 60–63 depend directly from claim 59. Id. at 25–
30.
Claims 44, 52, 59, and 60, reproduced below with disputed limitations
emphasized, are illustrative.
44. A computer-implemented method comprising:
obtaining video data wherein a video camera imaging a
road produced the video data;
extracting from the video data an image of a vehicle
wherein the vehicle is moving;
determining a location wherein the location is the vehicle's
location within the image of the vehicle;
obtaining a velocity estimate of the vehicle’s speed and
direction on the road; and
Appeal 2019-002245
Application 13/932,453

3

producing an enhanced image based at least in part on the
image and the velocity estimate wherein the enhanced image
shows at least a portion of the vehicle.
Id. at 25 (emphases added).
52. The computer-implemented method of claim 44 further
comprising:
estimating a point spread function in the frequency domain
wherein the point spread function is based at least in part on the
velocity estimate, a camera configuration, a capture parameter,
and an assumption of linear motion;
determining a complex conjugate of a frequency domain
representation the point spread function;
determining a frequency domain representation of the
image;
determining an image power spectral density that is the
power spectral density of the image; and
determining a noise power spectral density that is the
power spectral density of additive noise;
wherein the enhanced image is produced by frequency
domain deconvolution expressed as a fraction having a
numerator and a denominator, wherein the numerator comprises
the product of the frequency domain representation of the image,
image power spectral density, and the complex conjugate, and
wherein the denominator comprises the sum of the noise power
spectral density with the product of the squared magnitude of the
complex conjugate and the image power spectral density.
Id. at 27 (emphasis added).
59. A system comprising:
a video camera producing video data wherein the video
camera images a road;
a first image wherein the system extracts the first image
from the video data, and wherein the first image shows a vehicle
moving on the road;
Appeal 2019-002245
Application 13/932,453

4

a first location determined by the system wherein the
location is the vehicle’s location within the first image;
a velocity estimate of the vehicle’s speed and direction;
and
an enhanced image wherein the system produces the
enhanced image based at least in part on the first image and the
velocity estimate, and wherein the enhanced image shows at least
a portion of the vehicle.
Id. at 29 (emphases added).
60. The system of claim 59 comprising:
extracting from the video data a plurality of additional
images wherein the additional images are extracted from the
video data, and wherein each of the additional images shows the
vehicle; and
a plurality of registered images produced by registering
the image and the additional images;
wherein the enhanced image is produced by averaging the
registered images.
Id. at 29–30 (emphases added).
REFERENCES AND REJECTIONS
The Examiner relies upon the following references in rejecting the
claims:
Name3 Number Publ’d Filed
Lim US 2005/0019000 A1 Jan. 27, 2005 June 25, 2004
Lee US 2006/0177145 A1 Aug. 10, 2006 Feb. 7, 2005
King US 2007/0276600 A1 Nov. 29, 2007 Mar. 6, 2007
Wang US 2008/0166023 A1 July 10, 2008 Jan 7, 2008
Scofield US 2011/0106416 A1 May 5, 2011 Apr. 22, 2010

3 All reference citations are to the first named inventor only.
Appeal 2019-002245
Application 13/932,453

5

Claim 60 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) as lacking adequate
written description, and claim 59 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as
indefinite. Final Act. 2–5. Further, claims 44, 47, 49–55, 58–60, and 63 are
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Lee. Id. at 5–16. In
addition, claim 45 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over the
combined teachings of Lee and King (id. at 16–17); claim 46 is rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over the combined teachings of Lee and
Scofield (id. at 17–18); claims 48 and 62 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as obvious over the combined teachings of Lee and Lim (id. at 18–
20); and claims 56, 57, and 61 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over the combined teachings of Lee and Wang (id. at 21–22).
We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues
identified by Appellant, and in light of the arguments and evidence produced
thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential).
Arguments not made are waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). Unless
otherwise indicated, we adopt the Examiner’s findings in the Final Office
Action and the Answer with respect to the affirmed rejections as our own
and add any additional findings of fact for emphasis. We address the
rejections below.
ANALYSIS
A. Adequate Written Description of Claim 60
The Examiner finds that the Specification fails to provide an adequate
written description for “a plurality of additional images,” as recited in
claim 60, reproduced above. Final Act. 2–3. Section 112(a) provides:
The specification shall contain a written description of the
invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it,
Appeal 2019-002245
Application 13/932,453

6

in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any
person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is
most nearly connected, to make and use the same . . . .
(Emphases added.) As our reviewing court has explained,
[t]he “written description” requirement implements the principle
that a patent must describe the technology that is sought to be
patented; the requirement serves both to satisfy the inventor’s
obligation to disclose the technologic knowledge upon which the
patent is based, and to demonstrate that the patentee was in
possession of the invention that is claimed.
Capon v. Eshhar, 418 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (emphasis added).
The Examiner finds:
Claim 60 recites “extracting from the video data a
plurality of additional images”. After careful review of the
originally filed specification, the Examiner could not find any
mention of extracting plurality of additional images from the
captured image. This has at the least resulted in a new matter
situation. In P7, [0022], L1-3 of originally filed specification
discloses “the image extraction module 131 can extract an image
or sequence of images from the video data”, but nowhere in the
specification, has it disclosed extracting a plurality of
“additional” images. When an extraction module extracts a
sequence of images from the video data, it is “the” extracted
images. The specification is silent about where and why the
“additional” images are extracted. For written description, the
specification as filed must describe the claimed invention in
sufficient detail so that one of ordinary skill in the art can
reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the
claimed invention.
Final Act. 2–3 (emphases added).
Appellant acknowledges that the term “additional images” does not
appear in the Specification. Reply Br. 2. Nevertheless, Appellant points to
numerous instances where the Specification discloses the extraction of
multiple images from the video data, showing possession of the recited
Appeal 2019-002245
Application 13/932,453

7

additional images. Appeal Br. 10–11 (citing Spec., Abstract, ¶¶ 16, 20, 22,
30, 33, 37); see also Spec., Fig. 3 (step 204 reciting “EXTRACT AN
IMAGE OR SEQUENCE OF IMAGES FROM THE VIDEO DATA”). In
particular, the Specification discloses, “[t]he image domain approach utilizes
the output from the image extraction module 131 and the vehicle detection
module 132 and applies feature tracking, optical flow or block matching
algorithms in order to determine a vector field that describes the
displacement of the target vehicle across the sequence of frames.” Spec.
¶ 24 (emphasis added).
Claim 60 further recites that the additional images are registered, and
an enhanced image is produced by averaging the registered images. Appeal
Br. 29–30 (Claims App.). The Specification also discloses:
Velocity-aware denoising is yet another manner of
enhancement that is particularly well suited for low-light capture
conditions, fast frame rates or short exposure times where the
SNR of the individual frames is low. It relies on registration of
adjacent frames and denoising via averaging and self-similarity
methods. Knowledge of the vehicle velocity vector, along with
the camera configuration and capture parameters provide an
estimate of the relative translation, in pixels, between the low-
resolution images of the moving vehicle across adjacent frames,
which can then be used to perform image registration, prior to
performing denoising via averaging.
Id. ¶ 37 (emphasis added).
Because the Specification is written for a person of ordinary skill in
the relevant art, to satisfy the written description requirement, the
Specification needs to provide sufficient disclosure to convince a person of
ordinary skill in the relevant art that Appellant possessed the invention.
LizardTech Inc. v. Earth Res. Mapping, Inc., 424 F.3d 1336, 1345 (Fed. Cir.
Appeal 2019-002245
Application 13/932,453

8

2005); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995). Appellant
persuades us that, given the Specification’s disclosure, a person of ordinary
skill in the relevant art would have understood that Appellant was in
possession of an embodiment of the invention including “a plurality of
additional images,” as recited in claim 60. See Appeal Br. 10–11; Reply
Br. 2–3. Thus, we are persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 60 for lack of adequate written description, and we do not sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 60 for lack of written description.
B. Indefiniteness of Claim 59
The Examiner rejects claim 59, reproduced above, as indefinite. Final
Act. 3–4. In particular, claim 59 recites a “system” comprising “a video
camera producing video data wherein the video camera images a road.”
Appeal Br. 29 (Claim App.). Claim 59 further recites “a first image”
extracted by “the system,” “a first location determined by the system,” and
“an enhanced image” produced by “the system.” Id. (emphases added). As
the Examiner notes, “the elements of the system ‘a first image’, ‘a first
location’ ‘a velocity estimate’ do not seem to be capable of performing any
functions, other than they are the results of some function carried out by the
system.” Final Act. 4 (italics added); see Ans. 6–7.
35 U.S.C. § 112(b) provides “[t]he specification shall conclude with
one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the
subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the
invention.” “A decision on whether a claim is indefinite under 35 U.S.C.
112(b) . . . requires a determination of whether those skilled in the art would
understand what is claimed when the claim is read in light of the
specification.” MPEP § 2173.02 (emphasis added). Appellant contends:
Appeal 2019-002245
Application 13/932,453

9

A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand the
claim terms based on their plain and ordinary meaning. The
claim terms at issue here are: “a first image[,]” “a first location,”
“a velocity estimate,” and “an enhanced image.” . . .
It is clear that “a first image” is an image of a vehicle on a
road and that has been extracted from the video data. It is clear
that “a first location” is the location of the vehicle in the first
image as determined by the claimed system. It is clear that “a
velocity estimate” is an estimate of the vehicle's speed and
direction. It is clear that an “enhanced image” is an image
produced by the system based at least in part on the first image
and the velocity estimate, and wherein the enhanced image
shows at least a portion of the vehicle.
Appeal Br. 12–13; Reply Br. 4. However, Appellant misunderstands the
rejection.
The Specification describes systems that perform the functions recited
in claim 59. Spec. ¶¶ 16–20, Figs. 1 (system 100), 2 (system 106). The
Specification explains that the components of these systems can perform the
recited functions. For example, the Specification explains:
Embodiments of the systems and methods disclosed herein
generally include a video capture module 130 configured to
receive image data of the scene being monitored, an image
extraction module 131 configured to extract still images from
incoming video data, a vehicle detection module 132 that detects
the approximate location of a target vehicle in the scene being
monitored, a vehicle-velocity determination module 133
configured to determine the amplitude and direction of a vector
that describes the velocity of the target vehicle in image pixel
coordinates, and a vehicle-velocity-aware enhancing module 134
configured to enhance the image(s) of the target vehicle extracted
from the video feed based on the vehicle's speed, direction of
motion, location within the camera view and image capture
parameters.
Appeal 2019-002245
Application 13/932,453

10

Id. ¶ 20 (emphases added); see id. ¶¶ 16 (“The system 100 consists of at
least an image capture device 102 being operably connected to a data
processing device 106 capable of executing modules and being operably
connected to a database 104 via a network 120, or other wired or wireless
means of connection.”), 17 (“The system 106 comprises a central processor
108, a main memory 110, and an input/output controller 112.”). However,
the Specification does not describe that a system comprising only a video
camera can perform the recited functions, or that information such as
images, location, and velocity, themselves, are part of the system. Thus,
we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in the indefiniteness rejection
of claim 59, and we sustain the Examiner’s indefiniteness rejection of
claim 59.
C. Anticipation by Lee
“A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in
the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior
art reference.” Verdegaal Bros., Inc. v. Union Oil Co., 814 F.2d 628, 631
(Fed. Cir. 1987). The elements must be arranged as required by the claim,
but this is not an ipsissimis verbis test. See In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 832
(Fed. Cir. 1990). Moreover, “it is proper to take into account not only
specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled
in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom.” In re Preda,
401 F.2d 825, 826 (CCPA 1968).
The Examiner rejects claims 44, 47, 49–55, 58–60, and 63 as
anticipated by Lee. Final Act. 5–16. Appellant challenges this rejection of
(1) independent claim 44, (2) dependent claims 49 and 60, and (3) dependent
claims 52 and 58, separately. Appeal Br. 13–20. For the reasons given
Appeal 2019-002245
Application 13/932,453

11

below, we sustain the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of claims 44, 47,
49–51, 53–55, 59, 60, and 63, but we do not sustain that rejection of
claims 52 and 58.
1. Independent Claim 44
The Examiner finds that Lee discloses each and every element of
claim 44 as set forth in that claim. Final Act. 5–6. The Examiner makes
corresponding findings with respect to claims 47, 50, 51, 53–55, 59, and 63.
Id. at 6–16. Because Appellant does not challenge the anticipation rejection
of those claims separately from claim 44, except for our ultimate decision,
we do not address the merits of the rejection of those claims further herein.
See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
With respect to claim 44, Appellant challenges the Examiner’s
rejection for two reasons. First, Appellant contends Lee teaches measuring
the velocity of an image of a vehicle, not of the vehicle itself. Appeal
Br. 13–14; Reply Br. 4–5. Second, Appellant contends Lee discloses
examining the motion of objects, which are blocks in the image, not parts of
the vehicle. Appeal Br. 14–15; Reply Br. 5. We disagree.
Appellant contends, “[n]one of claims recite the ‘vehicle’s image’s
velocity’ or the ‘speed and direction of an image of the vehicle.’ The
claimed velocities are those of a physical thing, not of that thing’s image.
The office action incorrectly confuses images of things with the things
themselves.” Appeal Br. 14. Referring to Lee’s Figure 1, however, Lee
discloses:
The captured image 105 includes an image 110 of a car that is
in motion along a roadway that has one edge 130 visible in the
image 105. Because the car is in motion, the image 110 of the
car is actually spread out slightly as depicted by the second
Appeal 2019-002245
Application 13/932,453

12

outline 115 of the image of the car, with the amount of spread
determined by at least the speed of the car and an exposure time
for the image. The license plate 120 also has an image 125 that
is spread out similarly to the image of the car, as depicted by the
second outline 130, because the license plate 120 has the same
motion as the car.
Lee ¶ 15 (emphases added); see Final Act. 5–6; Ans. 7–8. Thus, Lee
discloses that the image is of a car “on the road” (Appeal Br. 25 (Claims
App.)), and a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that Lee
discloses determining the motion of the car “along a roadway” (Lee ¶ 15).
Moreover, Lee discloses that the amount of depicted spread is determined
“by at least the speed of the car.” Id. Thus, we are persuaded that Lee
discloses, “obtaining a velocity estimate of the vehicle’s speed and direction
on the road,” i.e., a vector, as recited in claim 44. Appeal Br. 25 (Claim
App.); Lee ¶ 15, Fig. 3 (step 315); see also Lee ¶ 2 (describing the
importance of “license plate recognition”).
Referring to Lee’s Figure 3, Appellant contends:
It is clear that Lee’s object regions are rectangles in images
and that his motion vectors are image space indicators of the
movement of the rectangles. Lee’s motion vectors are not the
speed and direction of a vehicle, particularly not the direction on
a road (another physical object). The rejections must be
withdrawn because Lee’s motion vectors are not estimates of a
vehicle’s speed and direction.
Appeal Br. 15. Contrary to Appellant’s contention, however, Lee discloses,
“[e]xamples of such an object are a license plate and a sign on a side of a
vehicle such as a railway car.” Lee ¶ 17; see id. ¶ 2. As noted above, Lee
discloses “the license plate 120 has the same motion as the car.” Id. ¶ 15.
Thus, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding Lee discloses,
“obtaining a velocity estimate of the vehicle’s speed and direction on the
Appeal 2019-002245
Application 13/932,453

13

road; and producing an enhanced image based at least in part on the image
and the velocity estimate wherein the enhanced image shows at least a
portion of the vehicle.” Final Act. 5–6 (emphases added; citing Lee, Figs. 1–
5). Consequently, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 44 as anticipated by Lee, and we sustain the rejection of claims 44, 47,
50, 51, 53–55, 59, and 63.
2. Dependent Claims 49 and 60
Claim 49 recites
extracting from the video data a plurality of additional
images of the vehicle; and
performing image registrations of the image of the vehicle
and the additional images of the vehicle wherein the image
registrations are based at least in part on the velocity estimate;
wherein the enhanced image is produced by averaging the
image of the vehicle and the additional images of the vehicle.
Appeal Br. 26 (Claims App.) (emphases added). Claim 60, reproduced
above, recites corresponding elements. Id. at 30.
Appeal 2019-002245
Application 13/932,453

14

Figures 6A and 6B of the application are reproduced below.

Figures 6A and 6B depict a super-resolution application. Spec. ¶ 12. The
Specification explains:
Super-resolution algorithms typically combine multiple
images with small amounts of relative motion in order to create
a single high resolution image. Super-resolution is typically
carried out in two steps, image registration and image
reconstruction. Velocity-aware multi-frame super-resolution is
another manner of enhancement wherein multiple low-resolution
(typically temporally adjacent) frames of the vehicle are
captured, and knowledge of the vehicle velocity aids registration
of the frames on the higher resolution lattice. Knowledge of the
vehicle velocity vector, along with the camera configuration and
capture parameters, can lead to an estimate of the relative
translation, in pixels, between the low-resolution images of the
moving vehicle across adjacent frames, which can then be used
to perform image registration prior to performing super-
resolution.
Consider the super-resolution application illustrated in
FIGS. 6A-6B, where the temporal progression of 3x3 pixel
neighborhood across three frames adjacent in time (namely
frames n-1, n and n+1) is considered. In this particular case, a
Appeal 2019-002245
Application 13/932,453

15

final image with twice the resolution as the individual frame is
obtained. With reference to FIG. 6A, displacement vector d1
describes the relative position between like image locations of
frame n-1 (solid circles) and frame n (solid squares), while
displacement vector d2 describes the relative position between
like image locations of frame n (solid squares) and frame n+1
(solid triangles) computed from some known vehicle velocity
according to the teachings herein. Note that some image features
for which correspondences are found (solid circles and triangles)
are not directly measured, and thus have to be inferred from
features which are measured, that is, features that fall on the
image lattice (empty circles and triangles). Also note that, in
order for super-resolution to be effective, the estimated velocity
of the vehicle must be such that displacement vectors have non-
integer values relative to the lattice on which the video frames at
least along the row or the column directions.
. . .
With reference to FIG. 6B, registration of corresponding
features (solid circles, squares, and triangles) results in slight
displacement of measured features (empty circles and triangles)
so that measured features fall outside the low-resolution lattice
of the original video frames. Consequently, high-resolution
image reconstruction can be achieved by inferring the values of
image features that fall on a high-resolution lattice (empty
squares) from the known image features (empty circles and
triangles and filled squares). Such inference can be achieved via
known interpolation, regression, fitting, model- or training-based
methods, for example. In one embodiment and with reference to
high-resolution image region 610, the value of unknown
sample 611 can be inferred from a weighted combination of
known values 612, 613, 614, and 615. Other embodiments could
consider smaller or larger neighborhoods of known samples.
Once the high resolution image is estimated, additional
regularization and filtering techniques that enforce
reconstruction consistency and sharpness constraints can be
employed.
Appeal 2019-002245
Application 13/932,453

16

Spec. ¶¶ 33, 34, 36. Thus, we understand claims 49 and 60 describe
registering, i.e., overlaying, the first image and additional images, i.e.,
multiple frames, to obtain an enhanced image, i.e., an image with super-
resolution, based on the velocity estimate, i.e., using displacement vectors.
Velocity-aware denoising “relies on registration of adjacent frames and
denoising via averaging and self-similarity methods.” Id. ¶ 37.
Lee’s Figures 4 and 5 are reproduced below.

Figures 4 and 5 are graphical representations of two compressed video
frames captured by a video camera, including a lattice or grid numbered on
the vertical axis and alphabetized on the horizontal axis. Lee ¶ 7. With
respect to claim 49’s “extracting” and “performing” steps, the Examiner
finds Lee’s Figures 4 and 5 or Figures 6 and 7 disclose “the two images
registered on a lattice or grid, whereas in Fig. 3 it shows that if the motion
vector is not significant, step 320, the scaling factor generation, de-blurring
operation are skipped, meaning the registering of the images for de-blurring
process is dependent on the velocity estimate.” Final Act. 7. The Examiner
further finds Lee “discloses averaging the motion vectors of the object
Appeal 2019-002245
Application 13/932,453

17

regions in the first image and the second image to determine the motion
vector of the second object region.” Id. (citing Lee ¶ 18 (discussing image
compression with respect to Figs. 4 and 5)). In particular, Lee discloses:
When an object region is determined to have occurred within the
target image at step 305, the image capture process continues in
some embodiments by proceeding to step 310, in which a
determination is made of a second object region that includes the
object-of-interest in a second image that has been captured by the
camera. In some embodiments, the images are successive frames
of a series of video frames taken at a periodic rate. In other
embodiments, the pictures may not be periodic frames. . . . At
step 315, a motion vector of the object-of-interest is determined
using at least the first image. In some embodiments, both steps
305 and step 310 are performed and the motion vector is
determined as being a displacement vector that indicates the
displacement between the centroids of the first and second object
regions, using techniques known to those of ordinary skill in the
art. When the second frame is captured after the first frame, the
displacement vector is typically determined as the displacement
of the centroid of the second object region with reference to the
centroid of the first object region.
Lee ¶ 17. Thus, Lee’s de-blurring technique overlays multiple frames
according to vector displacements, which are based on car motion, to
achieve improved resolution of objects in the images. Id. ¶¶ 18–26.
Appellant contends that the Examiner erred for two reasons. First,
Appellant contends Lee does not use the terms “registration” or “lattice” or
link those terms to the de-blurring operation of Lee’s Figure 3. Appeal Br.
16–17. Second, Appellant contends, “‘registrations’ cannot relate to any
velocity estimate because, as described above, Lee never develops a velocity
estimate but instead uses an unrelated motion vector.” Id. at 17. With
regard to the first reason, as noted above, anticipation is not an ipsissimis
verbis test. The Examiner finds that Lee discloses registration and lattice
Appeal 2019-002245
Application 13/932,453

18

consistent with the recitation in the claims and the disclosure in the
Specification. Ans. 13–14 (“In this instance the plain meaning of registering
is merely the image captured and acquired for processing, as described in
Lee et al.”). Moreover, we are persuaded that “lattice” is adequately
disclosed in Lee’s Figures 4, 5, 6, and 7. Id. at 13 (“Whereas, Lee et al. in
Figs. 4-7 clearly shows the image registration (acquisition) on a lattice with
dots and squares/rectangles.”). Lee need not use the precise words to
disclose the claim recitations. As to the second reason, we addressed that
teaching of Lee above with respect to the rejection of claim 44. Thus,
Appellant does not persuade us that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 49
or 60 as anticipated by Lee, and we sustain the rejection of those claims.
3. Dependent Claims 52 and 58
Claims 52 and 58 recite an algorithm in words that is disclosed in
symbols in the Specification. In particular, Claim 52 recites
wherein the enhanced image is produced by frequency
domain deconvolution expressed as a fraction having a
numerator and a denominator, wherein the numerator comprises
the product of the frequency domain representation of the image,
image power spectral density, and the complex conjugate, and
wherein the denominator comprises the sum of the noise power
spectral density with the product of the squared magnitude of the
complex conjugate and the image power spectral density.
Appeal Br. 27 (Claims App.) (emphasis added); see id. at 28–29 (claim 58).
The Specification explains:
In scenarios where, in addition to blur, there is additive noise,
that is, f(m,n) = g(m,n) * h(m,n) + η(m,n), where η(m,n) denotes
additive noise, the operation that leads to the minimization of the
original unblurred image and the recovered unblurred image is
given by the inverse frequency decomposition of
G(u,v) = H*(u,v)Sg(u,v)F(u,v)/[|H*(u,v)|2Sg(u,v) + Sη(u,v)]
Appeal 2019-002245
Application 13/932,453

19

where H*(u,v) denotes the complex conjugate of H*(u,v),[4]
Sg(u,v) denotes the power spectral density of g(m,n) and Sη(u,v)
denotes the power spectral density of η(m,n).
Spec. ¶ 32 (emphasis added).
Lee discloses:
The de-blurring filter may be chosen from known types of
deconvolution filters, of which two are given below: an inverse
filter and a Weiner filter. Both are based on the above point
spread function using a frequency transformed version of the
point spread function, as is known to one of ordinary skill in the
art.
Lee ¶ 36. In particular, Lee discloses the following algorithm for the Weiner
filter:

Id. ¶ 40.
The Examiner finds Lee’s application of a Weiner filter to a frequency
domain representation of the image discloses this algorithm. Final Act. 9–
10; Ans. 17–18. Thus, Lee discloses the recited algorithm. In particular, the
Examiner finds that the denominator of Appellant’s algorithm is identical to
the denominator of Lee’s algorithm. Ans. 17. We disagree.
Appellant’s algorithm includes the function: |H*(u,v)|2 in the
denominator, but Lee’s algorithm includes the function: |H(u,v)|2 in the
denominator. Ans. 17; Spec. ¶ 32; Lee ¶ 40. Thus, even accepting the

4 This appears to be a typographical error. We understand that H*(u,v)
denotes the complex conjugate of H(u,v). See Lee ¶ 42.
Appeal 2019-002245
Application 13/932,453

20

Examiner’s assertion that Lee’s Weiner filter is applied to a frequency
domain representation of the image, Lee does not disclose the algorithm
recited in claims 52 and 58. Consequently, we are not persuaded the
Examiner demonstrates Lee anticipates claims 52 and 58, and we do not
sustain the rejection of those claims.
In summary, we are persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting
claims 52 and 58 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Lee, but did
not err in rejecting claims 44, 47, 49–51, 53–55, 59, 60, and 63 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Lee. Consequently, we sustain the
anticipation rejection of claims 44, 47, 49–51, 53–55, 59, 60, and 63, but do
not sustain the anticipation rejection of claims 52 and 58.
D. Obviousness Over Lee and King, Schofield, Lim, or Wang
1. Dependent Claim 45
Claim 45 recites, in the method of claim 44, “the velocity estimate is
obtained from a microwave detector.” Appeal Br. 25 (Claims App.). As
noted above, the Examiner rejects claim 45 as obvious over the combined
teachings of Lee and King. Final Act. 16–17. In particular, the Examiner
finds that Lee does not teach or suggest obtaining a velocity estimate from a
microwave detector. Id. at 17. Nevertheless, the Examiner finds that, in a
vehicular collision warning system, King teaches detecting speed with a
microwave detector. Id. (citing King, pgs. 4 (Table 2), 5 (Table 3)).
Moreover, the Examiner finds “[a]t the time the invention was made, it
would have been a matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in
the art to use a microwave detector for velocity measurement because
Applicant has not disclosed that a microwave detector is used for a particular
purpose, or solves a stated problem.” Id.
Appeal 2019-002245
Application 13/932,453

21

The Examiner does not suggest that a person of ordinary skill in the
art would add a microwave detector as an additional means of estimating
velocity. Id. at 16–17. The Examiner suggests that a person of ordinary
skill in the art would choose Lee’s image comparison method or King’s
microwave detector to estimate velocity as “a matter of design choice.”
Appellant contends the Examiner erred in rejecting this claim because Lee
teaches using images to determine object motion and to substitute
determining motion based on a comparison of images with determining
speed of a vehicle based on a microwave detector would change a principle
of Lee’s operation. Appeal Br. 22; see MPEP § 2143.01(VI) (“If the
proposed modification or combination of the prior art would change the
principle of operation of the prior art invention being modified, then the
teachings of the references are not sufficient to render the claims prima facie
obvious.”).
The Examiner contends that the Specification indicates that the
claimed method uses adjacent frames to estimate velocity. Ans. 20 (citing
Spec. ¶ 33). The Examiner notes:
Thereafter, in claim 45 which is dependent upon claim 44, the
Appellant is claiming to estimate the vehicle velocity with the
help of a microwave detector. Which means the Appellant is
switching from an image pixel based velocity vector estimation
of the speed of the vehicle to a microwave detector based
velocity estimation.
Id. We disagree.
Unlike Lee, Appellant’s method of claim 44 only requires extracting a
first image and does not specify how vehicular velocity is estimated. See id.
at 25 (Claims App.). The Examiner attempts to read the embodiment
disclosed in the Specification’s Paragraph 33 into the claims. However, the
Appeal 2019-002245
Application 13/932,453

22

Specification makes clear that various means may be employed to estimate
velocity. Specifically, the Specification states:
Detection may be accomplished via foreground and/or motion
detection techniques such as background estimation and
subtraction, temporal double differencing and optical flow.
Alternatively, non-video-based triggering devices already in the
system such as an inductive loop detector embedded in a
roadway, a magnetometer detector, a laser based detector or a
microwave detector are capable of relaying vehicle location
information, usually in real-world coordinates.
Spec. ¶ 22. We are persuaded that the Examiner erred in combining the
teachings of King with those of Lee because the proposed combination is
inapplicable to Lee’s image de-blurring system (see Lee, Abstract), and
would change the principle of Lee’s operation. Reply Br. 7–8.
Consequently, we do not sustain the obviousness rejection of claim 45.
2. Dependent Claim 46
Claim 46 recites, in the method of claim 44, “the velocity estimate is
assumed according to historical speed averages.” Appeal Br. 25 (Claims
App.). As noted above, the Examiner rejects claim 46 as obvious over the
combined teachings of Lee and Scofield. Final Act. 17–18. In particular,
the Examiner finds that Lee does not teach or suggest assuming an estimated
velocity according to historical speed averages. Id. at 18. Nevertheless, the
Examiner finds that, in a vehicular collision warning system, Scofield
teaches assuming estimated velocity according to historical averages. Id.
(citing Scofield ¶ 26). Specifically, the Examiner finds Scofield teaches, “a
traffic condition estimation based on historical data, where it teaches using a
historical speed average on a certain road for a vehicle’s speed estimation.”
Id. Moreover, the Examiner finds:
Appeal 2019-002245
Application 13/932,453

23

It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the
art at the time the invention was made to combine Lee et al’s
invention of velocity estimate based image de-blurring to include
Scofield et al’s usage of historical speed averaging, because the
average reported speed may be estimated for some or all points
on the road portion, and error estimates (or “error bars”) around
an average reported speed for a point may further be generated
(Scofield et al.; [0024], L8-16), which means it is possible to
determine how much the estimated speed of the vehicle is off
from actual speed.
Id.
Appellant contends that the Examiner erred in making this rejection
for essentially the same reasons stated with respect to the rejection of
claim 45. Appeal Br. 21–22. We agree. We are persuaded that the
Examiner erred in combining the teachings of Scofield with those of Lee
because the proposed combination would change the principle of Lee’s
operation. Reply Br. 7–8. Consequently, we do not sustain the obviousness
rejection of claim 46.
3. Dependent Claims 48 and 62
Claim 48 recites, in the method of claim 44, the method further
comprises the steps of:
extracting from the video data a second image of the
vehicle; and
registering the image and the second image on a lattice,
wherein the lattice is higher resolution than the image and the
second image;
wherein the enhanced image is a super-resolution image
constructed on the lattice from the video data.
Appeal Br. 25–30 (Claims App.). Claim 62 depends from claim 59 and
recites corresponding limitations. Id. at 29–30. As noted above, the
Appeal 2019-002245
Application 13/932,453

24

Examiner rejects claim 48 and 62 as obvious over the combined teachings of
Lee and Lim. Final Act. 18–19. In particular, the Examiner finds that Lee
“does not explicitly teach generating a super-resolution image from the
constituent image frames.” Id. at 19. Nevertheless, the Examiner finds that,
Lim teaches “a system where a super-resolution image is generated from
plurality of lower resolution images as described in [0036]-[0041], where the
images are registered on a lattice as shown in Figs. 1, 4.” Id. Moreover, the
Examiner finds:
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the
art at the time the invention was made to combine Lee et al’s
invention of velocity estimate based image de-blurring to include
Lim et al’s usage of generating super-resolution image from
lower resolution images, because it has multiple advantages over
the low resolution imaging system, for example, low cost,
existing LR imaging system can be leveraged, and can be used
in many applications (Lim et al.; [0008]).
Id.
Appellant does not challenge the rejection of these claims separately
from its challenge to the anticipation rejection of claims 49 and 60,
discussed above. See supra Section C.2. For the reasons given above, we
are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in finding that Lee and Lim teach
or suggest all of the limitations of claims 48 and 62 and that a person of
ordinary skill in the relevant art would have had reason to combine the
teachings of these references in the manner proposed by the Examiner.
Therefore, we sustain the obviousness rejection of claims 48 and 62.
4. Dependent Claims 56, 57, and 61
Claim 56 recites, in the computer-usable medium of claim 55,
“computer executable instructions configured for receiving vehicle location
Appeal 2019-002245
Application 13/932,453

25

information from a non-video-based triggering device wherein the vehicle
location information is in real world coordinates.” Appeal Br. 28 (Claims
App.). Claim 57 depends from claim 56 and recites that the medium further
comprises “computer executable instructions configured for mapping the
vehicle location information into pixel coordinates.” Id. Claim 61 recites
limitations corresponding to those of claim 56. Id. at 30.
As noted above, the Examiner rejects claim 56, 57, and 61 as obvious
over the combined teachings of Lee and Wang. Final Act. 21–23. In
particular, the Examiner finds that Lee “does not explicitly teach gathering
vehicle location information from a non-video-based triggering device and
the location is in real world coordinate system.” Id. at 21. Nevertheless, the
Examiner finds,
Wang teaches a system in the same field of endeavor, where it
automatically derives moving vehicle from image frame, but
derives vehicle from a reference markers on the road, which is
non-video-based triggering mechanism (Wang; Abstract, L7-
10), wherein the location information is in real world coordinates
(Wang; [0058], L2-4; Fig. 4).
Id. (emphasis added). Moreover, the Examiner finds:
At the time the invention was made, it would have been a
matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to
use a non-video-based triggering mechanism because Applicant
has not disclosed that a non-video-based triggering mechanism
is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One
of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected
Applicant’s invention to perform equally well with using a non-
video-based triggering mechanism because of mere design
choice.
Id.
Appeal 2019-002245
Application 13/932,453

26

The Specification explains,
non-video-based triggering devices already in the system such as
an inductive loop detector embedded in a roadway, a
magnetometer detector, a laser based detector or a microwave
detector are capable of relaying vehicle location information,
usually in real-world coordinates. Camera calibration techniques
described herein can then be used to map this location
information into pixel coordinates.
Spec. ¶ 22. However, Wang states, “[t]he system automatically detects
moving vehicles in each image frame and derives vehicle positions from a
projective mapping established from reference markers on the road.” Wang,
Abstract (emphasis added). Referring to Wang’s Figure 1, Wang explains,
“for each image the software engine retrieves from the tracking camera, it is
possible to reconstruct the parallelogram region defined by the four
reference markers 104 on the road 102.” Id. ¶ 58 (emphases added); see id.
¶ 44 (“In FIG. 2, the four cones 114 represent the four reference points
(equivalent to markers 104 in FIG. 1) that define a rectangular region along
the road 102. As discussed above, the width and length of the road segment
defined by the cones 114 are measured and entered into the software engine
for calibration of the tracking camera.”). Thus, the reference markers are
imaged by the camera and used to convert the location of the vehicle from
image coordinates to real-world coordinates. See id., Fig. 4. Therefore, the
reference markers are video-based triggering devices, not non-video-based
triggering devices, as recited in claims 56, 57, and 61. Appeal Br. 22–23;
see Reply Br. 8.
In view of the Specification’s description of “non-video-based
triggering devices,” we are persuaded that the Examiner erred in finding the
combined teachings of Lee and Wang teach or suggest the “non-video-based
Appeal 2019-002245
Application 13/932,453

27

triggering device,” as recited in claims 56, 57, and 61. Consequently, we do
not sustain the obviousness rejection of claims 56, 57, and 61.
In summary, we are persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting
claims 45, 46, 56, 57, and 61 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as rendered obvious by
the teachings of Lee in combination with one of King, Scofield, or Wang,
but did not err in rejecting claims 48 and 62 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
rendered obvious by the combined teachings of Lee and Lim. Consequently,
we sustain the obviousness rejection of claims 48 and 62, but do not sustain
the obviousness rejections of claims 45, 46, 56, 57, and 61.
DECISIONS
1. The Examiner erred in rejecting claim 60 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) as
lacking written description.
2. The Examiner did not err in rejecting claim 59 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112(b) as indefinite.
3. The Examiner erred in rejecting claims 52 and 58 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Lee, but did not err in rejecting claims
44, 47, 49–51, 53–55, 59, 60, and 63 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as
anticipated by Lee.
4. The Examiner erred in rejecting claim 45 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
obvious over the combined teachings of Lee and King.
5. The Examiner erred in rejecting claim 46 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
obvious over the combined teachings of Lee and Scofield.
6. The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 48 and 62 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over the combined teachings of Lee and Lim.
7. The Examiner erred in rejecting claim 56, 57, and 61 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as obvious over the combined teachings of Lee and Wang.
Appeal 2019-002245
Application 13/932,453

28

8. Thus, on this record, claims 45, 46, 52, 56–58, and 61 are not
unpatentable.
CONCLUSION
Because we affirm at least one rejection of each of claims 44, 47–51,
53–55, 59, 60, 62, and 63, we affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting those
claims. For the reasons given above, on this record, we reverse the
Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 45, 46, 52, 56–58, and 61.
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
60 112(a) Written Description

60
59 112(b) Indefiniteness 59
44, 47,
49–55,
58–60, 63
102(a)(1) Lee 44, 47, 49–
51, 53–55,
59, 60, 63
52, 58
45 103 Lee, King 45
46 103 Lee, Scofield 46
48, 62 103 Lee, Lim 48, 62
56, 57, 61 103 Lee, Wang 56, 57, 61
Overall
Outcome
44, 47–51,
53–55, 59,
60, 62, 63
45, 46, 52,
56–58, 61
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-IN-PART