Ex Parte Alenius

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 27, 2016

13347145 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 27, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/347,145 01/10/2012
10949 7590 07/29/2016
Nokia Corporation and Alston & Bird LLP
c/o Alston & Bird LLP
Bank of America Plaza, 101 South Tryon Street
Suite 4000
Charlotte, NC 28280-4000
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Sakari Tapio Alenius
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.
042933/414051 1009
EXAMINER
AKHA V ANNIK, MOHAMMAD H
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2613
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/29/2016 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):
usptomail@alston.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Exparte SAKARI TAPIO ALENIUS
Appeal2014-003252
Application 13/347,145
Technology Center 2600
Before JASON V. MORGAN, MELISSA A. HAAPALA, and
NABEEL U. KHAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
RAAP ALA, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final
rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 8, 9, 11, 15, 16, and 18. Final Act (April 22,
2014). 1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm-in-part.
1 Claims3, 5-7, 10, 12-14, 17, 19, and20 are objected to as being
dependent upon a rejected base claim, but the Examiner has indicated these
claims would be allowable if rewritten in independent form. Final Act. 5-6.
Appeal2014-003252
Application 13/347,145
TI'IJVENTION
"Embodiments of the present invention ... relate to ... blending
multiple images during display." Spec. iJ 1. Claim 1, reproduced below, is
representative of all independent claims, i.e., claims 1, 8, and 15. See
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2014) (representative claims).
1. A method comprising:
causing an abstract image of a first image to transition on a
display to a blended image;
determining, using a processor, the blended image based on an
abstract image of the first image and an abstract image of a
second image;
causing the blended image to transition on the display to the
abstract image of the second image; and
causing the abstract image of the second image to transition on
the display to the second image.
REJECTIONS ON APPEAL
Claims 1, 8, and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being
anticipated by Mihalov (US 2011/0084982 Al; April 14, 2011). Final
Act. 2-3.
Claims 2, 4, 9, 11, 16, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over the combination of Mihalov and Schadt
(US 2010/0054584 Al; March 4, 2010). Final Act. 4-5.
ISSUE
Appellant's contentions present us with the following principle issue:
Has Appellant shown the Examiner errs in finding Mihalov' s composite
2
Appeal2014-003252
Application 13/347,145
images 320 (of the Figure 3A embodiment) disclose claim l's abstract
images?
INDEPENDENT CLAIMS 1, 8, AND 15
Claims 1, 8, and 15 are rejected as anticipated by Mihalov. We have
reviewed the Examiner's rejection of representative claim 1 in consideration
of Appellant's contentions and the evidence of record. We disagree with
Appellant's conclusion that the rejection is in error.
Appellant principally disputes the Examiner's reading of claim 1 's
abstract images and blended image on Mihalov's composite images 320 of
the Figure 3A embodiment.2 See App. Br. 7-13. In particular, Appellant
argues the Examiner's findings fail to account for a difference between
claim 1 's abstract images and blended image. Appellant contends the
Specification uses "blended image" to reference any composite image (i.e.,
of any blending) and "abstract image" to reference only a non-composite
image (i.e., free of blending). Reply Br. 1-3. Appellant further contends
claim l's abstract images and blended image would be accordingly
construed, especially when considered in view of claim 1 's "transition"
limitations, as respectively non-composite images and a composite image.
Id. In Appellant's words, claim l's abstract images are not "broad enough to
include a blend between two distinct images" (id. at 1) "given the explicit
appealed claim language requiring a blended image that is distinct from an
2 We reference claim 1 's "abstract image of a first image" and "abstract
image of a second image" respectively as the first abstract image and second
abstract image. We further reference claim l's "blended image based on an
abstract image of the first image and an abstract image of a second image"
as the blended image.
3
Appeal2014-003252
Application 13/347,145
abstract image, and the disclosure in the specification distinguishing the
abstract image from the blended image" (id. at 2). We are not persuaded by
these arguments.
The Examiner finds Mihalov's illustrated composite image 320
represents a sequence of images morphing from the first scaled image 315 to
the second scaled image 325. Ans. 6-7; see also Mihalov ,-i 29. The
Examiner further finds the composite images 320 are blurred versions, and
thus abstract images, ofMihalov's scaled images 315, 325. Ans. 6-7; see
also Spec. ,-i 34 ("blurred to create an abstract image"). The Examiner in
tum reads claim 1 's first and second images respectively on Mihalov' s first
and second scaled images 315, 325; first abstract image on a composite
image 320 primarily composed of the first scaled image 315 (i.e., an earlier
image of the sequence of composite images; and second abstract image on a
composite image 320 primarily composed of the second scaled image 325
(i.e., a later image of the sequence of composite images). Ans. 6-7. We
agree with the Examiner's findings.
Appellant's argument is not commensurate with claim l's scope and
is thus not persuasive. Claim 1 does not recite language precluding the
abstract images and blended images from being read on similarly formulated
images. Claim 1 recites displayed transitions between distinct images that,
per their "abstract" and "blended" labels, must abstract and blend the one or
more images from which they are sourced. Contrary to Appellant's
contentions (App. Br. 13; Reply Br. 3), neither the Specification's
description of the invention nor claim l's transitions (e.g., "causing the
blended image to transition ... to the [second] abstract image") limits the
abstract images from being composite images. The sections of the
4
Appeal2014-003252
Application 13/347,145
Specification cited by Appellant merely present non-limiting examples of
abstract images, which are not narrowing definitions. See Spec. iii! 24, 34,
49.
For the reasons stated above, Appellant does not persuade us the
Examiner errs in finding Mihalov' s composite images 320 (of the Figure 3A
embodiment) disclose the abstract images recited in claim 1. Accordingly,
we do not sustain the rejection of (i) representative claim 1 and (ii) claims 8
and 15 falling therewith.
CLAIMS 2, 9, AND 16
Appellant presents separate arguments for dependent claims 2, 9, and
16, which are each rejected as obvious over Mihalov and Schadt. Claim 2,
reproduced below with emphasis, is illustrative of the argued subject matter.
2. A method according to claim 1, further comprising:
causing the first image to transition on a display to a color only
image of the first image; and
causing the color only image of the first image to transition on
the display to the abstract image of the first image.
Appellant argues Mihalov's and Schadt's cited disclosures do not
teach or suggest a displayed transition of an image to a color only image.
App. Br. 15 ("[T]he first image must be displayed ... and it must then
transition to a color only image (on the display)."). The Examiner responds:
"Schadt teaches that a first image can transition on a display to a color only
image of the first image (see fig 2, where an image is transitioned to an
image with enhanced single color)." Ans. 8.
5
Appeal2014-003252
Application 13/347,145
Appellant's argument is persuasive. Schadt's Figure 2 embodiment
describes a process for implementing image-based backgrounds in which an
enhanced background is generated for the image based on a color that
represents the general tone of the image. Schadt Fig. 2, iii! 18-20; see also
id. at iJ 1 (describing prior art problem of image backgrounds that do not
complement the image). As noted by Appellant (App. Br. 15), the image
300 in Schadt is not altered by the enhanced background 310. See Schadt
Fig. 3. Thus, we agree with Appellant that the Examiner has not established
that Schadt teaches causing the first image to transition on a display to a
color only image of the first image. Accordingly, we do not sustain the
rejection of (i) claim 2 and (ii) claims 9 and 16, which contain limitations
substantially similar to the disputed limitation of claim 2.
CLAIM4
Dependent claim 4 is rejected as obvious over Mihalov and Schadt.
Claim 4 depends from claim l and recites: "computing an intensity image of
the first image and a color only image of the first image; and computing an
intensity image of the second image and a color only image of the second
image."
Appellant argues: "[T]he Office Action lists the motivation to
combine as enhancing user experience. However, ambiguous improvement
or enhancement of user experience is vague and conclusory." App. Br. 14.
The argument is not persuasive. The Examiner cites to Schadt to support the
stated reasoning that it would be obvious to combine the display method of
Schadt with the display method of Mihalov to enhance user experience. Ans.
7-8. We find the Examiner's articulated reasoning, supported by evidence
of record, sufficient to support the combination. See In re Kahn, 441 F .3d
6
Appeal2014-003252
Application 13/347,145
977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (cited with approval in KSR Int 'l Co. v. Telej1ex
Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007)). In addition to the motivation articulated by
the Examiner, we note the combination of Schadt and Mihalov is no more
than a combination of familiar elements according to known methods that
does no more than yield predictable results, see KSR, 550 U.S. at 416.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 4.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 4, 8, 11, 15, and 18 is affirmed.
The Examiner's rejection of claims 2, 9, and 16 is reversed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § l .136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
7