Ex Parte an et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 26, 2017

13114844 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 26, 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.
13/114,844 05/24/2011 CHEOLHONG AN 093521B1 (1059811) 2302
15093 7590 09/28/2017
Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton/Qualcomm
Mailstop: IP Docketing - 22
1100 Peachtree Street
Suite 2800
Atlanta, GA 30309
EXAMINER
HAQUE, MD NAZMUL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2487
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/28/2017 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):
ipefiling@kilpatricktownsend.com
ocpat_uspto@qualcomm.com
qcominst@kilpatricktownsend.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte CHEOLHONG AN, LIANG LIANG, and
SZEPO ROBERT HUNG
Appeal 2016-004672
Application 13/114,844
Technology Center 2400
Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., and
JEFFREY S. SMITH, Administrative Patent Judges.
WHITEHEAD JR., Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants are appealing the Final Rejection of claims 1—47 under
35 U.S.C. § 134(a). Appeal Brief 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b) (2012).
We affirm.
Appeal 2016-004672
Application 13/114,844
Introduction
The invention is directed to “techniques for improving functionalities
of a back-end device, e.g., a video encoder, using parameters detected and
estimated by a front-end device, e.g., a video camera.” Abstract.
Illustrative Claim (disputed limitations emphasized)
1. A method comprising:
estimating one or more blurriness levels of a frame of
video data based on a type of motion detected in the frame; and
encoding, in a video encoder, the frame based at least in
part on the estimated one or more blurriness levels of the
frame.
Rejections on Appeal
Claims 1, 13, 25 and 36 stand rejected on the ground of nonstatutory
obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 12,
23, and 34 of Liang (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2011/0110420 Al;
published May 12, 2011 (Application 12/774,491)) and Feng (US Patent
Application Publication 2006/0202945 Al; published September 14, 2006).
Final Rejection 3—6 (see Answer 6 for correct status of rejected claims and
applicable references).
Claims 1-5, 8, 10, 13-17, 20, 22, 23, 25-28, 31, 33, 34, 36-AO, 43, 45
and 46 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Hoshino (US Patent Application Publication 2007/0110170 Al; published
May 17, 2007) and Kobayashi (US Patent Application Publication
2007/0040917 Al; published February 22, 2007). Final Rejection 6—12.
2
Appeal 2016-004672
Application 13/114,844
Claims 6, 18, 29 and 41 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Hoshino, Kobayashi, and Nakazato (US Patent
8,094,714 B2; issued January 10, 2012). Final Rejection 12—14.
Claims 7, 19, 30, and 42 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Hoshino, Kobayashi, Nakazato, and Yang (US
Patent Application Publication 2002/0196362 Al; published December 26,
2002). Final Rejection 14—16.
Claims 9, 21, 32, and 44 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Hoshino, Kobayashi and Imagawa (US Patent
Application Publication 2007/0189386 Al; published August 16, 2007).
Final Rejection 16—17.
Claims 11, 23, 34, and 46 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Hoshino, Kobayashi and Duan (US Patent
7,463,755 B2; issued December 9, 2008). Final Rejection 17—19.
Claims 12, 24, 35, and 47 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Hoshino, Kobayashi, and Kim (US Patent
Application Publication 2006/0029265 Al; published February 9, 2006).
Final Rejection 19—20.
ANALYSIS
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner,
we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed October 2, 2015), the Reply Brief (filed
April 6, 2016), the Final Rejection (mailed May 21, 2015) and the Answer
(mailed February 25, 2016) for the respective details.
3
Appeal 2016-004672
Application 13/114,844
Double Patenting Rejection
Appellants contend:
[CJlaim 1, and all other pending claims, are patentably distinct
from the claims of the [Liang] application in view of Feng
because the claims in the [Liang] application recite a blurriness
level of a frame of video data captured during a refocusing
process of the video capture module, whereas the claims in the
present application do not and instead recite that the blurriness
levels of a frame of video data are based on a type of motion
detected in the frame which is lacking in the [Liang] and Feng.
Appeal Brief 9.
The Examiner finds:
Referring to claims 1, 13, 25, and 36, taking claim 1 as
exemplary, although conflicting application 12774491, does not
explicitly disclose what’s claimed in instant application
13114844, a estimating, a blurriness level of a frame of video
data based on a type of motion detected in the frame.
However, Feng teaches estimating a blurriness ([paragraph
0008]-the blueness [sic] of captured vide [sic] frames is
estimated) level of a frame of video data based on a type of
motion detected in the frame ([paragraph]- the blueness [sic] of
captured vide [sic] frames is estimated).
Final Rejection 6.
We find Appellants’ arguments persuasive. We find that neither
Liang nor Feng disclose “blurriness levels of a frame of video data based on
a type of motion detected in the frame,” as recited in the claims. We reverse
the Examiner’s nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting of claims 1,
13, 25, and 36.
4
Appeal 2016-004672
Application 13/114,844
Obviousness Rejection
Appellants contend the obviousness rejections of the claims are
erroneous because:
(1) Kobayashi uses actual blurriness (not an estimate) to
determine an “activity level,” and thus Kobayashi fails to cure
the deficiencies of Hoshino; (2) the use of the estimated
blurriness level in Hoshino, which is based on motion in the
frame, to estimate the motion of the frame in Kobayashi (as
alleged by the Examiner) would be to estimate motion by
determining actual motion; (3) Kobayashi’s teachings apply only
to a first frame “at the moment when the photographer presses
the recording switch” to determine an initial value for motion,
and it is this motion that is encoded into the frame; and (4)
because Kobayashi’s approach is intended to make it “possible
to reduce power consumption of an encoding device while
encoding a video image in the first frame” by minimizing
encoding calculations for the first frame, Kobayashi teaches
away from the computationally intensive estimation of Hoshino.
Appeal Brief 12.
Addressing Appellants’ contentions in numeral order, we find: (1)
The Examiner relies upon Hoshino and not Kobayashi to disclose estimating
blurriness (see Final Rejection 7); (2) the Examiner does not rely upon
Hoshino to estimate the motion of the frame in Kobayashi, the Examiner
finds Kobayashi discloses a video encoder to encode the video frame (see
Final Rejection 7—8; (3) Appellants do not explicitly indicate which of
Kobayashi’s teachings are being addressed, however, the argument that
Kobayashi’s teachings only apply to a “first frame” is immaterial to
Kobayashi’s disclosure of encoding upon which the Examiner cites in the
obviousness rejection to address Hoshino’s noted deficiency (see Final
Rejection 7—8) and (4) Appellants’ arguments that “Kobayashi teaches away
5
Appeal 2016-004672
Application 13/114,844
from the computationally intensive estimation of Hoshino” are conclusory
because Appellants did not indicate where Kobayashi’s discourages the use
of an encoder with Hoshino’s imaging device.1 See Appeal Brief 12.
Appellants further contend, “[t]he modification of Hoshino by
Kobayashi as proposed by the Examiner (Final OA, p. 7-8) would render
Hoshino unsatisfactory for its intended purpose” because “[substituting the
encoder of Kobayashi for the decoder of Hoshino would render Hoshino
inoperable for its intended purpose of ‘correcting] the blur of the frames . . .
[and] outputs the blur corrected frames to the external display’ (Hoshino,
Abstract).” Appeal Brief 12. Appellants also contend, “[t]he inverse of the
Examiner’s proposed modification of Kobayashi by Hoshino would render
Kobayashi unsatisfactory for its intended purpose. Substituting the decoder
of Hoshino for the encoder of Kobayashi would render Kobayashi
inoperable for its intended purpose of ‘encoding a video image in the first
frame’ (Kobayashi, Abstract).” Appeal Brief 13. We do not find
Appellants’ arguments persuasive because the Examiner finds:
it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art
at the time of invention was made to provide the technique of
Kobayashi to the modified system of Hoshino to improve the
encoding efficiency of an image encoding device by using
camera status Information [Kobayashi, paragraph 0002],
1 “A reference may be said to teach away when a person of ordinary skill,
upon reading the reference, would be discouraged from following the path
set out in the reference, or would be led in a direction divergent from the
path that was taken by the applicant.” In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 990 (Fed.
Cir. 2006) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). See also In re
Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (noting that merely disclosing
more than one alternative does not teach away from any of these alternatives
if the disclosure does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the
alternatives).
6
Appeal 2016-004672
Application 13/114,844
Final Rejection 8 (emphasis added). Consequently, we sustain the
Examiner’s obviousness rejections of claims 1—47 argued together. See
Appeal Brief 13.
DECISION
The Examiner’s nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting
rejection of claims 1, 13, 25 and 36 is reversed.
The Examiner’s obviousness rejections of claims 1—47 are affirmed.
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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l)(v).
AFFIRMED
7