Ex Parte Anselmo et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 25, 2016

13235099 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 25, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/235,099 09/16/2011
38106 7590 08/26/2016
Seed IP Law Group/ST (EP ORIGIN A TING)
701 FIFTH AVENUE, SUITE 5400
SEATTLE, WA 98104-7092
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Tea Anselmo
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.
851763.496 6400
EXAMINER
CHIO, TAT CHI
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2486
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
08/26/2016 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte TEA ANSELMO, DANIELE ALFONSO, and
DIEGO ANDRES ANGULO P ABON 1
Appeal2014-009788
Application 13/235,099
Technology Center 2400
Before JEFFREY A. STEPHENS, JAMES W. DEJMEK, and
STACY B. MARGOLIES, Administrative Patent Judges.
DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1-27. We have jurisdiction over the pending claims under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We affirm-in-part and designate our affirmance of claims 1 and 5 as a
NEW GROUND OF REJECTION pursuant to our authority under 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.50(b).
1 Appellants identify STMicroelectronics S.r.l. as the real party in interest.
App. Br. 2.
Appeal2014-009788
Application 13/235,099
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellants' invention is directed to the processing of image signals
(e.g., video signals), "with particular attention paid to the possible
application to region-of-interest (ROI) detection." Spec. 1. According to
the Specification, detection of regions of interest may be used during
teleconference applications and may allow for better quality or processing of
the regions of interest. Spec. 1, 13.
Claims 1 and 24 are exemplary of the subject matter on appeal and are
reproduced below with the disputed limitations emphasized in italics:
1. A method, comprising:
identifying regions of interest in a video signal, by,
identifying fast motion regions;
identifYing slow motion regions having low-level characteristics;
comparing an area of the identified slow motion regions having
10\~1-level characteristics to a threshold area;
when the area of the identified slow motion regions having low-
level characteristics is larger than the threshold area, identifying regions
of interest as a function of the fast motion regions and the slow motion
regions having low-level characteristics; and
when the area of identified slow motion regions having low-level
characteristics is smaller than the threshold area,
identifying face regions; and
identifYing regions of interest as a function of the fast
motion regions and the face regions.
24. A system, comprising:
means for identifying fast motion regions;
means for identifYing slow motion regions having low-level
characteristics;
2
Appeal2014-009788
Application 13/235,099
means for identifying face regions; and
means for identifying regions of interest in a video signal based
on an area of identified slow motion regions having low-level
characteristics.
The Examiner's Rejections
1. Claims 1-5, 8, 11-14, 17-20, and 24--26 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Doi et al. (US 6,360,003 Bl;
Mar. 19, 2002) ("Doi") and El-Maleh et al. (US 2007/0183661 Al; Aug. 9,
2007) ("El-Maleh"). Final Act. 8-30.
2. Claims 6, 7, 9, 15, 16, and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Doi, El-Maleh, and Tian (US
2006/0285724 Al; Dec. 21, 2006). Final Act. 30-33.
3. Claims 10, 22, 23, and 27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Doi, El-Maleh, and Okada et al. (US
2007 /0025444 Al; Feb. 1, 2007) ("Okada"). Final Act. 33-35.
Issues on Appeal
1. Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Doi and El-
Maleh teaches or suggests "identifying slow motion regions having low-
level characteristics," as recited in claim 1?
2. Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Doi and El-
Maleh teaches or suggests "identifying regions of interest as a function of
the fast motion regions and the face regions," as recited in claim 1?
3. Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Doi and El-
Maleh teaches or suggests "filtering said map of low-level characteristic
3
Appeal2014-009788
Application 13/235,099
regions as a function of the identified slow motion regions," as recited in
claim 2?
4. Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Doi and El-
Maleh teaches or suggests "identifying the regions of interest as a sum of
said fast motion regions and the slow motion regions having low level
characteristics," as recited in claim 3?
5. Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Doi, El-
Maleh, and Tian teaches or suggests "ordering at least some of said regions
of interest according to saliency order," as recited in claim 6?
6. Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Doi, El-
Maleh, and Tian teaches or suggests "establishing saliency order via
thresholding," as recited in claim 7?
7. Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Doi, El-
Maleh, and Tian teaches or suggests "thresholding said video signal with
respect to an average intensity value," as recited in claim 9?
ANALYSIS2
Claims 1, 5, 8, 10, and 11
Appellants contend the Examiner erred in finding Doi teaches or
suggests "identifying slow motion regions having low-level characteristics,"
as recited in independent claim 1. App. Br. 27-29. Appellants assert there
2 Throughout this Decision, we have considered the Appeal Brief, filed
February 18, 2014 ("App. Br."); the Reply Brief, filed September 9, 2014
("Reply Br."); the Examiner's Answer, mailed on July 16, 2014 ("Ans.");
and the Final Office Action ("Final Act."), mailed on August 13, 2013, from
which this Appeal is taken.
4
Appeal2014-009788
Application 13/235,099
is no discussion of this limitation in the cited portions of Doi. App. Br. 27.
We disagree.
As identified by the Examiner, Doi teaches the processing of captured
image data. Final Act. 8-11 (citing Doi, col. 7, 11. 4--45, col. 15, 1. 36-
col. 16, 1. 14). Doi teaches pixel values of the captured image data may be
represented as "acquired intensities of reflected light in eight bits." Doi,
col. 5, 11. 16-17; see also Doi, Fig. 4. Consistent with Appellants'
Specification of low level characteristics including "elements such as
intensity, color, and orientation" (see Spec. 18), we find Doi's captured
image data has the claimed "low-level characteristics." Additionally, as
identified by the Examiner, Doi teaches identifying slow motion regions of
the input signal. Final Act. 8-11; see also Doi, Figs. 2, 3 (described in the
text cited by the Examiner). Doi teaches:
The area s of the region of an object to be processed in the
captured image data is compared with a specified value SO of a
predetermined area \'l1ith respect to the area of the captured image
data, and the image capturing timing f of the captured image data
is compared with "15," the value of the image capturing timing
when the motion of the target object is slow (step S13).
Doi, col. 7, 11. 5-11. Thus, in step S 13, a region of slow motion in the video
image of the target object has been identified. As discussed, this region of
the captured image also has low-level characteristics. Doi also teaches this
process is performed by the image capturing section of the disclosed image
processing apparatus. Doi, col. 6, 11. 53-57. Appellants have not
persuasively rebutted these findings, which are supported by Doi.
Appellants also contend the Examiner erred in finding the
combination of Doi and El-Maleh teaches or suggests "identifying regions of
interest as a function of the fast motion regions and the face regions." App.
5
Appeal2014-009788
Application 13/235,099
Br. 29. In particular, Appellants assert that "merely adding face recognition
[(as taught by El-Maleh)] to Doi would not achieve the claimed invention."
App. Br. 29. Appellants argue there is no discussion as to how the combined
teachings of Doi and El-Maleh would identify regions of interest as a
function of the fast motion regions and face regions. App. Br. 29.
We are not persuaded the Examiner erred. As set forth in claim 1,
regions of interest are identified two different ways. In particular, if the area
of the identified slow motion regions is larger than a threshold area, the
region of interest is identified as a function of the fast motion regions and
the slow motion regions having low-level characteristics. If, however, the
area of the identified slow motion regions is less than the threshold area, the
region of interest is identified as a function of the fast motion regions and
the face regions. Thus, the identification of a region of interest is responsive
to one of two mutually exclusive conditions (i.e., whether the area of
identified slow motion regions is greater or less than a threshold area). The
broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 1 requires performance of only
one step of identifying a region of interest conditioned on whether the area
of identified slow motion regions is greater or less than a threshold area. See
Ex parte Katz, 2011 WL 514314, at *4-5 (BP AI Jan. 27, 2011) (the broadest
reasonable interpretation of a conditional step in a method claim includes
instances in which the conditional step would not be invoked), reh 'g denied,
2011 WL 1211248, at *2 (BP AI Mar. 25, 2011 ).
In view of the optional language used in claim 1, the Examiner need
not cite art for the steps responsive to both potential conditions of the area of
slow motion regions being greater or less than a threshold area, so long as
the Examiner applies the prior art to reject the claim for one potential
6
Appeal2014-009788
Application 13/235,099
condition. See Jn re Johnston, 435 F.3d 1381, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2006)
("optional elements do not narrow the claim because they can always be
omitted"). Here, the Examiner finds Doi teaches, inter alia, "when the area
of the identified slow motion regions having low-level characteristics is
larger than the threshold area, identifying regions of interest as a function of
the fast motion regions and the slow motion regions having low-level
characteristics," as recited in claim 1. Final Act. 8-11 (citing Doi, col. 7,
11. 4--45).
assert:
Appellants do not persuasively rebut the Examiner's findings, but
Since the identification of slow motion regions having low-level
characteristics is not disclosed in the cited portions of Doi, there
also is no disclosure of comparing such identified slow motion
regions having low-level characteristics to a threshold area, or of
identifying regions of interest based on such identified slow
motion regions having low-level characteristics.
App. Br. 27.
As discussed supra, we agree with the Examiner's findings that Doi
teaches the identification of slow motion regions having low-level
characteristics. For the reasons discussed, because the Examiner finds that
the references teach or suggest identifying a region of interest when the area
of identified slow motion regions is larger than a threshold area, we need not
reach on Appellants' arguments related to the Examiner's findings for
identifying a region of interest when the area of the slow motion regions is
smaller than the threshold area. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's
rejection of independent claim 1. We designate our affirmance as a NEW
GROUND OF REJECTION to afford Appellants an opportunity to address
the rejection as articulated in this Decision. Additionally, we sustain the
7
Appeal2014-009788
Application 13/235,099
Examiner's rejection of dependent claims 8, 10, and 11, which were not
argued separately. See App. Br. 29.
Additionally, claim 5 depends from claim 1 and further narrows the
steps taken when the area of the identified slow motion regions is less than a
threshold area. For similar reasons discussed related to claim 1, the broadest
reasonable interpretation of claim 1 encompasses a method where the area of
identified slow motion regions is not smaller than a threshold area, i.e., the
condition specified in claim 5 is not met. Thus, we need not reach
Appellants' arguments related to the Examiner's findings for claim 5.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of dependent claim 5. We
designate our affirmance as a NEW GROUND OF REJECTION, to afford
Appellants an opportunity to address the rejection as articulated in this
Decision.
Claims 2 and 4
Claim 2 recites, inter alia, "filtering said map of low-level
characteristic regions as a function of the identified slow motion regions."
Appellants contend El-Maleh, as relied on by the Examiner, fails to teach or
suggest this limitation. App. Br. 30.
We are unpersuaded of Examiner error. El-Maleh teaches a face mask
detector uses a skin-color map that can identify skin-color regions "by the
presence of a certain set of chrominance values narrowly and consistently
distributed in the YCbCr color space." El-Maleh i-f 66. As discussed supra,
chrominance values are low-level characteristics. Additionally, El-Maleh
teaches classifying pixels of detected skin-color regions as facial pixels. El-
Maleh i-f 65. Thus, we agree with the Examiner's findings that El-Maleh
8
Appeal2014-009788
Application 13/235,099
teaches or reasonably suggests "filtering said map of low-level characteristic
regions as a function of the identified slow motion regions," as recited in
claim 2.
Accordingly, for the reasons discussed, we sustain the Examiner's
rejection of claim 2. Additionally, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of
claim 4, which depends from claims 2 and which was not argued separately.
See App. Br. 29.
Claim 3
Claim 3 depends from claim 1 and provides additional limitations to
the identification of regions of interest when the area of the identified slow
motion regions is larger than a threshold area or when the area of the
identified slow motion regions is smaller than a threshold area. In particular,
and for similar reasons to those discussed supra regarding our analysis of
claim 1, we will direct our analysis to the condition when the area of the
identified slow motion region is greater than a threshold area. Under this
condition, regions of interest are identified "as a sum of said fast motion
regions and the slow motion regions having low level characteristics."
Appellants contend Doi fails to teach or suggest the identification of
regions of interest as a sum of the fast motion regions and slow motion
regions. App. Br. 31. The Examiner does not identify with specificity or
explain how Doi teaches the disputed limitation. See Final Act. 18-20;
Ans. 35-37.
Accordingly, on this record, we are constrained to reverse the
Examiner's rejection of claim 3.
9
Appeal2014-009788
Application 13/235,099
Claims 6, 7, and 9
Appellants assert the Examiner's reliance on Tian in rejecting claims
6, 7, and 9 is in error. App. Br. 32-34. In particular, Appellants argue Tian
is directed to the detection of motion of an object in a captured video frame
rather than ordering regions of interest according to a saliency order (claim
6), establishing a saliency order via thresholding (claim 7), and thresholding
with respect to an average intensity value (claim 9). Id.
As relied on by the Examiner, Tian teaches "detecting objects with
salient motion." Tian i-f 17; see also Tian i-fi-1 18-19. However, the Examiner
does not identify with specificity or explain how these sections of Tian teach
or suggest the disputed limitations. See Final Act. 30-33; Ans. 39--42.
Accordingly, on this record, we are constrained to reverse the
Examiner's rejection of claims 6, 7, and 9.
Claims 12-23
Independent claims 12 and 17 recite similar limitations to those in
claim 1 but are directed to a non-transitory computer-readable medium and a
device, respectively. Unlike claim 1, where we determined the Examiner's
conclusion of obviousness of the method claim is supported by the finding
that the prior art teaches or suggests the step performed when one of two
mutually exclusive conditions is met, in claims 12 and 17, the prior art must
show instructions or structure configured to perform the claimed step under
both conditions.
Appellants contend the Examiner erred in finding the combination of
Doi and El-Maleh teaches or suggests "identifying regions of interest as a
function of the fast motion regions and the face regions." App. Br. 29, 36.
10
Appeal2014-009788
Application 13/235,099
In particular, Appellants assert that "merely adding face recognition [ (as
taught by El-Maleh)] to Doi would not achieve the claimed invention."
App. Br. 29, 36. Appellants argue there is no discussion as to how the
combined teachings of Doi and El-Maleh would identify regions of interest
as a function of the fast motion regions and face regions or why such a step
would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of
invention. App. Br. 29, 36.
The Examiner finds Doi teaches identifying fast motion regions (Final
Act. 13 (citing Doi, col. 7, 11. 4--45)) and further finds El-Maleh teaches
identifying face regions (Final Act. 13-14 (citing El-Maleh i-f 65)).
However, we do not find the Examiner's explanation that the combined
teachings "would facilitate person detection," without further persuasive
evidence and reasoning, sufficiently articulates, with rational underpinning,
the reasons for combining the references to teach the disputed limitation of
"identifying regions of interest as a function of the fast motion regions and
the face regions."
Accordingly, for the reasons discussed supra, we are constrained by
the record to reverse the Examiner's rejection of claim 12. For similar
reasons, we do not sustain the rejection of independent claim 17. Further,
we do not sustain the rejections of dependent claims 13-16 and 18-23.
Claims 24 and 27
Appellants advance similar arguments to those presented with respect
to claim 1 that the Examiner erred in finding Doi teaches or suggests "means
for identifying slow motion regions having low-level characteristics," as
recited in independent claim 24. App. Br. 38. As discussed above in
11
Appeal2014-009788
Application 13/235,099
connection with claim 1, we do not find this argument persuasive of
Examiner error.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 24.
Additionally, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 27, which
depends directly from claim 24 and which was not argued separately. See
App. Br. 38.
Claims 25 and 26
Claim 25 depends from claim 24 and adds, inter alia, the limitation
"identifying said regions of interest as a function of identified fast motion
regions and identified face regions." For similar reasons related to claims 12
and 1 7 discussed supra, we are constrained by the record to reverse the
Examiner's rejection of claim 25. For similar reasons, we do not sustain the
Examiner's rejection of claim 26, which depends from claim 25.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1 and 5 and we
designate the affirmance as containing a NEW GROUND OF REJECTION.
We affirm the Examiner's decision to reject claims 2, 4, 8, 10, 11, 24,
and 27.
We reverse the Examiner's decision to reject claims 3, 6, 7, 9, 12-23,
25, and 26.
"A new ground of rejection ... shall not be considered final for
judicial review." 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b). Section 41.50(b) provides that
Appellants, WITHIN TWO MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF THE
DECISION, must exercise one of the following two options with respect to
12
Appeal2014-009788
Application 13/235,099
the new ground of rejection to avoid termination of proceedings (37 C.F.R. §
1.197 (b)) as to the rejected claims:
( 1) Reopen prosecution. Submit an appropriate amendment of the
claims so rejected or new Evidence relating to the claims so
rejected, or both, and have the matter reconsidered by the
examiner, in which event the prosecution will be remanded to
the examiner. . . .
(2)Request rehearing. Request that the proceeding be reheard
under§ 41.52 by the Board upon the same Record ....
Further guidance on responding to a new ground of rejection can be
found in the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure§ 1214.01.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv). See
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART; 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b)
13