Ex Parte Berretty et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 29, 2018

11577745 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 29, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
11/577,745 04/23/2007 Robert-Paul Mario Berretty
24737 7590 12/03/2018
PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS
465 Columbus A venue
Suite 340
Valhalla, NY 10595
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.
2004P02350WOUS 7861
EXAMINER
BADER, ROBERT N.
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2617
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/03/2018 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):
patti. demichele@Philips.com
marianne.fox@philips.com
katelyn.mulroy@philips.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Exparte ROBERT-PAUL MARIO BERRETTYand
BARTGERARDBERNARDBARENBRUG
Appeal 2018-004756
Application 11/577,745 1
Technology Center 2600
Before BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, HUNG H. BUI, and
AARON W. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judges.
BUI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 22--41, which are all the claims
pending in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We REVERSE. 2
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Koninklijke Phillips
N.V. App. Br. 2.
2 Our Decision refers to Appellants' Appeal Brief filed November 13, 2017
("App. Br."); Reply Brief filed April 4, 2018 ("Reply Br."); Examiner's
Answer mailed February 21, 2018 ("Ans."); Final Office Action mailed June
27, 2017 ("Final Act."); and original Specification filed December 2, 2008
("Spec.").
Appeal2018-004756
Application 11/577,745
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants' invention relates to "[ a J method of computing an output
disparity map . . . on basis of an input disparity map comprising respective
input elements having input values." Spec. 1: 1--4; Abstract. Claims 22 and
29 are independent. Independent claim 22, reproduced below, is illustrative:
22. A multiview rendering device comprising:
[ A J a memory that receives a two-dimensional image
comprising a plurality of pixel elements, and an input disparity
map that associates a disparity value with each of the plurality of
pixel elements,
[BJ a processing circuit that:
determines a particular disparity value based on a
defined criterion,
determines a mapping function that maps the
particular disparity value to an output value that is substantially
equal to zero,
applies the mapping function to create a plurality of
output disparity maps based on the input disparity map; and
[CJ a rendering circuit that applies the plurality of output
disparity maps to the two dimensional image to create a plurality
of views and communicates the plurality of views to a three-
dimensional display device that displays a multi-view image
corresponding to the plurality of views;
wherein the defined criterion includes sharpness, and the
particular disparity value is a disparity value associated with one
or more pixels that have a high sharpness value.
App. Br. 14 (Claims App'x) (bracketing added).
EXAMINER'S REJECTION
Claims 22--41 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the
claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Final Act. 2.
2
Appeal2018-004756
Application 11/577,745
ANALYSIS
The Supreme Court has long held that "[l]aws of nature, natural
phenomena, and abstract ideas are not patentable." Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank
Int'!, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2354 (2014) (quoting Assoc.for Molecular Pathology
v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 133 S. Ct. 2107, 2116 (2013) (internal quotation
marks omitted)).
In Alice, the Supreme Court sets forth an analytical "framework for
distinguishing patents that claim laws of nature, natural phenomena, and
abstract ideas from those that claim patent-eligible applications of those
concepts." Id. at 2355 (citing Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus
Labs., Inc., 132 S. Ct. 1289, 1296-97 (2012)). The first step in the analysis
is to "determine whether the claims at issue are directed to one of those
patent-ineligible concepts," such as an abstract idea. Id. If the claims are
directed to eligible subject matter, the inquiry ends. Thales Visionix Inc. v.
United States, 850 F.3d 1343, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2017); Enfzsh, LLC v.
Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
If the claims are directed to a patent-ineligible concept, the second
step in the analysis is to consider the elements of the claims "individually
and 'as an ordered combination"' to determine whether there are additional
elements that "'transform the nature of the claim' into a patent-eligible
application." Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355 (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 78). In
other words, the second step is to "search for an 'inventive concept'-i.e., an
element or combination of elements that is 'sufficient to ensure that the
patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the
[ineligible concept] itself."' Id. (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72-73). "'[W]ell-
understood, routine, [and] conventional activit[ies]' previously known to the
3
Appeal2018-004756
Application 11/577,745
industry" are insufficient to transform an abstract idea into patent-eligible
subject matter. Id. (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 73).
In rejecting claims 22--41 under 35 U.S.C. § 101, the Examiner
determines these claims are directed to an abstract idea of "generating an
output disparity map [based on an input disparity map]." Final Act. 2;
Ans. 2-3. The Examiner finds the steps recited in claim 22, including, for
example: (i) "receives ... input disparity map that associates a disparity
value with each of the plurality of pixel elements," (ii) assesses or
"determines a particular disparity value based on a defined criterion,"
(iii) "determines a mapping function ... ," and (iv) "applies the mapping
function to create a plurality of output disparity maps," are an abstract
process of collecting, storing, or analyzing information of a specific content,
i.e. a disparity map. Final Act. 2.
The Examiner further determines
[t]here are no elements in independent claims 22, 29, or 35 that
add anything "significantly more" to transform the abstract
concept of collecting, storing, and analyzing information into a
patent-eligible application. None of the steps recited is
individually inventive, nor is the ordered combination of these
steps inventive, given that they are ordinary steps in data analysis
and are recited in the ordinary order, or correspond to
conventional post solution activity ("applies the plurality of
output disparity maps to the two-dimensional image to create a
plurality of views for display on a three-dimensional display
device"). Instead, Applicant's claims 22--41 simply incorporate
a general-purpose computer and "processor" to perform the
abstract concept of "generating an output disparity map [based
on an input disparity map]", i.e., collecting, storing, and
analyzing information" ... Furthermore, Applicant's claims 22-
41 are not rooted in computer technology, or seeking to improve
any type of computer capabilities and only recite the abstract
concept of "generating an output disparity map [based on an
4
Appeal2018-004756
Application 11/577,745
input disparity map]," 1.e. collecting, storing, and analyzing
information.
Final Act. 3--4. According to the Examiner, "the limitation of performing
3D rendering (i.e. 'a rendering circuit that applies the plurality of output
maps to the two dimensional image to create a plurality of views and
communicates the plurality of views to a three-dimensional display device')
is merely conventional post-solution activity." Ans. 4.
Alice/Mayo-Step 1 (Abstract Idea)
At the outset, Appellants acknowledge the Board's prior
determination that method claims 1, 17, and 19 were directed to an abstract
idea of "computing an output disparity map" in previous Appeal 2016-
007436 mailed on March 29, 2017. App. Br. 7. In particular, Appellants
"concur with the Board's determination that the prior claims [1-21] were
directed to processing data to produce an alternative set of data, and
therefore patent-ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101" because these prior claims
"only addressed the transformation of data, which is abstract." App. Br. 8;
Reply Br. 1.
Turning to the first step of the Alice inquiry, Appellants argue
"claims 22--41" are not an abstract idea, and instead "are patent eligible
because they are ... directed to a system that provides higher quality multi-
view 3-D images than conventional multi-view 3-D systems" (App. Br. 7),
i.e., "a system [] that dynamically adjusts the stereoscopic effect of a multi-
view display device to produce a sharper image at a selected depth, thereby
improving the perceived 3D image." Reply Br. 3. Appellants also argue:
(l)like the claims in Diehr (Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175 (1981))
and RCT (Research Corp. Techs. v. Microsoft Corp., 627 F.3d 859,
869 (Fed. Cir. 2010)), Appellants' claims are directed improving the
5
Appeal2018-004756
Application 11/577,745
quality of multi-view 3-D display systems, i.e., improvement to
technologies in the marketplace; and
(2) like the claims in BASCOM (BASCOM Glob. Internet Servs., Inc. v.
AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2016)) and DDR
(DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245 (Fed. Cir.
2014)), Appellants' claims "address a problem that arises when a
3D rendering system creates multiple views of a scene based on a
2D image and corresponding disparity/ depth data, namely the lack
of visual clarity of objects at a 'near' distance from the viewer ...
the solution to this problem is necessarily rooted in computer
technology, and involves transforming the disparity value of each
pixel in each of the multiple views, a task that cannot be performed
in real time without a computer processor, or image processor.
App. Br. 8-11.
According to Appellants, because Appellants' claims "are consistent
with the patent-eligible criteria expressed in Diehr, RCT, Bascom, and DDR,
and provide a specific technological solution to a problem arising in that
technology," these claims are patent-eligible under§ 101. App. Br. 11. In
the Reply Brief, Appellants further argue, like the claims in Thales ( Thales
Visionix Inc. v. United States, 850 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2017)), Appellants'
claims are directed to "rendering of a multi-view 3D image that provides
sharper renderings for objects at a depth of focus[, which] is a definite and
concrete improvement to the art of 3 D image technology." Reply Br. 5.
In response, the Examiner takes the position that ( 1) like cancelled
[ method] claims 1-21, which were identified as being directed to an abstract
idea, "the [ current system] claims are [also] directed to the abstract concept
of generating an output disparity map based on an input disparity map,
without significantly more" and (2) additional elements such as "a
processing circuit" and "a rendering circuit" are "merely conventional post-
solution activity." Ans. 3--4.
6
Appeal2018-004756
Application 11/577,745
We do not agree with the Examiner and are persuaded by Appellants'
arguments in part. At the outset, we note Appellants' reliance on BASCOM
and DDR to determine whether the claims are directed to an abstract idea
under Alice step 1 is misplaced. In BASCOM and DDR, the precise nature of
their claims was unknown and was not straightforward as was in Alice and,
because of the imprecise nature of their claims, the Federal Circuit bypassed
Alice step 1 in favor of Alice step 2 determination.
Regardless, "[ t ]he § 101 inquiry must focus on the language of the
[a]sserted [c]laims themselves." Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp.,
839 F.3d 1138, 1149 (Fed. Cir. 2016); see Accenture Global Servs., GmbH
v. Guidewire Software, Inc., 728 F.3d 1336, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2013)
( admonishing that "the important inquiry for a § 101 analysis is to look to
the claim"); see also Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells
Fargo Bank, Nat'! Ass 'n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("We focus
here on whether the claims of the asserted patents fall within the excluded
category of abstract ideas.").
In this case, we agree with Appellants that current system "claims 22-
41" are different and are narrower in scope relative previously presented
method claims 1-21 in Appeal 2016-007436, which was directed to an
abstract idea of "computing an output disparity map." App. Br. 7. Since the
Board's decision on Appeal 2016-007436 was issued, the Federal Circuit's
recent decisions in Thales and Visual Memory LLC v. Nvidia Corp.,
No. 2016-2254, 2017 WL 3481288 (Fed. Cir. 2017) are more instructive.
For example, claim 22 recites a multiview rendering device
compnsmg:
7
Appeal2018-004756
Application 11/577,745
[A] a memory that receives a two-dimensional image
comprising a plurality of pixel elements, and an input disparity
map that associates a disparity value with each of the plurality of
pixel elements,
[BJ a processing circuit that:
determines a particular disparity value based on a
defined criterion,
determines a mapping function that maps the
particular disparity value to an output value that is substantially
equal to zero,
applies the mapping function to create a plurality of
output disparity maps based on the input disparity map; and
[CJ a rendering circuit that applies the plurality of output
disparity maps to the two dimensional image to create a plurality
of views and communicates the plurality of views to a three-
dimensional display device that displays a multi-view image
corresponding to the plurality of views;
wherein the defined criterion includes sharpness, and the
particular disparity value is a disparity value associated with one
or more pixels that have a high sharpness value.
App. Br. 14 (Claims App'x) (bracketing added). Similarly, claim 29 also
recites the same multiview rendering device comprising the same
[A] memory, [BJ processing circuit and [CJ rendering circuit, except that
"the defined criterion is selected from the group consisting of: [i] a
sharpness of pixels in the two-dimensional image; [ii] a position of pixels in
the two-dimensional image; [iii] a motion of pixels in at least two sequential
two-dimensional images; and [iv] a frequency of disparity values in the input
disparity map. App. Br. 15 (Claims App'x) (bracketing added).
Both current system claims 22 and 29 ( and corresponding Beauregard
claim 35) are directed to a multi-view rendering device that utilizes a
mapping function to create new output disparity maps of a multi-view 3D
image, and then utilizes these new output disparity maps to render an
improved multi-view 3D image with a maximum sharpness at the
8
Appeal2018-004756
Application 11/577,745
depth/disparity value of interest/focus, i.e., that "dynamically adjusts the
stereoscopic effect of a multi-view display device to produce a sharper
image at a selected depth, thereby improving the perceived 3D image."
Reply Br. 3.
As correctly recognized by Appellants, claims 22, 29, and 35 are
similar in nature to the claims in Thales. Reply Br. 4. For example, Thales'
claim recites "a system for tracking the motion of an object relative to a
moving reference frame, comprising:
[ 1] a first inertial sensor mounted on the tracked object;
[2] a second inertial sensor mounted on the moving reference
frame; and
[3] an element adapted to receive signals from said first and
second inertial sensors and configured to determine an orientation of
the object relative to the moving reference frame based on the signals
received from the first and second inertial sensors."
U.S. Patent No. 6,474,159 ('159 patent), 11:49--59. The Federal Circuit
determined that Thales ' claims "are not merely directed to the abstract idea
of using 'mathematical equations for determining the relative position of a
moving object to a moving reference frame,"' but rather "are directed to
systems and methods that use inertial sensors in a non-conventional manner
to reduce errors in measuring the relative position and orientation of a
moving object on a moving reference frame." Thales, 850 F.3d at 1349.
The Federal Circuit concluded that Thales' claims are not directed to
an "abstract idea" under Alice step 1. Id. Because the panel found step 1 of
the Alice two-step analysis is satisfied, Alice step 2 was not required. Id.
Similar to Thales, Visual Memory's claim recites
a computer memory system connectable to a processor and
having one or more programmable operational characteristics,
said characteristics being defined through configuration by said
9
Appeal2018-004756
Application 11/577,745
computer based on the type of said processor, wherein said
system is connectable to said processor by a bus, said system
compnsmg:
[ 1] a main memory connected to said bus; and
[2] a cache connected to said bus;
wherein a programmable operational characteristic
of said system determines a type of data stored by said cache.
U.S. Patent No. 5,953,740 ('740 patent), 6:28-38.
The Federal Circuit determined that Visual Memory's claims "are
directed to an improved computer memory system, not to the abstract idea of
categorical data storage." Visual Memory, No. 2016-2254, 2017 WL
3481288, at *4. According to the Federal Circuit, those claims "are directed
to a technological improvement: an enhanced computer memory system"
because ( 1) the claimed "programmable operational characteristics ... are
configurable based on the type of processor-instead of 'on a process that
qualifies as an 'abstract idea' for which computers are invoked merely as a
tool"; and (2) Visual Memory's "specification discusses the advantages
offered by the technological improvement." Id. As such, the Federal Circuit
concluded that Visual Memory's claims are not directed to an "abstract idea"
under Alice step 1. Id. Because the panel found step 1 of the Alice two-step
analysis satisfied in Visual Memory, Alice step 2 analysis was not required,
as in Thales. Id. at *6.
Like the claims in Thales and Visual Memory, we agree with
Appellants that their claims 22, 29, and 35 render a multi-view 3D image
that provides sharper renderings for objects at a depth of focus and provide a
definite and concrete improvement to the art of 3D image technology. Reply
Br. 5. In our view, Appellants' system claims 22, 29, and 35 (1) provide a
specific technological environment, (2) provide concrete practical
10
Appeal2018-004756
Application 11/577,745
applications in that technological environment consistent with the Supreme
Court's ruling in Diehr and Bascom, and (3) recite functions that (i) could
not be performed without the use of a processing circuit and a rendering
circuit and (ii) could, instead, provide nonconventional features (Visual
Memory, 2017 WL at *4).
For these reasons, we agree with Appellants that claims 22--41 are not
directed to an abstract idea of "generating an output disparity map."
Because Alice step 1 is dispositive, we need not reach Alice step 2
("inventive concept"). As such, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection
of claims 22--41 under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
CONCLUSION
On the record before us, we conclude Appellants have demonstrated
the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 22--41 under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
DECISION
As such, we reverse the Examiner's rejection of claims 22--41 under
35 U.S.C. § 101.
REVERSED
11