Ex Parte Brasnett et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 26, 2018

13798934 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 26, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
131798,934 03/13/2013
104840 7590 03/28/2018
Imagination Technologies
c/o Vorys, Sater, Seymour and Pease LLP
1909 K St., NW
Ninth Floor
Washington, DC 20006
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Paul Brasnett
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.
070852.000217 6019
EXAMINER
HAGHANI, SHADAN E
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2485
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/28/2018 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):
patlaw@vorys.com
vmdeluca@vorys.com
rntisdale@vorys.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte PAUL BRASNETT, JONATHAN DIGGINS, STEVEN
FISHWICK, and STEPHEN MORPHET
Appeal2017-010608
Application 13/798,934 1
Technology Center 2400
Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, ALLEN R. MacDONALD, and
JOHN P. PINKERTON, Administrative Patent Judges.
PINKERTON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Non-Final Rejection of claims 1-54, which constitute all the claims pending
in this application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We reverse.
1 The real party in interest identified by Appellants is Imagination
Technologies Limited. App. Br. 1.
Appeal2017-010608
Application 13/798,934
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellants' disclosed and claimed invention relates generally to "a
method for providing imaging data to an image processing module."
Spec. 5:13-14.2
Claim 1 is representative and reads as follows (with the disputed
limitation emphasized):
1. A method for providing image data to an image processing
module, comprising:
reading image data from memory into a down-scaler
which down scales the image data to a first resolution;
storing the first resolution image data in a first buffer;
predicting a region of image data which the image
processing module will request;
storing image data corresponding to at least part of the
predicted region of image data from memory into a second
buffer, wherein the image data in the second buffer is at a higher
resolution than the first resolution;
receiving a request for image data from the image
processing module;
determining that image data corresponding to at least a
portion of the requested image data is not in the second buffer;
up-scaling image data from the first buffer to provide a
substitute for the portion of the requested image data that is not
in the second buffer at a resolution that at least matches the
higher resolution; and
2 Our Decision refers to the Non-Final Office Action (mailed Nov. 14, 2016,
"Non-Final Act."), Appellants' Appeal Brief (filed Apr. 14, 2017, "App.
Br.") and Reply Brief (filed Aug. 7, 2017, ("Reply Br."), the Examiner's
Answer (mailed June 6, 2017, "Ans."), and the original Specification (filed
Mar. 13, 2013, "Spec.").
2
Appeal2017-010608
Application 13/798,934
providing the up-scaled nnage data to the nnage
processing module.
App Br. 10 (Claims App.).
Rejections on Appeal
Claims 1-3, 5-8, 11-15, 17, 20, 22, 28-30, 32-35, 38--42, 44, 47, and
49 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Pearlstein (US 2009/0175343 Al; published July 9, 2009), in view of Kim et
al. (US 6,618,443 Bl; issued Sept. 9, 2003) ("Kim").
Claims 4 and 31 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Pearlstein, in view of Kim, and further in view of Cismas
et al. (US 8,325,798 Bl; issued Dec. 4, 2012) ("Cismas").
Claims 9 and 36 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Pearlstein, in view of Kim, and further in view of
Osamoto et al. (US 2010/0215104 Al; published Aug. 26, 2010)
("Osamoto").
Claims 10 and 37 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Pearlstein, in view of Kim, and further in view of Lavelle
et al. (US 2003/0169263 Al; published Sept. 11, 2003) ("Lavelle").
Claims 16, 18-19, 43, and 45--46 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Pearlstein, in view of Kim,
and further in view of Liang et al. (US 2002/0196853 Al; published Dec.
26, 2002) ("Liang").
Claims 21, 25-26, 48, and 52-53 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Pearlstein, in view of Kim,
and further in view of Wu et al. (US 2012/0195376 Al; published Aug. 2,
2012) ("Wu").
3
Appeal2017-010608
Application 13/798,934
Claims 23-24 and 50-51 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Pearlstein, in view of Kim, and further in view of
Blume (US 2010/0271554 Al; published Oct. 28, 2010).
Claims 27 and 54 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Pearlstein, in view of Kim, and further in view of Hellman
et al. (US 2013/0236163 Al; published Sept. 12, 2013) ("Hellman"). 3
ANALYSIS
Appellants argue the combination of cited references fails to teach or
suggest "up-scaling image data from the first buffer to provide a substitute
for the portion of the requested image data that is not in the second buffer at
a resolution that at least matches the higher resolution," as recited in
independent claim 1, and similarly recited in independent claim 28. 4 See
App. Br. 6-7. As argued by Appellants, Pearlstein fails to teach or suggest
up-scaling image data to provide a substitute for higher-resolution image
data, as Pearlstein discloses storing both high-resolution and low-resolution
versions of reference images, and thus, there never is a need to up-scale a
low-resolution version of a reference image to provide a substitute for the
high-resolution version of the reference image. See App. Br. 7; see also
Reply Br. 1-2.
We have reviewed the Examiner's findings (see Non-Final Act. 3--4;
see also Ans. 2--4, 17-23), in light of Appellants' arguments, and we are
3 The header of the rejection only references Pearlstein and Hellman, but this
appears to be a typographical error. See Non-Final Act. 16; see also
Ans. 15.
4 Appellants' arguments raise additional issues, but we do not reach them
because the identified issues are dispositive of the appeal.
4
Appeal2017-010608
Application 13/798,934
persuaded the Examiner erred. In particular, we agree with Appellants that
Pearlstein discloses the decoder stores, for each reference image retrieved
from a memory, both an original (i.e., high-resolution) version and a
downscaled (i.e., low-resolution) version of the reference image. See
Pearlstein i-fi-f 15, 17-18. Pearlstein further discloses the decoder
subsequently receives a motion vector for a new image and compares the
motion vector with a threshold. See Pearlstein i-fi-f 15, 20. The decoder uses
the high-resolution version when the motion vector is less than the threshold
and uses the low-resolution version when the motion vector is greater than
the threshold. See Pearlstein i-fi-f 15, 21. In light of this disclosure, we agree
with Appellants that Pearlstein fails to disclose a situation in which the
decoder upscales a low-resolution version of a reference image to provide a
substitute for an absent high-resolution version of the reference image.
Although Kim teaches upscaling a low-resolution reference image (see Kim
6:29-32), the Examiner has failed to establish that Kim cures Pearlstein's
deficiencies because the Examiner has not shown that Kim teaches or
suggests providing the upscaled reference image as a substitute for an absent
high-resolution reference image.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 1
and 28 for obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). We also do not sustain the
Examiner's rejection of dependent claims 2-27 and 29-53, which depend
from one of claims 1 and 28.
5
Appeal2017-010608
Application 13/798,934
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-54 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
REVERSED
6