Ex Parte Bredno et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 29, 2016

13054503 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 29, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/054,503 01/17/2011 Joerg Bredno
24737 7590 08/02/2016
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.
2008P00796WOUS 7254
EXAMINER
ABDI, AMARA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2668
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/02/2016 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):
marianne.fox@philips.com
debbie.henn@philips.com
patti. demichele@Philips.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JOERG BREDNO and MARK OLSZEWSKI
Appeal2014-006832
Application 13/054,503
Technology Center 2600
Before CATHERINE SHIANG, LINZY T. McCARTNEY, and
MELISSA A. RAAP ALA, Administrative Patent Judges.
McCARTNEY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims
1-29. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
Appeal2014-006832
Application 13/054,503
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The present patent application concerns "an interactive method of
determining a mirror line for use in determining asymmetry of an image."
Spec. 1: 6-7. Claims 1, 11, and 21 are independent. Claim 1 illustrates the
claimed subject matter:
1. A method of locating a mirror line for conducting a
symmetry analysis of an image, the method comprising:
utilizing the image to generate a mirror line in a first
location, the mirror line dividing the image into at least a first
image portion and a second image portion;
extracting image content from at least one of the first or
second image portions;
reflecting the extracted image content onto the other of the
first or second image portions based upon the first location of the
mirror line;
manipulating the location of the mirror line with respect to
the image to move the mirror line to a second location;
updating the reflected extracted image content based upon
the second location of the mirror line; and
generating a final mirror line based upon an analysis of the
reflected extracted image content with the mirror line in the
second location.
REJECTIONS
Claims 1---6, 8-16, 18-26, 28, and 29 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over combinations of Stephen Smith & Mark
Jenkinson, Accurate Robust Symmetry Estimation, 1679 LNCS 308 (1999)
2
Appeal2014-006832
Application 13/054,503
("Stephen"), 1 lmielinksa et al. (US 2008/0021502 Al; Jan. 24, 2008)
("Imielinksa"), and Appellants' admitted prior art. 2 Final Act. 5-18.
Claims 7, 17, and 27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Stephen, Imielinksa, and Volkau et al. (US 2008/0095419
Al; Apr. 24, 2008). Final Act. 19-20.
ANALYSIS
Independent claim 1 recites in relevant part "updating the reflected
extracted image content based upon the second location of the mirror line."
Independent claims 11 and 21 recite similar limitations. Appellants contend
the Examiner's combination of Stephen and Imielinksa fails to teach or
suggest this limitation. App. Br. 17; Reply Br. 3. In particular, Appellants
argue the cited portions of Imielinksa teach performing a statistical
discrepancy test, not "updating the reflected extracted image content." App.
Br. 17; Reply Br. 3.
We find Appellants' argument persuasive. The Examiner found
Imielinksa teaches or suggests the disputed limitation because Imielinksa
discloses "performing a statistical discrepancy test to determine the
difference between the observed and expected cumulative frequencies
between the data points acquired from the symmetric hemispheres based on
the estimated axis (i.e., with the mirror line in [the] second location)." Final
1 Both Appellants and the Examiner refer to this reference as "Stephen."
See, e.g., Final Act. 5; App. Br. 13. To avoid confusion, we do the same.
2 Although the Final Rejection states that claims 1---6 and 8-10 stand rejected
over Stephen and Imielinksa, the Examiner appears to have rejected 1---6, 8-
16, 18-26, 28, and 29 over combinations of Stephen, Imielinksa, and
Appellants' admitted prior art. See Final Act. 5-18; see also App. Br. 13
(treating claims 1---6, 8-16, 18-26, 28, and 29 as rejected over the same
grounds).
3
Appeal2014-006832
Application 13/054,503
Act. 6 (citing lmielinksa if 149); see also Ans. 6 (same). Although we agree
with the Examiner that the cited portion of Imielinksa discloses performing a
statistical discrepancy test to determine differences in frequency data, the
Examiner has not shown that performing this test updates the image content
in any way. And the cited portion of Imielinksa does not, without further
explanation lacking here, establish that performing Imielinksa's statistical
discrepancy test updates the image content. Accordingly, based on this
record, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent claims 1,
11, and 21 and the rejections of their respective dependent claims.
DECISION
For the above reasons, we reverse the rejections of claims 1-29.
REVERSED
4