Ex Parte Bryant et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 6, 2017

13471473 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 6, 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.
13/471,473 05/15/2012 Andrew Bryant 337722-334803/P12697US3 1099
133036 7590 09/08/2017
DLA Piper LLP (US)
2000 University Avenue
East Palo Alto, CA 94303-2215
EXAMINER
CHEN, YU
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2613
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/08/2017 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):
ApplePros Admin @ dlapiper.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ANDREW BRYANT, PETER WARNER, and
DANIEL PETTIGREW
Appeal 2016-006347
Application 13/471,473
Technology Center 2600
Before JEFFREY S. SMITH, JON M. JURGOVAN, and
AARON W. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judges.
JURGOVAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1—15, 18, and 20-32. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm-in-part.1
1 Our Decision refers to the Specification (“Spec.”) filed May 15, 2012, the
Final Office Action (“Final Act.”) mailed April 7, 2015, the Appeal Brief
(“App. Br.”) filed October 7, 2015, the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.”) mailed
April 6, 2016, and the Reply Brief (“Reply Br.”) filed June 6, 2016.
Appeal 2016-006347
Application 13/471,473
CLAIMED INVENTION
The claims are directed to user interface tools for editing color values
of an image based on direction and/or magnitude of user input. Spec. 2.
Claims 1 and 23, reproduced below, are illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A non-transitory machine readable medium storing a
program for adjusting color values of an image represented in a
color space, the program for execution by at least one processing
unit, the program comprising sets of instructions for:
displaying the image on a display device;
receiving a selection of a first location on the displayed
image that corresponds to a selected pixel of the image and a
directional input from the first location to a second location; and
determining a color space transform for mapping a set of
color values defined within the color space to a different set of
color values by adjusting color values of pixels in the image that
surround color values of the selected pixel in the color space,
based on the color values of the selected pixel and the direction
and magnitude of the directional input.
Claims App.
23. A non-transitory machine readable medium storing a
computer program for adjusting color values of an image
represented in a color space, the computer program comprising
sets of instructions for execution by at least one processing unit,
the sets of instructions for:
displaying a luminance histogram representation of the
luminance values of the image;
displaying a color selection tool on the luminance
histogram representation in response to a user's selection of a
2
Appeal 2016-006347
Application 13/471,473
location on the displayed luminance histogram representation,
said location corresponding to a particular luminance value;
receiving a selection of a color from the color selection
tool; and
based on the selected color, determining a color space
transform for mapping a set of color values defined within the
color space to a different set of color values, the color space
transform based on the selected color and the particular
luminance value.
Claims App.
REJECTIONS
Claims 2-4, 12, 13, 18, 20-22, and 29-31 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written
description requirement. Final Act. 5.
Claims 1—15, 18, 20, 21, and 27—32 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) based on Pettigrew A (US 2010/0188415 Al, publ. July 29, 2010)
and Middler (US 2009/0058806 Al, publ. March 5, 2009). Final Act. 6.
Claims 23—26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on
Pettigrew A and Pettigrew B (US 2001/0028738 Al, publ. October 11,
2001). Final Act. 20.
Claim 22 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on Pettigrew
A, Middler, and Graves (US 2003/0103057 Al, publ. June 5, 2003). Final
Act. 24.
3
Appeal 2016-006347
Application 13/471,473
ANALYSIS
Rejection under § 112, First Paragraph
The Final Office Action asserts that “displaying a graphical
representation of the color values of the pixels in the image” is not described
in the Specification. Final Act. 5. Specifically, the Examiner states
“Fig[ure] 4 shows displaying a graphical representation of the color values
of the pixels near the image but not in the image.” Id. Appellants contend
“[t]he claim language . . . makes clear that the graphical representation is
representing the color values of the pixels of the image, not presented in the
image and representing color values of pixels.” App. Br. 28; see also Reply
Br. 4—5.
We agree with Appellants. To comply with the “written description”
requirement of35U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, an applicant must convey
with reasonable clarity to those skilled in the art that, as of the filing date
sought, he or she was in possession of the invention. The invention is, for
purposes of the “written description” inquiry, whatever is now claimed.
Vas-Cath, Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1563-64 (Fed. Cir. 1991). As
both the Examiner and Appellants recognize, Figure 4 of the Specification,
shown below, displays the vectorscope representation 435 of the color
values of the image 425 next to the image 425 of a bicycle. Spec. 18—19.
Thus, the Specification does disclose a vectorscope representation of the
color values of the pixels that are in the image. The Specification conveys
that Appellants were in possession of “displaying a graphical representation
of the color values of the pixels” where “the pixels” are “in the image” as
recited in claim 2.
4
Appeal 2016-006347
Application 13/471,473
46S 450
Figure 4
Figure 4 shows graphical user interface (GUI) 400 with image 425
and corresponding vectorscope representation 435 in image-editing
stages 405, 410, 415, 420.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 2—4, 12, 13, 18, 20-
22, and 29—31 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph.
5
Appeal 2016-006347
Application 13/471,473
Rejections under § 103(a)
Independent Claims 1, 9, and27
A. Alleged Deficiencies of Pettigrew A and Middler
Appellants argue:
Pettigrew A and Middler do not disclose or suggest receiving a
directional input from a first location on the displayed image,
corresponding to a selected pixel of the image, to a second
location and determining a color space transform based on the
color values of the selected pixel and the direction and magnitude
of the directional input.
App. Br. 11—12. More specifically, Appellants argue:
the Office Action does not and cannot identify in Middler a first
location that corresponds to a selected pixel as required by claim
1. The directional input disclosed in Middler relates to a
transform operation in a multimedia editing application that can
include rotating, translating, and scaling an image object but does
not relate to any operations affecting the color of the image or
the image object. Furthermore, the interface disclosed in Middler
does not require identifying a pixel and inputting a vector
originating from the selected pixel, but rather relies, as does
Pettigrew A, on the selection of an onscreen control using a
cursor or a keyboard ... to initiate a transform operation.
App. Br. 12—13 (citing Middler 142). We do not agree with Appellants’
arguments.
In the rejection, the Examiner relies on Pettigrew A to show the
claimed features which Appellants argue. Final Act. 6—7 and Ans. 2—3
(citing Pettigrew A, || 30, 33, 35 and Fig. 2a). Specifically, Pettigrew A
describes a process for selecting a region 102 in digital image 100 to be
color-corrected. Pettigrew A, 130. Figure 2a of Pettigrew A, shown below,
indicates the selected region 102 and a correction interface 202 for applying
6
Appeal 2016-006347
Application 13/471,473
color corrections to a range of pixels in the selected region 102. Pettigrew
A, 1133, 35.
Fig. 2a
Figure 2a of Pettigrew shows a correction interface 202 with hue control
204, balance control 206, saturation control 208, white level control 210, and
black level control 212 for correcting color of a selected region 102.
The Examiner acknowledges that Pettigrew A does not disclose that the
color space transform is based on direction and magnitude input, for which
the Examiner relies on Middler. Final Act. 8—9 (citing Middler H 50, 80—
83).
Regarding Appellants’ argument that Middler does not disclose a first
location that corresponds to a selected pixel, we agree with the Examiner
7
Appeal 2016-006347
Application 13/471,473
that any of the pixels in the range inside of selected region 102 in Pettigrew
A may be considered the claimed “selected pixel.” Final Act. 6—7 (citing
Pettigrew A, Fig. 1, || 30, 33, 35). The claimed “first location on the
displayed image that corresponds to a selected pixel of the image”
corresponds to any location on Pettigrew A’s controls 204, 206, 208, 210,
212 that a user selects in order to make color corrections in selected region
102. Id.
Regarding Appellants’ argument that Middler’s transform operation
does not affect the color of the image, we agree with the Examiner that the
rejection does not rely on Middler, but on Pettigrew A, to teach color
correction, which it indisputably does. Id. “Non-obviousness cannot be
established by attacking references individually where the rejection is based
upon the teachings of a combination of references.” In re Merck & Co., Inc.,
800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (citing In re Keller, 642 F.2d413, 425
(CCPA 1981)).
Appellants’ argument that Pettigrew A and Middler do not identify a
pixel and input a vector originating from the selected pixel is likewise
unpersuasive. The claimed limitations do not recite that the first location is
the selected pixel, but merely that the first location corresponds to the
selected pixel. In effect, Appellants argue limitations that are not present in
the claims. Limitations not appearing in the claims cannot be relied upon for
patentability. In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 1348 (CCPA 1982).
B. Reasons to Combine Pettigrew A and Middler
Appellants next argue that the Examiner used impermissible hindsight
to combine Pettigrew A, which relates to color transformations, and Middler,
which relates to spatial transformations. App. Br. 17—19. Appellants
8
Appeal 2016-006347
Application 13/471,473
contend Pettigrew A was aware of the ability to receive selection and
directional input through a click and drag of a mouse or other pointing
devices and chose not to use that interface as it is used in the claimed
invention. Id. at 18. According to Appellants, “[t]hat neither Pettigrew A
nor Middler chose to receive a selection and directional input as done in
claim 9 indicates that the claimed interface was not obvious and the
references in fact teach away from the claimed invention.” Id. at 18.
We do not agree with Appellants that the Examiner used
impermissible hindsight in the rejection. Any judgment on obviousness is in
a sense “necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning, but so
long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of
ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made and does not
include knowledge gleaned only from applicant’s disclosure, such a
reconstruction is proper.” In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 1395 (CCPA
1971). “Often, it will be necessary for a court to look to interrelated
teachings of multiple patents ... in order to determine whether there was an
apparent reason to combine the known elements in the fashion claimed . . . .”
KSRInt’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417-18 (2007). Pettigrew A
and Middler both address image processing in response to directional input
by a user to affect transformations of selected parts of an image.2 Pettigrew
A, Abstract, Fig. 2a, Tflf 30, 33, 35; Middler, Abstract, | 50. Given these
similar teachings, we agree with the Examiner that a person of ordinary skill
2 Actually, Pettigrew A can be viewed as teaching both direction and
magnitude because, for example, balance control 206 can be clicked on and
dragged right or left (direction) by a certain amount (magnitude) to control
color balance. Pettigrew A, Fig. 2a, 135.
9
Appeal 2016-006347
Application 13/471,473
in the art would have had an apparent reason to combine the references to
obtain the claimed invention.
Appellants’ argument that neither Pettigrew A nor Middler disclose
the invention as claimed is similarly unpersuasive. Specifically, Appellants
argue that because Pettigrew A does not teach both direction- and
magnitude-based input, and because Middler uses a spatial, not color,
transformation, the rejection cannot be maintained. Distilled down to its
essence, Appellants’ argument is that the Examiner errs by not showing that
one of the prior art references shows all of the claimed features. This kind
of argument may be applicable to an anticipation rejection, but it is not
appropriate here because this rejection is based on obviousness over the
combination of prior art references. We agree with the Examiner that a
person of ordinary skill would have understood that using input based on
both direction and magnitude, as taught by Middler, is an input method that
could be employed with Pettigrew A’s color transformation. This is “the
simple substitution of one known element [Middler’s ‘direction and
distance’ input] for another [Pettigrew A’s directional input]” yielding a
predictable result [color correction based on both the direction and
magnitude of the input], KSR, 550 U.S. at 417—18. We do not agree with
Appellants that Pettigrew A and Middler teach away from the claimed
invention. App. Br. 18.
Appellants contend both Pettigrew A and Middler disclose fully-
functional tools for “selecting and manipulating the displayed multimedia
items,” and that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have had
motivation to combine based on purposes that already have been
accomplished before any modification of the references. App. Br. 18—19.
10
Appeal 2016-006347
Application 13/471,473
Appellants argue the Examiner, thus, has failed to provide “articulated
reasoning with some rational underpinning” to explain why the references
would be obvious to combine as required by KSR. 550 U.S. at 418 (internal
citation and quotations omitted).
The Examiner responds by stating that Pettigrew A and Middler each
have ways to perform “select[ing] and manipulating] the displayed
multimedia items,” and that a person of ordinary skill would modify the
references to accommodate different user requirements. Ans. 4—5. We
agree with the Examiner that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have
understood that Middler’s “direction and distance” input (| 50) could be
used to control variables such as hue, balance, saturation, white level, or
black level, as disclosed in Pettigrew A 34—35). This would indeed
permit satisfaction of different user requirements. Thus, we are not
persuaded the Examiner errs with respect to claims 1, 9, and 27.
Independent Claim 23
Appellants argue that “Pettigrew A and Pettigrew B do not disclose or
suggest a program that displays a color selection tool on a luminance
histogram representation . . . and receives a color selection on the color
selection tool.” App. Br. 19-20; Reply Br. 3^4. We agree with Appellants’
argument.
As shown below in Figure 24 of the Specification, selectable UI items
2445, 2450, 2455 are displayed on a luminance histogram 2440 at the left of
four UI displays. Spec. 42-44.
11
Appeal 2016-006347
Application 13/471,473
Figure 24
Figure 24 of the Specification shows a luminance histogram 2440 with user-
selectable UI elements 2445, 2450, 2455 for selecting different color pots for
editing the image. Spec. 42-44.
In contrast, Pettigrew A shows a luminance curve, as shown below in
Figure 4f, but does not disclose a color selection tool displayed on the
luminance curve.
12
Appeal 2016-006347
Application 13/471,473
Fig. 4f
Figure 4f of Pettigrew A shows an editable luminance curve 426 which can
be edited by clicking on and dragging handles 428. Pettigrew A, 145.
Figure 7 of Pettigrew B, shown below, displays a source image 405
along with its PbPr-coordinates on display 705, and its luminance value 704
(shown as a percentage) in a separate field. Pettigrew B, || 41, 42.
Trackball widget 703 can be operated by a user to indicate a destination
color 708 for changing the output image 408 relative to the source image
405. Thus, from Figure 7 and its corresponding description, it is clear that
Pettigrew B does not show the trackball widget 703 displayed on a
13
Appeal 2016-006347
Application 13/471,473
luminance histogram. Instead, the trackball widget 703 and luminance value
704 are located in separate parts of the display on monitor 104.
Figure 7 of Pettigrew B shows an input image 405 which is transformed into
an output image 408 using a trackball control 703 to select destination color
708, and a luminance value 704 which is displayed separately from the
trackball control 703.
Thus, Appellants are correct that the combination of Pettigrew A and
Pettigrew B fails to teach or suggest “displaying a color selection tool on the
luminance histogram representation” as recited in claim 23.3
3 We advise Appellants and the Examiner to consider whether Pettigrew A
Figure 7d, and the corresponding description, discloses this feature.
14
Appeal 2016-006347
Application 13/471,473
Dependent Claims 2, 12, and 29
Claim 2 recites, in part, “displaying a graphical representation of the
color values of the pixels in the image” and “displaying a simplified version
of the graphical representation overlaid on the displayed image.” Claims
App. The Examiner relies on Middler to disclose the claimed feature. Final
Act. 10 (citing Middler Fig. 3, see also Tflf 35—36). Specifically, the
Examiner regards panes 305, 310, 315, shown in Figure 3 below, to be
simplified representations (side view, perspective view, and top view), and
pane 320 to be the non-simplified representation (“cameral view”). Id.
sm
X 3)5-\
Figure 3 of Middler shows panes 305, 310, 315, 320 with respective side,
perspective, top, and “cameral” views of an image.
15
Appeal 2016-006347
Application 13/471,473
We agree with Appellants that panes 305, 310, 315 are not simplified
views relative to pane 320, but are merely views taken from different angles.
App. Br. 28—29; Reply Br. 5—6. Thus, we do not sustain the rejection of
claim 2.
Claim 12 recites, in part, that “the on-image color adjustment tool
comprises a simplified version of the graphical representation.” Claims
App. Claim 12 is, thus, similar to claim 2 in reciting “a simplified version of
the graphical representation,” and Appellants present similar arguments for
patentability. App. Br. 30-31; Reply Br. 5—6. As explained, Middler does
not disclose simplified views, but instead shows different views (side,
perspective, top, and cameral views) of the same image. Thus, we do not
sustain the rejection of claim 12 for similar reasons to those stated with
respect to claim 2.
Claim 29 recites, in part, “displaying a graphical representation of the
color values of the pixels in the image” and “displaying a simplified version
of the graphical representation overlai[d] on the [displayed] image.” Claims
App. Claim 29 is, thus, similar to claim 2 in reciting “a simplified version of
the graphical representation,” and Appellants present similar arguments for
patentability. App. Br. 31—32; Reply Br. 5—6. As explained, Middler does
not disclose simplified views, but different views, of the same image. Thus,
we do not sustain the rejection of claim 29 for similar reasons to those stated
with respect to claim 2.
Dependent Claim 10
Claim 10 recites, in part, “displaying an on-image color adjustment
tool to receive the directional input” and “when the on-image color
16
Appeal 2016-006347
Application 13/471,473
adjustment tool receives two non-orthogonal directional inputs, generating
two different color space transforms that map the set of color values to two
different sets of color values based on the two non-orthogonal directional
inputs.” Claims App.
Appellants contend that, as argued with respect to claim 9 from which
claim 10 depends, Pettigrew A and Middler do not disclose user interfaces
that receive directional input, an argument we found unpersuasive for the
reasons explained.
Appellants also argue “nothing in Pettigrew A discloses or suggests
generating different color space transforms based on two non-orthogonal
directional inputs.” App. Br. 30. The Examiner finds that Pettigrew A’s hue
control 204 and balance control 206 are non-orthogonal inputs. See above,
Pettigrew A Fig. 2a. We agree with the Examiner. Pettigrew A’s hue
control 204 is a wheel surrounding balance control 206. Insight into how
hue control 206 operates can be gleaned from Figure 2b of Pettigrew A and
its corresponding description (| 36), which disclose that a user may hue shift
the output image relative to the input image by clicking on the outer wheel
representing the output image and dragging relative to the inner wheel
representing the input image. Thus, hue control 204 appears to operate like
a dial, one of the specific options for controls described in Pettigrew A
(134). Balance control 206 is operated by clicking on the diamond and
dragging along the line toward one side of the hue wheel or another in order
to change the color balance. Hue control 204 is, thus, a dial, and balance
control 206 is a slider, and these two inputs are not positioned at right angles
to one another. They may, therefore, be considered non-orthogonal. Thus,
17
Appeal 2016-006347
Application 13/471,473
Appellants’ arguments do not persuade us the Examiner errs in finding
Pettigrew A and Middler disclose the claimed feature.
DECISION
We reverse the rejection of claims 2-4, 12, 13, 18, 20—22, and 29-31
under 35U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph.
We affirm the rejections of claims 1, 5—11, 14, 15, 27, 28, and 32, but
reverse the rejections of claims 2-4, 12, 13, 18, 20-22, 23—26, and 29-31,
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
18