Ex Parte Chen

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Oct 28, 2009

10969569 - (D) (B.P.A.I. Oct. 28, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte MEI CHEN
____________________

Appeal 2009-007390
Application 10/969,569
Technology Center 2100
____________________

Decided: October 28, 2009
____________________

Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, THU A. DANG, and DEBRA K. STEPHENS,
Administrative Patent Judges.

DANG, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

I. STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellant appeals the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1-23 under
35 U.S.C. § 134(a). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm in part.

Appeal 2009-007390
Application 10/969,569

A. INVENTION
According to Appellant, the invention relates to a method that
“includes segmenting a scene into a background scene portion and a
foreground scene portion, forming a mosaic for the background scene
portion, enhancing the foreground scene portion, and constructing a
composite of the background mosaic and the enhanced foreground” (Spec.
24, ll. 3-7).

B. ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
Claim 1 is exemplary and reproduced below:

1. A machine-implemented method of processing a
sequence of input images of a scene, comprising:

determining a respective set of motion vectors for each of
one or more pairs of the input images;

segmenting each of two or more of the input images into
at least one respective background scene portion and at least
one respective foreground scene portion based on respective
ones of the motion vectors;

stitching together ones of the respective background
scene portions segmented from different ones of the input
images to form background mosaic image data;

enhancing at least one of the foreground scene portions
segmented from the input images to form enhanced foreground
scene image data; and

generating an output image, wherein the generating
comprises combining the background mosaic image data and
the enhanced foreground scene image data.

2
Appeal 2009-007390
Application 10/969,569

C. REJECTION
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Burt US 6,393,163 B1 May 21, 2002

Claims 1-23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by
Burt.
II. ISSUES
1) Has Appellant shown the Examiner erred in finding that Burt
discloses “stitching together ones of the respective background scene
portions segmented from different ones of the input images to form
background mosaic image data” (claim 1)?
2) Has Appellant shown the Examiner erred in finding that Burt
discloses “enhancing at least one of the foreground scene portions
segmented from the input images to form enhanced foreground scene image
data” (claim 1)?

III. FINDINGS OF FACT
The following Findings of Fact (FF) are shown by a preponderance of
the evidence.
Burt
1) Burt discloses a system that automatically generates a mosaic
from a plurality of input images by sequentially executing an image
alignment process, an editing process, and a combining process (Abstract).
2) Burt’s system employs a weighting function that selects the
salient features (e.g., moving objects) of an input image such that they are
removed to retain only a background scene or such that they “stand out”
3
Appeal 2009-007390
Application 10/969,569

from the background scene (col. 11, ll. 22-29).
3) The weighting function is part of Burt’s selection process and,
therefore, is one of several editing functions that are applied before
combining the input image with a mosaic of previously combined images
(col. 11, ll. 33-43).
4) Burt discloses a dynamic mosaic compression system that
generates “residuals” by comparing a reference mosaic against sequentially
input images (col. 18, ll. 9-11; Fig. 10).
5) The compression system continuously updates a predicted
mosaic, which is constructed by combining the reference mosaic with the
generated residuals (col. 18, ll. 29-35; Fig. 10).
6) A residual may have a higher resolution than the reference
mosaic, such as where the residual represents an image region selected by
zooming, and thus increase the resolution of a corresponding portion of the
predicted mosaic (col. 18, ll. 40-46; Fig. 10).

IV. PRINCIPLES OF LAW
Claim Interpretation
The claims measure the invention. See SRI Int’l v. Matsushita Elec.
Corp., 775 F.2d 1107, 1121 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (en banc). “[T]he PTO gives
claims their ‘broadest reasonable interpretation.’” In re Bigio, 381 F.3d
1320, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (quoting In re Hyatt, 211 F.3d 1367, 1372 (Fed.
Cir. 2000)). “Moreover, limitations are not to be read into the claims from
the specification.” In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993)
(citing In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321 (Fed. Cir. 1989)).
4
Appeal 2009-007390
Application 10/969,569

35 U.S.C. § 102
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102, “[a] single prior art
reference that discloses, either expressly or inherently, each limitation of a
claim invalidates that claim by anticipation.” Perricone v. Medicis Pharm.
Corp., 432 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (citation omitted).
“Anticipation of a patent claim requires a finding that the claim at issue
‘reads on’ a prior art reference.” Atlas Powder Co. v. IRECO, Inc., 190 F.3d
1342, 1346 (Fed Cir. 1999). “In other words, if granting patent protection
on the disputed claim would allow the patentee to exclude the public from
practicing the prior art, then that claim is anticipated, regardless of whether
it also covers subject matter not in the prior art.” Id. (citations omitted).

V. ANALYSIS
Claims 1, 2-8, 11, 15, 19, 20, and 23
With respect to claim 1, the Examiner finds that Burt discloses
“stitching together ones of the respective background scene portions
segmented from different ones of the input images to form background
mosaic image data” (claim 1) because “[i]n the case of composing a
dynamic mosaic, a cycle of alignment, selection, and combination is
performed for each input image to create an updated background mosaic (see
Burt Figure 3)” (Ans. 14). In doing so, the Examiner further finds that
Burt’s dynamic composition process segments the background portions of
input images before “stitching” them together, as required by the above-
quoted language claim 1, because “[d]uring the selection process, moving
objects can be identified and removed using a weighting function” (id.).
That is, the Examiner finds that the selection and combination functions are
5
Appeal 2009-007390
Application 10/969,569

performed in sequence by Burt’s dynamic composition process, and that the
selection function segments the background portions before they are stitched
together by the combination function.
Appellant argues that the “disclosure cited by the Examiner merely
indicates that the input images ‘can be’ decomposed into a background
mosaic and independent moving objects,” but this disclosure “does not
disclose ‘stitching together ones of the respective background scene portions
segmented from different ones of the input images to form background
mosaic image data” (App. Br. 11; Appellant’s emphasis). Appellant
contends that “the use of a weighting function during the selection process
does not result in the removal of moving objects” and that the “removal of
moving objects is achieved after the completion of the combination process”
(Reply Br. 4). Thus, according to Appellant, Burt does not segment the
background and foreground portions of images before combining the
background portions to form a background mosaic.
Accordingly, an issue we address on appeal is whether Burt discloses
“stitching together ones of the respective background scene portions
segmented from different ones of the input images to form background
mosaic image data” (claim 1).
We begin our analysis by giving the claims their broadest reasonable
interpretation. See In re Bigio, 381 F.3d at 1324. Furthermore, our analysis
will not read limitations into the claims from the specification. See In re
Van Geuns, 988 F.2d at 1184.
Contrary to Appellant’s argument, the “segmented” limitation of
claim 1 does not require segmentation via removal of the foreground scene
portions. In fact, claim 1 does not place any limitation on what “segmented”
6
Appeal 2009-007390
Application 10/969,569

means, includes, or represents, other than reciting that the method segments
“each of two or more of the input images into at least one respective
background scene portion and at least one respective foreground scene
portion based on respective ones of the motion vectors.” We interpret the
“segmented” limitation as merely requiring that the background and
foreground scene portions are identified as discrete parts of an input image.
Thus, the step of “stitching together ones of the respective background scene
portions segmented from different ones of the input images to form
background mosaic image data” can be performed by merely identifying the
background and foreground scene portions as discrete parts and then
combining the background scene portions.
Burt discloses a system that automatically generates a mosaic from a
plurality of input images by sequentially executing an image alignment
process, an editing process, and a combining process (FF 1). A weighting
function of Burt selects the salient features (e.g., moving objects) of an input
image such that they are removed to retain only a background scene or such
that they “stand out” from the background scene (FF 2). Since the weighting
function is part of Burt’s selection process, it is one of several editing
functions that are applied before combining the input image with a mosaic of
previously combined input images (FF 3).
A skilled artisan would have understood Burt’s weighting function as
“segmenting” the background and foreground portions of input images into
discrete parts because it weights the foreground portions (e.g., moving
objects) such that they are removed or stand out. The skilled artisan would
have also understood Burt’s combination process as “stitching together” the
segmented background portions because at least those background portions
7
Appeal 2009-007390
Application 10/969,569

are combined to form the mosaic. Thus, we conclude the Examiner did not
err in finding that Burt discloses “stitching together ones of the respective
background scene portions segmented from different ones of the input
images to form background mosaic image data” (claim 1).
Similar to the “stitching” step of claim 1, the step of “enhancing at
least one of the foreground scene portions segmented from the input images
to form enhanced foreground scene image data” (claim 1) is performed on a
segmented portion of the input image. According to the Examiner, Burt
“clearly indicates [that] ‘if a specific region of interest in the input image is
selected by zooming, the system transmits a series of residuals representing
image changes at a higher resolution than when an entire mosaic is
transmitted’” (Ans. 15; Examiner’s emphasis).
Appellant argues that the cited disclosure of Burt “merely indicates
that in some cases the resolution of the residuals that are transmitted to the
receiver can be higher than the mosaic that previously was transmitted to the
receiver,” but “Burt does not disclose anything whatsoever that suggests his
method performs super-resolution or other resolution-enhancing techniques
on the segmented residuals” (App. Br. 13). Appellant notes that “the
Examiner inexplicably did not address Appellant’s point that the cited
disclosure merely indicates that in some cases the resolution of the residuals
that are transmitted to the receiver can be higher than the mosaic that
previously was transmitted to the receiver, but does not indicate that the
resolution of the transmitted residuals is higher than the residuals that were
‘segmented from the input images’” (Reply Br. 5).
8
Appeal 2009-007390
Application 10/969,569

Accordingly, an issue we address on appeal is whether Burt discloses
“enhancing at least one of the foreground scene portions segmented from the
input images to form enhanced foreground scene image data” (claim 1).
Contrary to Appellant’s argument, claim 1 does not require the act of
“enhancing at least one of the foreground scene portions” to be performed
by increasing resolution. In fact, claim 1 does not place any limitation on
what “enhancing” means, includes, or represents, other than reciting that the
enhancing must be performed on a foreground scene portion “segmented
from the input images.” We interpret the step of “enhancing at least one of
the foreground scene portions segmented from the input images to form
enhanced foreground scene image data” (claim 1) as being met by merely
distinguishing segmented foreground scene portions from their
corresponding input images.
As noted above, Burt’s weighting function segments the salient
features (e.g., moving objects) of an input image such that they are removed
to retain only a background scene or such that they “stand out” from the
background scene (FF 2). A skilled artisan would have therefore understood
the weighting function as not only segmenting the background and
foreground scenes of the input image, but as also enhancing the foreground
scene by causing it to stand out from the background scene. Thus, we
conclude the Examiner did not err in finding that Burt discloses “enhancing
at least one of the foreground scene portions segmented from the input
images to form enhanced foreground scene image data” (claim 1).
Appellant lastly argues that Burt cannot disclose “generating an
output image, wherein the generating comprises combining the background
mosaic image data and the enhanced foreground scene image data” because
9
Appeal 2009-007390
Application 10/969,569

Burt does not disclose the “enhancing” step of claim 1 (App. Br. 14; Board’s
emphasis). Since Burt discloses the “enhancing” step of claim 1, we find
this argument unpersuasive.
Accordingly, for the above reasons, Appellant has not shown the
Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1. We therefore affirm the rejection of
claim 1, and dependent claims 2-8 and 11 falling therewith, under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Burt.
As Appellant does not provide separate arguments for independent
claims 15, 20, and 23, those claims fall with representative claim 1. See 37
C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii). We therefore also affirm the rejection of claims
15, 20, and 23, and dependent claim 19 falling therewith, under 35 U.S.C. §
102(b) as anticipated by Burt.
Claims 9, 10, 12-14, 16-18, 21, and 22
Each of dependent claims 9, 10, 12-14, 16-18, 21, and 22 recites, in
some respect, that a segmented foreground scene portion of an input image
is enhanced by increasing its image resolution. Claim 9 depends from claim
1 and recites “wherein the enhancing comprises increasing image resolution
of the at least one foreground scene portion.” Claim 10 depends from claim
9. Claim 12 depends from claim 1 and recites “wherein the enhancing
comprises determining image values corresponding to the at least one
foreground scene portion at an increased image resolution level.” Claims 13
and 14 depend from claim 12. Claims 16-18, 21, and 22 depend directly or
indirectly from independent claims 15 and 20 and recite “determin[ing]
image values corresponding to the at least one foreground scene portion at
an increased image resolution level.”
The Examiner relies on a “zooming” feature of Burt’s dynamic
10
Appeal 2009-007390
Application 10/969,569

mosaic compression system as teaching the enhancement of an image’s
segmented foreground scene portion by increasing its resolution (Ans. 4, 8-
9, 11-12, and 15; citing Burt, col. 18, ll. 24-46).
With respect to that zooming feature, Appellant argues:
In pertinent part, the cited disclosure indicates that “if a specific
region of interest in the input image is selected by zooming, the
system transmits a series of residuals representing image
changes at a higher resolution than when an entire mosaic is
transmitted.” . . . The cited disclosure, however, does not
indicate that the resolution of the transmitted residuals is higher
than the residuals that were “segmented from the input images.”

(App. Br. 13).
Burt’s dynamic mosaic compression system generates foreground
image portions, called “residuals,” by comparing a reference mosaic against
sequentially input images (FF 4). The compression system forms an updated
mosaic (“predicted” mosaic) by combining the generated residuals with a
current mosaic (“reference” mosaic) (FF 5). Since a residual may have a
higher resolution than the current mosaic, such as where the residual
represents an image region selected by zooming, it can increase the
resolution of corresponding portions within the updated mosaic (FF 6).
However, as noted by Appellant, the Examiner has not shown that
Burt’s zooming feature increases the resolution of the residuals themselves.
Further, even assuming that the zooming feature increases the resolution of
the residuals, the Examiner has not shown that those residuals are segmented
from their images “based on motion vectors” (as required by the
“segmenting” step of claim 1) and prior to the combining of their
corresponding background portions (as required by the “stitching together”
step of claim 1).
11
Appeal 2009-007390
Application 10/969,569

Thus, we find the Examiner has not met his burden of showing that
Burt discloses a feature of enhancing a segmented foreground scene portion
of an input image by increasing its image resolution. Accordingly, we
conclude that the Examiner has erred in rejecting claims 9, 10, 12-14, 16-18,
21, and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Burt.

VI. CONCLUSIONS
Appellant has not shown the Examiner erred in finding that claims 1,
2-8, 11, 15, 19, 20, and 23 are anticipated by Burt.
Appellant has shown the Examiner erred in finding that claims 9, 10,
12-14, 16-18, 21, and 22 are anticipated by Burt.

VII. DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 2-8, 11, 15, 19, 20, and
23 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is affirmed.
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 9, 10, 12-14, 16-18, 21, and
22 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is reversed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

12
Appeal 2009-007390
Application 10/969,569

peb

HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ADMINISTRATION
3404 E. HARMONY ROAD
MAIL STOP 35
FORT COLLINS, CO 80528
13