Ex Parte Chen et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 20, 2018

13683166 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 20, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/683, 166 1112112012
108982 7590 03/22/2018
Wolfe-SBMC
116 W. Pacific A venue
Suite 200
Spokane, WA 99201
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Simon Chen
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.
B833E2D2 1008
EXAMINER
BALI, VIKKRAM
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2667
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/22/2018 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):
docket@sbmc-law.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SIMON CHEN, JEN-CHAN CHIEN, and HAILIN JIN
Appeal2017-009564
Application 13/683,166 1
Technology Center 2600
Before ERIC S. FRAHM, DENISE M. POTHIER, and
JAMES W. DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judges.
DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 7, 8, 15, 16, and 23-38. Appellants have canceled claims 1---6, 9-14,
and 17-22. Br. 16-17. We have jurisdiction over the remaining pending
claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm-in-part.
1 Appellants identify Adobe Systems, Inc. as the real party in interest. Br. 2.
Appeal2017-009564
Application 13/683,166
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellants' disclosed and claimed invention is directed to image
processing techniques and, in particular, using an obtained metadata value
for a parameter instead of an estimated value for the parameter if the
difference between the two values exceeds a threshold. Spec. i-fi-f 19, 22.
According to the Specification, the disclosed approach constrains the image
processing solution, yields better results, and may also require less
processing time. Spec. i-f 19. As an example, the Specification describes a
vignette removal process wherein exposure values may be estimated from a
captured image. Spec. i1 89. If the difference between the estimated
exposure values and exposure values obtained from metadata associated
with the image exceeds a threshold, the values obtained from the metadata
may be substituted as a default value as part of the vignette removal process.
Spec. i189.
Claim 7 is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal and is
reproduced below with the disputed limitation emphasized in italics:
7. A computer-implemented method, comprising:
performing, by one or more computing devices:
estimating, from image content of a captured image, a
value for a parameter to be used in a digital image processing
technique when applied to the captured image;
obtaining, from metadata corresponding to the captured
image, a value for the parameter determined when capturing the
captured image;
determining that a difference between the estimated value
for the parameter and the value for the parameter obtained from
the metadata exceeds a threshold; and
applying the digital image processing technique to the
captured image to generate an output image, the value for the
2
Appeal2017-009564
Application 13/683,166
parameter obtained from the metadata used in the digital image
processing technique instead of the estimated value in response
to said determining that the difference exceeds the threshold.
The Examiner's Rejections
1. Claims 7, 15, 23, 29, and 38 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Manson et al. (US 2006/0239674 Al;
Oct. 26, 2006) ("Manson"). Final Act. 3-5.
2. Claims 8, 16, 24--28, and 30-37 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Manson and Solomon (US
2008/0174678 Al; July 24, 2008). Final Act. 5-7.
3. Claims 7, 8, 15, 16, and 23-28 stand rejected under the doctrine
of obviousness-type double patenting over Chen et al. (US 8,675,988 B2;
Mar. 18, 2014) ("Chen"). Final Act. 9.
ANALYSIS 2
Rejection under doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting
Appellants do not respond to the Examiner's rejection of claims 7, 8,
15, 16, and 23-28 under the doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting
other than to request that the rejection "be held in abeyance." Br. 14.
Appellants have not filed a terminal disclaimer, nor has the Examiner
withdrawn the rejection or agreed to hold the rejection in abeyance. See
Ans. 10, 14.
2 Throughout this Decision, we have considered the Appeal Brief, filed
January 11, 2017 ("Br."); the Examiner's Answer, mailed April 19, 2017
("Ans."); and the Final Office Action, mailed April 19, 2016 ("Final Act."),
from which this Appeal is taken. Appellants did not file a Reply Brief.
3
Appeal2017-009564
Application 13/683,166
To the extent Appellants have not advanced separate, substantive
arguments for particular claims or issues, such arguments are considered
waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv)(2016); see also Hyatt v. Dudas, 551
F.3d 1307, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ("When the appellant fails to contest a
ground of rejection to the Board, ... the Board may treat any argument with
respect to that ground of rejection as waived."). Additionally, "[i]f a ground
of rejection stated by the examiner is not addressed in the appellant's brief,
appellant has waived any challenge to that ground of rejection and the Board
may summarily sustain it unless the examiner subsequently withdrew the
rejection in the examiner's answer." Manual of Patent Examining Procedure
("MPEP") § 1205.02 (9th ed. Rev. 08.2017, Jan. 2018).
Accordingly, we summarily sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims
7, 8, 15, 16, and 23-28 under the doctrine of obviousness-type double
patenting.
Rejections under 35 USC§ 103(a)
Appellants assert the Examiner erred in finding Manson teaches
determining a difference between an estimated value for a parameter and the
value for the parameter obtained from metadata exceeds a threshold. Br.
6-9. In particular, Appellants argue the cited portions of Manson are
directed to correlating two different parameters (i.e., exposure of an image to
a flash setting) rather than determining the difference between an estimated
value for a parameter and a value for the same parameter obtained from
metadata. Br. 8.
Manson is directed to analyzing digital images and, in some
embodiments, may provide image improvement recommendations to avoid
4
Appeal2017-009564
Application 13/683,166
detected issues from occurring in subsequent images. Manson i-fi-f 10, 38.
Figure 3 of Manson is illustrative and is reproduced below:
Figure 3 illustrates a flowchart of Manson's disclosed image analysis and
image improvement logic. Manson i1 6. Manson describes the steps
presented in Figure 3 in the context of determining the exposure of an
image. Manson i-fi-131--43. As can be seen, an image is captured (302) by a
user using a digital camera, and the captured image is presented to the user
5
Appeal2017-009564
Application 13/683,166
(304), for example, by displaying the image on an LCD screen associated
with the digital camera. Manson i-f 33. Manson describes that the user may
decide whether to view the settings used to capture the image (306) and
whether to have the image analyzed (312). If the user elects to have the
image analyzed, image analysis logic analyzes data within the image file
(316) "to determine various characteristics of the captured image." Manson
,-r 35.
In the example of analyzing exposure, Manson describes the image
analysis logic may perform a pixel by pixel analysis, or may analyze a
sampling of the pixels. Manson i-f 36. Manson further describes the image
may be analyzed in combination with other available data, such as metadata
associated with the image file. Manson i-f 3 7. Manson indicates this
information (e.g., ISO setting or aperture setting) "can be used in
conjunction with the pixel data above to develop additional information
regarding the characteristic of the analyzed image." Manson i-f 37. For the
example of analyzing the exposure of an image, Manson describes the image
analysis logic may determine the image is underexposed (i.e., the image
contains many black pixels) and may analyze the camera settings used to
capture the image to determine if the flash was active. Manson i-f 38. If the
flash was not active, the image analysis logic could communicate with the
image improvement logic to recommend to the user to activate the flash for
subsequent image capture. Manson i-f 38.
Manson discloses that at decision block (318) "it is determined
whether the image data analyzed ... represents an acceptable image."
Manson i-f 39. This determination may be either objective (based on criteria
entered by the user or preset within the camera) or subjective (i.e., based on
6
Appeal2017-009564
Application 13/683,166
user input). Manson i-f 39. If the image is not acceptable, image analysis
logic and image improvement logic may evaluate settings and conditions
(322) that may be changed to either improve the image or a subsequent
image. Manson i-f 40. The determined recommendations may be presented
to the user (324). Manson i-f 40.
Although we agree with the Examiner that the determination of
whether the captured image is acceptable at block 318 of Figure 3 may
suggest the objective or subjective use of a threshold, the Examiner has not
shown by a preponderance of evidence that Manson teaches or suggests
determining a difference between an estimated value of a parameter and the
value of the same parameter obtained from metadata, or that the determined
difference exceeds a threshold. Rather, we are persuaded by Appellants'
arguments that Manson determines a correlation between two different
parameters (e.g., exposure and a flash setting) as a means of identifying
potential improvement techniques to the image or subsequent images.
Because we find this issue dispositive that Manson, as relied upon by
the Examiner, does not teach or suggest determining that a difference
between an estimated value for a parameter and the value for the parameter
obtained from metadata exceeds a threshold, as required by independent
claims 7, 15, and 23, we need not address other issues raised by Appellants'
arguments.
For the reasons discussed supra, and constrained by the record before
us, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent claims 7, 15,
and 23. Additionally, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejections of claims
8, 16, and 24--38, which depend therefrom.
7
Appeal2017-009564
Application 13/683,166
DECISION
We summarily affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 7, 8,
15, 16, and 23-38 under the doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting.
We reverse the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 7, 8, 15, 16, and
23-38 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv). See
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(±)(2016).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
8