Ex Parte Chung

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 27, 2017

12536039 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 27, 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.
12/536,039 08/05/2009 Chul CHUNG P2872US00 2578
58027 7590 09/29/2017
H.C. PARK & ASSOCIATES, PLC
1894 PRESTON WHITE DRIVE
RESTON, VA 20191
EXAMINER
JEBARI, MOHAMMED
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2482
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/29/2017 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):
PATENT@PARK-LAW.COM
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte CHUL CHUNG
Appeal 2017-005150
Application 12/536,039
Technology Center 2400
Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, JAMES R. HUGHES, and ERIC S. FRAHM,
Administrative Patent Judges.
FRAHM, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2017-005150
Application 12/536,039
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 6, 8, 10, 11, 13, and 15—18. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We affirm.
Exemplary Claim
Exemplary independent claim 6 reads as follows:
6. A method to analyze a video, comprising:
receiving an input video;
analyzing the input video per frame to determine a resolution of
the input video; and
compressing the input video based on the determined resolution
of the input video,
wherein[] the analyzing comprises one of:
estimating a distance between a camera and a subject
obtained by the camera such that the determined
resolution corresponds to the estimated distance in
accordance with a first mapping table, the determined
resolution being lower if a shorter distance is estimated
between the camera and the subject, and the determined
resolution being higher if a longer distance is estimated
between the camera and the subject; and
detecting an edge thickness in the received input video
such that the determined resolution corresponds to the
edge thickness in accordance with a second mapping
table.
2
Appeal 2017-005150
Application 12/536,039
Examiner’s Rejections1
The Examiner rejects claims 11, 13, and 15 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§112, sixth paragraph. Final Act. 3—5. The Examiner has not withdrawn
this rejection (see Ans. 3, Heading “(1) Grounds of Rejection to be
Reviewed on Appeal;” see generally Ans. 3—13, which pages are silent as to
withdrawal of any rejections made in the Final Rejection).
The Examiner rejects claims 6, 11, and 18 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being obvious over Holcomb (US 2006/0072673 Al; Apr. 6,
2006) and Takahashi (English language abstract of JP 04370705; Dec. 24,
1992; Application date, June 19, 1991). Final Act. 6—8.
The Examiner rejects claims 8 and 13 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as being obvious over Holcomb, Takahashi, and Morikawa (US
2008/0074444 Al; Mar. 27, 2008). Final Act. 8-9.
The Examiner rejects claims 10 and 15 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as being obvious over Holcomb, Takahashi, and Aiso (US
2009/0046942 Al; Feb. 19, 2009). Final Act. 9-10.
The Examiner rejects claims 16 and 17 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as being obvious over Holcomb, Takahashi, and Subbarao (US
5,193,124; Mar. 9, 1993). Final Act. 10-11.
1 The Final Action presents a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth
paragraph, that is not addressed by the appeal record (Appeal Brief or
Answer). Because this rejection is before us and Appellant has not
addressed it, we will summarily sustain it.
3
Appeal 2017-005150
Application 12/536,039
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s
arguments in the Appeal Brief that the Examiner has erred. We disagree
with Appellant’s contentions and adopt, as our own, the Examiner’s findings
and reasoning set forth by the Final Action and Answer for the rejections of
representative claims 6, 8, and 10 (addressed below). We add the following
for emphasis.
Claims 6, 11, and 18
Claims 6, 11, and 18 are rejected as obvious over Holcomb and
Takahashi. We select claim 6 as representative. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
Claim 6 recites, in disputed part (see infra), an image resolution determined
by the distance between an imaged object and camera.
Appellant argues the Examiner’s modification of Holcomb’s encoder,
to change an image’s resolution based on the distance between an imaged
object and camera, is premised upon an erred application of Takahashi. Br.
10 (addressing Final Act. 2). Appellant particularly contends the
modification is not suggested by Takahashi’s teaching to change an image’s
magnification based on the distance between an imaged object and camera,
because resolution and magnification are not interchangeable parameters of
the art. Id. We are not persuaded.
We rather concur with the Examiner’s finding that an artisan (person
of ordinary skill in the art) would, with respect to the Examiner’s proposed
combination of Holcomb and Takahashi, understand resolution and
magnification as interchangeable parameters. Final Act. 2, 7—8; Ans. 10-11.
We do so in view of three references cited by the Examiner—Ueno (US
5,479,206; Dec. 26, 1995), Matsuzaka (US 2005/0174449 Al; Aug. 11,
4
Appeal 2017-005150
Application 12/536,039
2005), and Saito (US 2014/0301665 Al; Oct. 9, 2014)—and a machine
translation of Takahashi’s paragraphs 9 and 12. Ueno’s cited abstract
teaches an image’s “magnification (resolution).” Matsuzaka’s cited
paragraph 154 teaches “resolution (magnification) of image information.”
Saito’s cited paragraph 109 teaches an “image is displayed at a
magnification (or resolution, scale of enlargement).” Takahashi’s
paragraphs 9 and 12 respectively teach “calculating] the resolution by
converting the distance . . . into a magnification” and “adjusting] the
resolution according to the distance between the object to be measured and
the camera.” In light of these teachings, we are persuaded that, with respect
to the Examiner’s proposed combination of Holcomb and Takahashi,
resolution and magnification are interchangeable parameters.
Appellant has, at best, shown resolution and magnification are not
identical. Br. 10. Appellant contends: “One of the cited documents,. . . US
Patent Publication 2007/0237415 [to Cao, cited at paragraph 30 (Final Act.
2)], actually points out how these terms may be distinguished [by] stating
that ‘resolution relates to pixel sizes’ while ‘magnification relates to degree
of zoom’”.2 Id. However, Cao supports the Examiner’s finding of
interchangeability by showing artisans indeed adjusted both resolution and
magnification to accord with an imaged object’s distance from the camera.
See Cao 130 (“[Background portions of the field of view that are further
away may be taken at a different resolution or magnification (zoom) than
2 We cannot find Appellant’s quotations of Cao anywhere in the reference.
However, we agree Cao’s cited paragraph 30 relates resolution to pixel sizes
by stating “resolutions (pixel sizes)” and relates magnification to degree of
zoom by stating “magnifications (zooms)”.
5
Appeal 2017-005150
Application 12/536,039
portions in the foreground with multiple images”). At the very least, Cao
thus shows resolution and magnification were art-recognized alternatives for
controlling images accordant with an imaged object’s distance from the
camera, e.g., to control pixilation of background objects (id.).
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claims 6, 11, and 18.
Claims 8 and 13
Claims 8 and 13 are rejected as obvious over Holcomb, Takahashi,
and Morikawa. We select claim 8 as representative. 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv). Claim 8 depends from claim 6 and adds “the longer
distance is greater than a threshold, and the shorter distance is shorter than
the threshold.”
Contending the Examiner unreasonably relies on Morikawa for this
claim feature, Appellant argues: “[Sjince Morikawa does not disclose a
relationship between distance and resolution, the distance thresholds taught
therein are not combinable with the teachings of Holcomb and Takahashi[.]”
Br. 12. The Examiner responds: “The relationship between distance and
resolution is taught by the combination of Holcomb and Takahashi.
Morikawa is only used to teach a distance threshold, which shows a longer
distance and a shorter distance^]” Ans. 11.
We concur with the Examiner’s finding. It is ubiquitously understood
and shown by Morikawa that, when drawing relative assessments (e.g., high
or low) of quantitative values such as distance, thresholds may be used to do
so. Morikawa 133. Morikawa also shows this understanding existed in the
art by presenting such a threshold within a context of adjusting image
resolution. Id.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claims 8 and 13.
6
Appeal 2017-005150
Application 12/536,039
Claims 10 and 15
Claims 10 and 15 are rejected as obvious over Holcomb, Takahashi,
and Aiso. We select claim 10 as representative. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
Claim 10 depends from claim 6 and adds “the determined resolution is lower
if a thick edge thickness is estimated, and the determined resolution is higher
if a thin edge thickness is estimated, the thick edge thickness being greater
than a threshold, and the thin edge thickness being lower than the threshold.”
Contending the Examiner unreasonably relies on Aiso for this claim
feature, Appellant argues:
Aiso discloses that if a detected edge has a width narrower than
a predetermined second threshold width, the digital image on a
check screen is “enhanced in edge intensity being a gray-scale
difference in the image data” (paragraph [0012]). Although the
Examiner has urged that the term “enhanced” equates to
“increased resolution”, such is not the case in this particular
context because the next several words after “enhanced”
explain that “enhanced” relates to “a gray-scale difference”, as
opposed to “resolution”.
Br. 13 (emphasis omitted). The Examiner responds:
Aiso clearly teaches . . . brightness is increased on the bright
side of an edge and decreased on the dark side of the edge,
which increases resolution and image quality as known in the
art. In addition,. . . Aiso teaches in different paragraphs of his
reference that the resolution is higher if a thin edge thickness is
estimated[.]
Ans. 12 (citing Aiso 161).
We concur with the Examiner. Aiso teaches: a lack of resolution and
resulting appearance of pixilation is most visible for a curved edge of an
image; and this problem can be alleviated by, for example, changing the
7
Appeal 2017-005150
Application 12/536,039
grayscale difference between abutting edges to enhance the edge intensity.
Aiso | 61. Aiso, thereby, shows an understanding that, if an image’s curved
edge decreases in thickness to a point of noticeable pixilation, the image
resolution, grayscale difference, or other means of enhancing edges can be
increased to reduce the appearance of pixilation.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claims 10 and 15.
Remaining Claims 16 and 17
Remaining claims 16 and 17 are rejected as obvious over Holcomb,
Takahashi, and Subbarao. Appellant does not present separate patentability
arguments for these claims. App. Br. 14—15. For the reasons set forth
above, we discern no error in the Examiner’s findings for base claims 6 and
11.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claims 16 and 17.
DECISION
The Examiner’s obviousness rejections of claims 6, 8, 10, 11, 13, and
15—18 are affirmed.
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 11, 13, and 15 under 35 U.S.C. §
112, sixth paragraph, is summarily sustained based on Appellant’s failure to
present any arguments as to this rejection.
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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.50(f).
AFFIRMED
8