Ex Parte Husak et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 31, 2017

13054855 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 31, 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.
13/054,855 01/19/2011 Walter Husak D08041US01 (60175-0283) 1379
142052 7590
Wong & Rees LLP
Dolby Laboratories Inc.
4340 Stevens Creek Blvd.
Suite 106
San Jose, CA 95129
EXAMINER
TRUONG, NGUYEN T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2486
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/04/2017 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):
docketing@wongrees.com
patents @ dolby.com
mguo @ dolby. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte WALTER HUSAK, DAVID RUHOFF,
ALEXANDROS TOURAPIS, and ATHANASIOS LEONTARIS
Appeal 2016-0084581
Application 13/054,855
Technology Center 2400
Before JASON V. MORGAN, NABEEL U. KHAN, and
KAMRAN JIVANI, Administrative Patent Judges.
MORGAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal, under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 21—40. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Dolby Laboratories
Licensing Corporation. App. Br. 2.
Appeal 2016-008458
Application 13/054,855
UNADDRESSED CLAIMS AND REJECTIONS
The Appeal Brief states: “Applicant herein cancels Claims 25 40.'”
App. Br. 4. Because no such cancellation was entered, the claims are not
canceled and, therefore, are still pending.
Because claims 25 40 are pending and unaddressed, we summarily
sustain the Examiner’s AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejections of: (1) claims 25—
30 over Krijn (US 2007/0222855 Al; Sept. 27, 2007) and Geshwind (US
6,661,463 Bl; Dec. 9, 2003) and (2) claims 31—40 over Krijn, Geshwind,
and Routhier (US 2005/0117637 Al; June 2, 2005). See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37
(2015); see also Ans. 5—12; Final Act. 2—12 (Jan. 12, 2015).
ADDRESSED CLAIMS AND REJECTIONS
Claims 21—24 are rejected, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), as obvious over
Routhier and Geshwind.
THE INVENTION
“The present invention relates to video coding and more particularly
to stereoscopic video coding.” Spec. 1,11. 15—16. Independent claim 21 is
reproduced below.
21. A system for encoding images, comprising an encoder
configured to encode multi-view stereoscopic image data into a
monoscopic video format,
wherein the system is configured to reduce pixels of a pair of
stereoscopic images, format the reduced pixels into an image
pattern, and encode the image pattern as a frame in the
monoscopic video format,
2
Appeal 2016-008458
Application 13/054,855
wherein the image pattern alternates, at a predetermined rate,
between a first lattice of pixels and a second lattice of pixels,
the first lattice of pixels comprising a checkerboard wherein
“black” pixels of the checkerboard comprise pixels derived
[from] a first image of the stereoscopic pair of images and
“white” pixels of the checkerboard comprise pixels derived
from a second image of the stereoscopic pair of images, and
the second lattice of pixels comprising a checkerboard wherein
“white” pixels of the checkerboard comprise pixels derived
[from] the first image of the stereoscopic pair of images and
“black” pixels of the checkerboard comprise pixels derived
from the second image of the stereoscopic pair of images.
ANALYSIS
The Appellants dispute the Examiner’s finding that the applied
Routhier-Geshwind combination teaches or suggests claim 21 ’s alternating
between the monoscopic image’s intercalated checkerboard lattices of left
and right stereoscopic images. See infra (below arguments and findings).
Claims 22—24 are not separately argued. See App. Br. 14 (“[Independent
Claim 24 . . . comprise[s] similar limitations as . . . Claim 21.”). We select
claim 21 as representative. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2015).
Appellants argue that the Examiner unreasonably finds Routhier’s
quincunx sampling yields a monoscopic image with checkerboard lattices of
left and right stereoscopic images. App. Br. 8—10, 12—13; Reply Br. 6—8.
Appellants particularly contend:
[Routhier’s] pixels sampled from two different images using a
quincunx sampling method do not have to inherently form a
checkerboard pattern in a single frame to provide the above-
mentioned claim limitations of Claim 21. Possibilities abound
3
Appeal 2016-008458
Application 13/054,855
for how to organize sampled pixels from two images into a
single frame[.]
Reply Br. 6.
Appellants’ argument is unpersuasive because it fails to address
Routhier’s cited teachings as to quincunx sampling and resultant encoding.
Routhier’s cited disclosures teach quincunx sampling as a “method by which
sampling of odd pixels alternates with sampling of even pixels for
consecutive rows, such that the sampled pixels form a checkerboard
pattern.” Routhier | 53; see also Ans. 13 (citing Routhier || 9, 16, 27—28,
48, 53—55). Routhier’s cited disclosures also teach quincunx sampling as
being applied to each of left and right stereoscopic image frames, which are
then intercalated to form a singular new frame.2 Id. at 128. The new frame
thus comprises a quincunx/checkerboard pattern of the left image pixels
(compare claim 21 ’s first lattice of “black” pixels) and intercalated
quincunx/checkerboard pattern of the right image pixels (compare claim
21’s second lattice of “white” pixels).
Appellants also argue that, because Routhier encodes and transmits
the left and right images within the singular new frame, there is no alternated
encoding of the images’ respective quincunx/checkerboard patterns of
pixels. App. Br. 8—10, 12. Appellants particularly contend:
Routhier never suggests placing an alternate stereoscopic view
in the black checkerboard spaces. Instead, Routhier compacts
the quincunx sampled data to fill the left half of an image frame
and fills the right half with other image data in a format
commonly known as side-by-side (“creating a new frame by
2 By “intercalate,” we mean superposing the left image’s remaining pixels
and right image’s removed pixels (and vice-versa).
4
Appeal 2016-008458
Application 13/054,855
juxtaposing a sampled image frame of a left image and a
sampled image frame of a right image;” Routiner, paragraph
0028)—in fact, there is no checkerboard in the data encoded by
Routhier.
App. Br. 9 (emphasis omitted).
Appellants’ argument is unpersuasive because it fails to address the
Examiner’s proposed application of Routhier and Geshwind as meeting
claim 21’s “alternates” limitation (“wherein the image pattern alternates, at a
predetermined rate, between a first lattice of pixels and a second lattice of
pixels”). The Examiner proposes to combine Routhier’s and Geshwind’s
teachings such that, instead of encoding and transmitting the left and right
images’ quincunx/checkerboard patterns of pixels within the new frame
(Routhier), the quincunx/checkerboard patterns of pixels are separately
encoded and transmitted (with the same arrangement) to reduce bandwidth
(Geshwind). Final Act. 3^4.
Appellants also argue that, because Geshwind round-robin alternates
encoding of four contiguous pixels (two-by-two) with the value of an
included pixel, Geshwind teaches away from alternated encoding of
Routhier’s noncontiguous quincunx/checkerboard patterns. Reply Br. 4.
Appellants particularly contend:
Routhier (e.g., paragraph 28) describes a method of quincunx
sampling of pixels from each individual image before
juxtaposing images side by side, whereas Geshwind (e.g.,
FIG. 5A through FIG. 5D) describes an incompatible sampling
method of selecting each and every pixel position in a 2x2 pixel
block in a round-robin fashion and duplicating the pixel value
of the selected pixel position into the remaining pixel positions
in the 2x2 pixel block. Geshwind teaches further away from
the alternated checkerboard encoding approach of Claim 21, as
in Geshwind the selected pixel positions, the duplicated
5
Appeal 2016-008458
Application 13/054,855
positions and pixel positions of other neighboring 2x2 pixel
blocks by definition have immediate adjacent neighbors from
the same image.
Id. (emphasis omitted).
Appellants’ argument is unpersuasive because the Examiner does not
propose a bodily combination of Routhier’s and Geshwind’s cited
teachings. The Examiner proposes to merely alternate encoding and
transmission of Routhier’s quincunx/checkerboard patterns forming the left
and right stereoscopic images. Final Act. 3^4. Based on the cited
disclosures, we find the Examiner’s proposed combination is reasonable.
Routhier’s and Geshwind’s cited teachings evidence an understanding that:
(1) each of Routhier’s quincunx/checkerboard patterns can be alone
encoded, transmitted, and interpolated to form the corresponding
stereoscopic image (Routhier 128); and (2) transmitting less than all of an
image frame’s pixels (i.e., not transmitting a respective value for every
pixel) advantageously requires less bandwidth (Geshwind, Abst.).
Moreover, the modification entails little more than recognizing
Routhier’s quincunx/checkerboard patterns are two pixel subsets of the new
frame; just as Geshwind’s A, B, C, and D patterns of Figure 2 are four pixel
subsets of the source image. As such, it would have been obvious to an
artisan of ordinary skill, who is not an automaton, to implement Geshwind’s
alternated encoding and transmitting for Routhier’s two pixel subsets (i.e.,
quincunx/checkerboard patterns). See Geshwind col. 12,1. 66-col. 13,1. 2
(emphasis omitted) (“In order to select a subset of a relatively high-
resolution television signal for transmission over a lower bandwidth channel,
two straightforward approaches are depicted in FIG. 2 and FIG. 3.”). Such
an artisan would have further recognized that Routhier’s reconstruction of
6
Appeal 2016-008458
Application 13/054,855
each quincunx/checkerboard pattern into a stereoscopic image could be
implemented via interpolation (Routhier 128) in lieu of further
implementing Geshwind’s reconstruction via pixel duplication.
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, we sustain the rejection of
claims 21—40.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 21—40.
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).
AFFIRMED
7