Ex Parte Jefremov et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 19, 2019

14242512 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 19, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/242,512 04/01/2014
144365 7590 02/21/2019
Schwegman Lundberg & Woessner, P.A.
P.O. Box 2938
Minneapolis, MN 55402
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Andrei Jefremov
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.
336037-US-DIV 4960
EXAMINER
CHIU, WESLEY JASON
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2698
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/21/2019 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):
uspto@slwip.com
SLW@blackhillsip.com
usdocket@microsoft.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ANDREI JEFREMOV, DAVID YUHENG ZHAO,
and PONTUS CARLSSON1
Appeal2017-009602
Application 14/242,512
Technology Center 2600
Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, and
JON M. JURGOV AN, Administrative Patent Judges.
THOMAS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1-8 and 21-32, all the pending claims
in the present application. Claims 9-20 are canceled (see Claims Appendix).
We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We REVERSE.
The present invention relates generally to stabilizing a video signal
(see Spec., Abstract).
1 Appellants name Skype as the real party in interest (App. Br. 3).
Appeal2017-009602
Application 14/242,512
Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A method of stabilizing a video signal, the method
compnsmg:
capturing a plurality of frames of the video signal using a
camera;
determining a pixel displacement representing motion in
the video signal between first and second frames of the video
signal caused by motion of the camera; and
shifting an image of at least one of the first and second
frames in accordance with the pixel displacement to thereby
stabilize the video signal, wherein the image comprises a stride
value indicating memory space of the image, a plurality of pixel
values, a pointer indicating the position of a first pixel of the
image, and a width value indicating the width of the image,
wherein said shifting of the image comprises adjusting the
pointer and the width value without adjusting the stride value.
Appellants appeal the following rejections:
Claims 1, 4--8, 24--26, 30, and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ I03(a) as being unpatentable over Kurata (US 2006/0140603 Al, June 29,
2006), Yeh (US 2011/0141219 Al, June 16, 2011), and Evans
(US 2007/0296861 Al, Dec. 27, 2007) (Final Act. 6-9); and
Claim 2, 3, 21-23, 27-29, and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 (a) as being unpatentable over Kurata, Yeh, and Evans in combination
with various other prior art (see Final Act. 10-13).
We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues
identified by Appellants, and in light of the arguments and evidence
produced thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 107 5 (BP AI 2010)
(precedential).
2
Appeal2017-009602
Application 14/242,512
ANALYSIS
Issue: Did the Examiner err in finding that the cited prior art
collectively teaches or suggests shifting of the image in a manner that
comprises adjusting the pointer and the width value without adjusting the
stride value, as set forth in claim 1?
Appellants contend "Evans simply provides a general definition of a
stride value. Giving a definition of a stride value in no way provides a basis
for 'shifting of the image comprises adjusting the pointer and the width
value without adjusting the stride value"' (App. Br. 14). Appellants further
contend that "[ n Jo where does Evans teach or suggest adjusting properties of
an image 'without adjusting the stride value"' (id.).
The Examiner finds that Kurata teaches that "[t]he pointer OR is
adjusted" (see Final Act. 7), "Yeh teaches adjusting the size of a cropped
image ... [which] would allow for adjusting both width and height" (id. at
7-8), and "Evans teaches an image comprises a stride value" (id. at 8). The
Examiner emphasizes that "Evans is relied upon to explicitly teach the
general definition of a stride value and that an image has a stride value[,]
[thus,] [t]he image of Kurata inherently has a stride value" (Ans. 10 (citation
omitted)), and "the process of image correction seen in Kurata does not
adjust or affect the stride value of the taken-image frame" (id. at 11 ).
In other words, the Examiner is relying on "inherency" to show the
aforementioned argued limitation. However, when relying upon a theory of
inherency, the Examiner must provide a basis in fact and/or technical
reasoning to reasonably support the Examiner's determination that the
allegedly inherent characteristic necessarily flows from the teachings of the
applied prior art. Ex parte Levy, 17 USPQ2d 1461, 1463-64 (BP AI 1990).
3
Appeal2017-009602
Application 14/242,512
"We have recognized that inherency may supply a missing claim limitation
in an obviousness analysis." PAR Pharm., Inc. v. TWI Pharm., Inc.,
773 F .3d 1186, 1194--95 (Fed. Cir. 2014). "[O]ur early precedent, and that
of our predecessor court, established that the concept of inherency must be
limited when applied to obviousness, and is present only when the limitation
at issue is the 'natural result' of the combination of prior art elements." Id.
at 1195.
Here, we disagree with the Examiner that the limitation at issue, i.e.,
shifting of the image comprises adjusting the pointer and the width value
without adjusting the stride value, is a natural result of the combination of
references, in part because the Examiner has not shown that keeping the
stride constant necessarily flows from the combination.
For example, Appellants' Specification explains that "no copying of
data in the memory 108 is necessary with this approach," and the present
invention "is in contrast to a conventional method of cropping an image in
which the crop area of the image is copied into a new memory area" (see
Spec. ,r 54). In other words, in the present invention the image is shifted
without adjusting the stride, and therefore, the image data does not need to
be copied into a new area of the memory. Id. This is in contrast to
conventional cropping techniques relied upon in Yeh, which adjusts the
stride.
The Examiner fails to provide fact and/ or technical reasoning to
reasonably support the conclusion that the allegedly inherent characteristic,
i.e., without adjusting the stride value (i.e., maintaining a constant memory
space), necessarily flows from the obviousness analysis. Specifically, the
Examiner is relying on Yeh's cropping function to teach "adjusting a width"
4
Appeal2017-009602
Application 14/242,512
(see Final Act. 7-8; see also Yeh ,r 24), without explaining how this is
distinguishable from conventional cropping techniques that necessarily
adjusts the stride value. Furthermore, the Examiner fails to explain why any
"stride value of the image is not changed in the method of Kurata" (see Ans.
11-12), but merely makes a conclusory statement without evidentiary
support. "Inherency, however, may not be established by probabilities or
possibilities. The mere fact that a certain thing may result from a given set
of circumstances is not sufficient." In re Robertson, 169 F.3d 743, 745 (Fed.
Cir. 1999) ( citation omitted).
Thus, we find that the Examiner has not reasonably supported his
determination of the allegedly inherent characteristic, i.e., that the combined
teachings of Kurata, Yeh, and Evans inherently teach without adjusting the
stride value, as recited in each of the independent claims. Since we agree
with at least one of the arguments advanced by Appellants, we need not
reach the merits of Appellants' other arguments. Accordingly, we will not
sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejection of claims 1-8 and 21-32 based
on inherency.
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-8 and 21-32 is
reversed.
REVERSED
5