Ex Parte Johansson et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 25, 2018

14394736 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 25, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/394,736 10/15/2014
120491 7590 07/27/2018
Leffler Intellectual Property Law, PLLC
2010 Corporate Ridge
Suite 700
McLean, VA 22102
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Bjorn Johansson
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.
1200-037 1707
EXAMINER
BECK,LERON
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2487
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/27/2018 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):
info@leffleriplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte BJORN JOHANSSON
and THOMAS RUSERT
Appeal 2018-002161
Application 14/394,736 1
Technology Center 2400
Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, DAVID M. KOHUT, and LYNNE E.
PETTIGREW, Administrative Patent Judges.
NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 16-26. 2 We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Telefonaktiebolaget
LM Ericsson. Appeal Br. 2.
2 Claims 1-15 were cancelled previously. Appeal Br. 11, Claims App 'x.
Appeal 2018-002161
Application 14/394,736
INVENTION
Appellants' invention relates to synthesizing a view at a virtual
camera position using a low resolution depth map and avoiding the need to
upsample the depth map. Spec. 1 :5-21.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 16 and 24 are independent. Claim 16 is representative and is
reproduced below.
16. A method of performing view synthesis, comprising:
a view synthesizing apparatus performing:
obtaining texture data comprising pixels arranged
along an x direction and arranged along a y direction;
obtaining a depth map, the depth map associated with
the obtained texture data and where the resolution of
the depth map is lower than that of the texture data,
wherein a ratio of depth map data to texture data in a
first direction is dw, and a ratio of depth map data to
texture data in a second direction is dh, wherein x is a
pixel position in the first direction and y is a pixel
position in the y direction;
transforming texture pixel positions x, y into non-
integer depth map pixel positions by performing
divisions x/dw and y/dh;
rounding the non-integer depth map pixel positions to
integer depth map pixel positions; and
synthesizing a view based at least on the obtained
texture data and lower resolution depth map values
adjacent to the integer depth map pixel positions and
lower resolution depth map values at the integer depth
map pixel positions, wherein the depth values at the
integer depth map pixel position and adjacent
positions are combined by means of a dilation
2
Appeal 2018-002161
Application 14/394,736
operation, and wherein the synthesizing is performed
without performing a depth map upsampling step.
REJECTION AT ISSUE
The Examiner has rejected claims 16-26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
over Li ("A Novel Upsampling Scheme for Depth Map Compression in
3DTV System," 2010 Picture Coding Symposium, Nagoya, December 8-12,
2010, XP030081960, pp. 186-189) and Zhang (US 2013/0148722;
published June 13, 2013). 3
ISSUE
Appellants argue, on pages 6-9 of the Appeal Brief and pages 1-3 of
the Reply Brief, the Examiner's rejection of claims 16-26 is in error. These
arguments present us with the following issue:
Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Li and Zhang
teaches or suggests synthesizing a view without performing a
depth map upsampling step, as required in claim 16, and similarly
required in claim 24?
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed Appellants' arguments in the Appeal Brief and the
Reply Brief, the Examiner's rejection, and the Examiner's response to
Appellants' arguments. Appellants' arguments have not persuaded us of
error in the Examiner's rejection of claims 16-26.
3 The Examiner listed claims 16, 19, 20, and 24 in the preamble to the
rejection. Final Act. 2; Ans. 3. However, as noted by Appellants, in the
body of the rejection, the Examiner rejects all claims 16-26 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) over Li and Zhang. See Appeal Br. 5---6; Final Act. 2-5; Ans. 3-6.
We view the Examiner's incomplete claim listing in the preamble as
harmless error.
3
Appeal 2018-002161
Application 14/394,736
Appellants argue Li and Zhang fail to teach or suggest synthesizing a
view based on texture data and lower resolution depth map values without
upsampling the depth map. Appeal Br. 6-9. Specifically, Appellants argue
Li upsamples the depth map before synthesizing. Appeal Br. 6-7; Reply Br.
2-3. Appellants further argue that Zhang does not make up for Li, because
Zhang synthesizes without upsampling because the depth map is already at
the same resolution as the other views. Appeal Br. 7; Reply Br. 2-3.
Appellants' arguments are not persuasive.
"In the construction of words, not the mere words, but the thing and
the meaning, are to be inquired after." In re Neugebauer, 330 F. 2d 353, 356
n.4 (CCPA 1964); see also In re Wolfensperger, 302 F. 2d 950,956 (CCPA
1962) ("[I]t is unlikely that independent specification writers will use
identical language in describing even identical embodiments of an
invention.").
Appellants' arguments are premised on the inclusion of the term
"up sampling" in Li. See Appeal Br. 6-9; Reply Br. 1-3. However,
Appellants do not analyze the steps taught by Li as relied upon by the
Examiner. See Final Act. 3--4. Li's "upsampling scheme," as the Examiner
finds, is substantially the same as the steps performed by the claimed view
synthesizing apparatus: using a full resolution color map (texture data) and
low resolution depth map and depth map flatting ( dilation operation) to
synthesize a view. Final Act. 3--4 (citing Li Figs.I, 2; pp. 186-187; equation
1). Li's use of the term upsampling is different than Appellants' use of the
term upsampling. The Specification does not explicitly define upsampling,
but does mention upsampling the depth map to a full resolution depth map
using bilinear filtering and storing it for use in encoding and decoding steps.
4
Appeal 2018-002161
Application 14/394,736
Spec. 3:14--4:5. Li does not perform this type ofupsampling. Appellants'
Specification discloses avoiding depth map upsampling and instead
"synthesizing [] the view [] using depth map values that are functions of the
depth map values at the integer depth map pixel positions, depth map values
at positions adjacent to the integer depth map pixel positions and rounding
errors obtained in the rounding of the non-integer depth map pixel positions
to integer depth map pixel positions." Spec. 4--5. Similarly, Li's scheme
uses the color map (texture data) and the known values in the low resolution
depth map ( depth map value integer positions) to calculate the unknown
values (depth map value non-integer positions; adjacent) and refers to this as
upsampling (i.e., the process Li refers to as upsampling is the process
Appellants describe as obtaining data, transforming the pixels, and then
rounding the pixels to use that information to synthesize a view and not what
Appellants' Specification refers to as upsampling); See Final Act. 3--4; Li
Section 2. As Appellants do not argue the specifics of the Examiner's
findings regarding Li, they fail to inform us of error in the Examiner's
rejection with particularity. Thus, we are not persuaded by Appellants'
arguments.
Appellants also argue Li and Zhang, alone or in combination, would
not be enabling for synthesizing a view when the texture map and depth map
have differing resolutions, as claimed. Appeal Br. 7-9; Reply Br. 3.
Additionally, Appellants argue there would be no rational basis to combine
Li and Zhang because there would be no likelihood of success. Reply Br. 2.
However, based on the above analysis and discussion, these arguments are
not persuasive given that the combination of Li and Zhang teaches a depth
map where a synthetic view is synthesized from the depth map without
5
Appeal 2018-002161
Application 14/394,736
upsampling, where Li teaches the majority of the limitations including the
step of synthesizing without upsampling.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded of error and sustain the
Examiner's rejection of independent claim 16. Independent claim 24 recites
similar limitations as claim 16. Appeal Br. 12-13, Claims App 'x. Claims
17-23 depend from claim 16 and claims 25 and 26 depend from claim 24.
Appeal Br. 11-13, Claims App 'x. Appellants do not present separate
arguments for independent claim 24 or dependent claims 17-23, 25, and 26.
Appeal Br. 9. Thus, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 17-26 for
the same reasons as detailed above for claim 16.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection of claims 16-26 is affirmed.
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
6