Ex Parte Lee et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Oct 19, 2009

09823793 (B.P.A.I. Oct. 19, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte SANGHOON LEE and CHRISTINE IRENE PODILCHUK
____________

Appeal 2008-004780
Application 09/823,7931
Technology Center 2600
____________

Decided: October 19, 2009
____________

Before JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO, ROBERT E. NAPPI, and
SCOTT R. BOALICK, Administrative Patent Judges.

BOALICK, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

1 Application filed March 30, 2001. The real party in interest is Lucent
Technologies, Inc.
Appeal 2008-004780
Application 09/823,793

2

This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection of
claims 20-25, 31-34, 36, 38, and 40-46, all the claims pending in the
application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants' invention relates to providing error resilience in video data
transmissions using a foveation-based error resilience algorithm.
(Spec. 1:5-7; 3:14-15.) Video images are partitioned into a higher priority
foveated area and a lower priority background area, and the data signals
from each area are processed with different algorithms, such as forward
error correction (FEC) algorithms, based on the importance of correcting
errors in the data signals. (Spec. 3:14-21; 5:7-13.)

Claim 20 is exemplary:
20. A method for partitioning a video image between a
foveated area and a background area comprising the steps of:

defining a foveation point in the video image based on a
focal point of an eye;

defining a foveated area in proximity to said foveation
point;

extracting the first plurality of data signals from said
video image representing said foveated area;

extracting a second plurality of data signals from said
video image representing a background area;

Appeal 2008-004780
Application 09/823,793

3
encoding the extracted first plurality of data signals with
a first error correction protocol to create a first encoded signal;
and

encoding the extracted second plurality of data signals
with a second error correction protocol different from the first
error correction protocol to create a second encoded signal,

wherein the first error correction protocol comprises a
first FEC algorithm and a second error correction protocol
comprises a second FEC algorithm, the first FEC algorithm
being more powerful than the second FEC algorithm.

The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Heinzelman 6,754,277 B1 June 22, 2004
(filed Oct. 6, 1999)
Applicants' Admitted Prior Art ("APA") (Spec. 8: 5-13.)

Claims 20-25, 31-34, 36, 38, and 40-46 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description
requirement.
Claims 20-25, 31-34, 36, 38, 45, and 46 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Heinzelman.
Claims 40-44 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
obvious over Heinzelman and the APA.

Only those arguments actually made by Appellants have been
considered in this decision. Arguments that Appellants did not make in the
Brief have not been considered and are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
Appeal 2008-004780
Application 09/823,793

4
ISSUES
With respect to the written description rejection, Appellants argue that
"the specification reasonably conveys to the artisan numerous techniques for
defining a foveation point in a video image based on a focal point of an eye."
(Br. 8.)
With respect to the anticipation rejection, Appellants argue that
Heinzelman does not explicitly or inherently teach defining a foveation point
or defining a foveated area in proximity to the foveation point, as claimed.
(Br. 10-11.)
With respect to the obviousness rejection, Appellants argue that
Heinzelman fails to teach or suggest defining a foveation point or defining a
foveated area in proximity to the foveation point, and the APA fails to cure
this deficiency. (Br. 12-14.) Appellants also argue that there is no
motivation to modify the applied prior art and that Heinzelman teaches away
from the claimed invention. (Br. 13.)
Appellants' arguments present the following issues:
Have Appellants shown that the Examiner erred in finding the claims
lack written description support for defining a foveation point based on a
focal point of an eye?
Have Appellants shown that the Examiner erred in finding that
Heinzelman teaches or suggests defining a foveation point and defining a
foveated area in proximity to the foveation point?

Appeal 2008-004780
Application 09/823,793

5
FINDINGS OF FACT
The record supports the following findings of fact (FF) by a
preponderance of the evidence.

1. Appellants' Specification teaches that one technique for reducing the
size of transmitted video image data packets "relies on the fact that the
human eye is foveated. Foveation is characterized by exponentially
decreasing image resolution away from the focal point of the eye
resulting in being able to see the fine details only in the area of focus."
(Spec. 2:2-5.) (Spec. 2:6-8.) "[D]ue to this non-uniform resolution
processing of the human eye, high frequency data components can be
removed from areas of lesser importance without a corresponding loss
of visual quality." "This high frequency elimination provides an
attendant reduction in the quantity of data needed for the transmission
of a quality video image." (Spec. 2:8-10.)

2. Appellants' Specification teaches a preferred embodiment where a
video image is partitioned into at least two regions and each region is
processed differently at different priorities and levels of protection.
(Spec. 4:21-24.) "The first region consists of a foveated image area
that is defined by focusing on a region of importance in a video
frame." (Spec. 5:3-4.) The foveated "image area can be determined
by visually detecting a high motion activity area in an image, by
viewing a desired area of the image, such as in security camera
applications, or simply be determined manually by the viewer."
(Spec. 5:4-7.)
Appeal 2008-004780
Application 09/823,793

6
3. Regarding a foveated area, the Specification teaches that :
Definition of foveated area 12 can be obtained via a local
or remote pointing device, which acts to control the
direction of a video camera, for example. Exemplary
pointing devices can include, without limiting the
invention: eye-tracking device; computer mouse;
joystick; retina trackers, camera under manual or
computer keyboard control. Alternatively, foveated area
12 can be automatically determined through the use of
foveation filters or screen pattern filters, without the need
for physical pointing devices. Figure la shows the
resulting foveated area 12.

(Spec. 5:14-22; Fig. 1.) Regarding a foveation point, Appellants'
Specification teaches that:
A foveation point 16 can be defined as a focal center of
the foveated area 12. For a given foveation point 16, a
maximum detectable frequency at each picture element
(pixel) 18, which is a function of the eccentricity (visual
angle), is obtained and converted into a local bandwidth
in the discrete domain.

(Spec. 6:1-4; Fig. 1.)

4. Heinzelman describes techniques to provide error protection coding
for video data that has been partitioned into motion data and texture
data. (Abstract.) The motion data are more important than the texture
data and are given greater error protection than the texture data.
(Abstract; col. 2, ll. 8-12, 46-50; col. 3, ll. 57-62.)

Appeal 2008-004780
Application 09/823,793

7
PRINCIPLES OF LAW
Under the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112, the
disclosure of the application relied upon must reasonably convey to the
artisan that, as of the filing date of the application, the inventor had
possession of the later-claimed subject matter. Vas-Cath, Inc. v. Mahurkar,
935 F.2d 1555, 1563 (Fed. Cir. 1991). Although "the meaning of terms,
phrases, or diagrams in a disclosure is to be explained or interpreted from
the vantage point of one skilled in the art, all the limitations must appear in
the specification." Lockwood v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1572
(Fed. Cir. 1997). The specification need not describe the claimed subject
matter in exactly the same terms as used in the claims, but it must contain an
equivalent description of the claimed subject matter. Id.
Anticipation is established when a single prior art reference discloses,
expressly or under the principles of inherency, each and every limitation of
the claimed invention. Atlas Powder Co. v. IRECO Inc., 190 F.3d 1342,
1347 (Fed. Cir. 1999); In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1478-79
(Fed. Cir. 1994).
"Section 103 forbids issuance of a patent when 'the differences
between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such
that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the
invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said
subject matter pertains.'" KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406
(2007).

Appeal 2008-004780
Application 09/823,793

8
ANALYSIS
Appellants' arguments that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claims 20-25, 31-34, 36, 38, and 40-46 are persuasive.
With respect to the written description rejection, we agree with
Appellants that the Specification demonstrates that, as of the filing date of
the application, the inventor had possession of the claimed feature of
defining a foveation point based on a focal point of the eye. (FF 1-3.) The
Specification teaches that foveation is based on the focal point of the eye
(FF 1). The Specification also teaches that a foveated image area can be
determined by visually detecting a high motion activity area, or by using
pointing devices such as an eye tracking device, a computer mouse, or a joy
stick (FF 2, 3) -- all of which are, broadly speaking, based on the focal point
of an eye. Furthermore, the Specification teaches that a foveation point can
be defined as the focal center of a foveated area. (FF 3.)
The Examiner found that the Specification did not describe how its
methods "will determine the focal point of an eye for the foveated area 12"
(Ans. 4) and that "the specification does not convey first defining the
foveation point and second defining the foveated area in proximity to the
foveation point" (Ans. 5). However, the claims do not recite determining the
focal point of the eye for the foveated area. Instead, the claims merely recite
that the foveation point is based on the focal point of the eye. As discussed,
the Specification demonstrates possession of this claim feature. In addition,
as the Examiner correctly points out in another portion of the Answer
(Ans. 19-21), the method steps of defining a foveation point and a foveated
area are not claimed in any particular order. Furthermore, because the
Specification teaches that the foveation point can be defined as the focal
Appeal 2008-004780
Application 09/823,793

9
center of the foveated area (FF 3), a person of ordinary skill would recognize
that the Specification demonstrates possession of the claimed feature of
defining a foveated area in proximity to the foveation point.
Accordingly, we conclude that Appellants have shown that the
Examiner erred in rejecting claims 20-25, 31-34, 36, 38, and 40-46 under
35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written
description requirement.
With respect to the anticipation rejection, we agree with Appellants
that Heinzelman does not teach defining both a foveation point and a
foveated area in proximity to the foveation point, as claimed.
The Examiner found that, consistent with the Specification, the
foveated area may be interpreted as an area of motion. (Ans. 6; see FF 2.)
The Examiner also found that "[t]he point of the motion is the foveation
point" (Ans. 6) and "[t]he area surrounding the detected motion point is the
area. Inherently the area surrounding a motion point was determined and
defined to form the motion area" (Ans. 7).
While we agree that the foveated area may be interpreted as an area of
motion, we do not agree that Heinzelman teaches defining both a foveation
point and a foveated area in proximity to the foveation point. Heinzelman
discusses partitioning the video data into motion data and texture data
(FF 4). However, Heinzelman is silent as to how this partitioning is
performed. In particular, the Examiner has not shown, and we do not find,
where Heinzelman teaches defining a point of motion. Further, we do not
agree that it is inherent that the motion area in Heinzelman was defined by
determining an area surrounding a motion point.
Appeal 2008-004780
Application 09/823,793

10
Accordingly, we conclude that Appellants have shown that the
Examiner erred in rejecting claims 20-25, 31-34, 36, 38, 45, and 46 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(e).
We also agree with Appellants that the combination of Heinzelman
and the APA does not teach or suggest defining both a foveation point and a
foveated area in proximity to the foveation point, as claimed. For the
reasons previously discussed, Heinzelman does not teach or suggest these
limitations. The APA, which discusses error correction protocols, fails to
cure this deficiency of Heinzelman.
Accordingly, we conclude that Appellants have shown that the
Examiner erred in rejecting claims 40-44 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

CONCLUSION
Based on the findings of facts and analysis above, we conclude that
Appellants have shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 20-25,
31-34, 36, 38, and 40-46.

DECISION
The rejection of claims 20-25, 31, 34, 36, 38, and 40-46 is reversed.

REVERSED

Appeal 2008-004780
Application 09/823,793

11
bim

WILLIAMS, MORGAN & AMERSON
10333 RICHMOND AVENUE
SUITE 1100
HOUSTON, TX 77042