Ex Parte Muijs et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 28, 2019

14003832 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 28, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
14/003,832 09/09/2013 Remco Theodorus Johannes Muijs
24737 7590 03/04/2019
PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS
465 Columbus A venue
Suite 340
Valhalla, NY 10595
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.
2011P00368WOUS 5529
EXAMINER
MCCULLEY,RYAND
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2611
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/04/2019 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):
patti. demichele@Philips.com
marianne.fox@philips.com
katelyn.mulroy@philips.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte REMCO THEODORUS JOHANNES MUIJS,
MARK JOZEF WIIIEM MERTENS,
WILHELMUS HENDRIKUS ALFONSUS BRULS, CHRIS DAMKAT,
MARTIN HAMMER, and CORNELIS WILHELMUS KWISTHOUT
Appeal2018-006517
Application 14/003,832
Technology Center 2600
Before TERRENCE W. McMILLIN, KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, and
SCOTT B. HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judges.
McMILLIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the final
rejection of claims 1, 3, 7-10, 13, 14, 17-19, and 21. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
Appeal2018-006517
Application 14/003,832
THE CLAIMED INVENTION
The present invention relates generally to "methods and apparatuses
for comparing different gradings, in particular an LDR [low dynamic range]
and HDR [high dynamic range] variant, and resulting products such as
signals and carriers carrying those signals, which at least comprise a data
structure describing the difference between the two gradings." Spec. 1, 11.
2-5. Independent claim 1 is directed to a method; independent claim 14 is
directed to an image processing apparatus; and independent claim 21 is
directed to a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium. Appeal
Br. 28-31.
Claim 1, reproduced below with the disputed limitations in italics, is
representative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method of processing an image, comprising:
obtaining a first graded picture with a first luminance
dynamic range;
obtaining data encoding a grading of a second graded
picture with a second luminance dynamic range, the second
luminance dynamic range being higher than the first luminance
dynamic range;
determining a grading difference data structure
comprising a geometric specification of at least one region
containing a difference in grading between the first graded
picture and the second graded picture and a mathematical
representation of the difference, based on at least the data
encoding the grading of the second graded picture; and
deriving a third graded picture based on the grading
difference data structure and on at least one of the first graded
picture and the second graded picture whether pre-existing or
derivable from the data encoding the grading of the second
graded picture, the third graded picture having a grading that is
2
Appeal2018-006517
Application 14/003,832
different from that of both the first graded picture and the second
graded picture;
wherein the first, second, and third graded pictures
represent the same image content; and
wherein the grading of the image content to form the first
graded picture is based on the first luminance dynamic range, and
the grading of the image content to form the second graded
picture is based on the second luminance dynamic range.
Appeal Br. 28 (Claims Appendix).
REJECTIONS ON APPEAL
Claims 1, 3, 7-10, 13, 14, 17-19, and 21 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § I03(a) as being unpatentable over Seetzen et al. (US 2013/0038790
Al; published Feb. 14, 2013) ("Seetzen") and Marcu et al. (US
2010/0046855 Al; published Feb. 25, 2010) ("Marcu"). Final Act. 6.
ANALYSIS
Claim 1 recites "obtaining a first graded picture" and "obtaining data
encoding a grading of a second graded picture."
Appellants argue the references fail to teach or suggest these
limitations. App. Br. 10. Specifically, Appellants argue Seetzen teaches
LDR video input and HDR video input are graded, and it is "understood that
one grading may be created for an LDR picture and another grading may be
created for an HDR picture," but Seetzen does not teach that the "gradings
... be created" and the claimed "a first graded picture and a second graded
picture." Appeal Br. 14; see Appeal Br. 11-13. According to Appellants,
"even if Seetzen appears to suggest that an input could be graded, Seetzen
does not disclose the LDR and HDR inputs are graded" because the "mere
3
Appeal2018-006517
Application 14/003,832
possibility that a LDR and a HDR image could be graded fails to convert
Seetzen's LDR and HDR inputs to a graded picture." Reply Br. 3.
We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments. Specifically, we
agree with the Examiner that Seetzen's different versions of the same video
content received at inputs 12 and 22A as different video signals that may be
"individually optimized for displays having different color gamuts and/or
dynamic range" teach the claimed first graded picture and data encoding a
grading of a second graded picture. Final Act. 6 ( citing Seetzen ,r 82); see
also Ans. 2-5.
Appellants' Specification describes that grading means "how the
luminances (/colors) of all image objects are coordinated in a picture, which
may e.g. be encoded as RAW" and "grading has to do with the allocation of
objects of a captured scene to specific luminance ranges of the final picture
encoding, based on aesthetic principles." Spec. 9, 11. 22-26; see also Spec.
2, 11. 21-23 ("grading has a commonly known meaning comprising the
artistic improvement of all colors (/luminances ), so that the image looks
optimal"). The claimed "graded picture," under the broadest reasonable
interpretation and in light of the Specification, encompasses an encoding of
a raw image that considers how luminances and colors of the image objects
are coordinated. See Ans. 2-3.
As cited by the Examiner (see Final Act. 6), Seetzen teaches "cases in
which different video signals each carrying a different version of the same
video content are received at inputs 12 and 22A," and the "two different
versions may, for example, be individually optimized for displays having
different color gamuts and/or dynamic range." Seetzen ,r 82; see also Ans. 4
( citing Seetzen ,r 128, Fig. 6A). In other words, Seetzen teaches two
4
Appeal2018-006517
Application 14/003,832
versions of the same video content (i.e., a first version of the video content
and a second version of the video content) that have each been optimized for
displays with different color gamuts and/or dynamic ranges (i.e., the first
version of the video content is graded or optimized for the first color gamut
and/ or dynamic range, and the second version of the video content is graded
or optimized for the second color gamut and/or dynamic range).
Appellants have not provided persuasive evidence or argument that
the claimed first graded picture and data encoding a grading of a second
graded picture, encompassing encodings of raw images that consider
luminances and colors, are not taught or suggested by Seetzen's two
versions of the same video content that are each optimized for color gamuts
and/or dynamic ranges (i.e., two graded images that are each optimized for
luminances and colors).
Claim 1 further recites:
[D]etermining a grading difference data structure comprising a
geometric specification of at least one region containing a
difference in grading between the first graded picture and the
second graded picture and a mathematical representation of the
difference, based on at least the data encoding the grading of
the second graded picture.
Appellants contend that Seetzen teaches LDR and HDR input video
signals, and a difference between values in the first and second video
signals, but does not teach "a difference between the corresponding.first and
second graded picture" or the claimed "a difference in grading between the
first graded picture and the second graded picture." Appeal Br. 15.
Specifically, Appellants argue Seetzen's masks defining pixels of an image
to be affected "differ from Appellant's 'determined grading difference data
structure."' Appeal Br. 17; see Reply Br. 7-8. Appellants contend Marcu
5
Appeal2018-006517
Application 14/003,832
teaches "images that are clearly NOT graded." Appeal Br. 18; see Appeal
Br. 19; see Appeal Br. 22-23; see Reply Br. 9. According to Appellants,
"neither Seetzen nor Marcu ever consider 'a grading difference,"' and
"[n]either Seetzen nor Marcu teach or suggest 'a grading difference data
structure."' Appeal Br. 22.
We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments. Specifically, we
agree with the Examiner that Seetzen's mask "is related to grading
differences between first and second video signals" and "can be considered a
grading difference data structure." Ans. 6-7 (citing Seetzen ,r,r 120-121);
see Final Act. 6 (citing Seetzen ,r,r 84, 120). We also agree with the
Examiner's finding that Marcu teaches "a geometric specification of a
region that contains image differences between two input images," and
"[ w ]hen the geometric specification of Marcu is applied to the grading
differences of Seetzen, the combination renders obvious a data structure
specifying a geometric region of grading differences." Ans. 7 ( citing Marcu
Fig. 1).
As cited by the Examiner (see Ans. 6-7; Final Act. 6), Seetzen
describes "color appearance controller 88 outputs one or more masks 88A
that define which pixels of an image are to be affected ( or not affected) by
mappings performed by mapping unit 80 and mapping control parameters
88B that control the mappings performed by mapping unit 80." Seetzen
,r 120. Seetzen teaches "the control value is applied in
interpolation/extrapolation block 64 to multiply a difference between the
corresponding values in the first and second video signals." Seetzen ,r 84.
Marcu describes, in relation to Figure 1, cited by the Examiner (Ans. 7), "a
mask ( 111) is generated ( 131) from the high exposure image ( 101) to
6
Appeal2018-006517
Application 14/003,832
capture the saturated area which can be better represented by the
corresponding portion of the low exposure image (103)." Marcu ,r 35.
Marcu also describes "low dynamic range images (101 and 103) capture the
details in different ranges and in different regions of a scene" (Marcu ,r 31 ),
and "low dynamic range images are blended according to a weight
distribution (113) which based on the distribution of different ranges in
different locations in the scene and this blending and the calculation of the
weight distributions may be performed automatically (e.g., by a computer or
camera or other data processing system)" (Marcu ,r 34). In other words,
Seetzen teaches multiplying a difference between the values in the signals,
and masks defining pixels to be affected (i.e., grading difference
information), and Marcu teaches blending images by considering the
different ranges in different locations and the calculated weight distribution.
Appellants have not provided persuasive evidence or argument that
the claimed determining a grading difference data structure is not taught or
suggested by the combination of Seetzen's masks defining pixels to be
affected (i.e., data structures defining grading difference information),
considering the differences between signal values (i.e., grading difference
information), combined with Marcu's blending of images by considering
different ranges in different locations using the calculated weight
distribution (i.e., grading differences between two images as a geometric
specification that considers the calculated weight distribution).
Claim 1 recites:
[D]eriving a third graded picture based on the grading
difference data structure and on at least one of the first graded
picture and the second graded picture whether pre-existing or
derivable from the data encoding the grading of the second
graded picture, the third graded picture having a grading that is
7
Appeal2018-006517
Application 14/003,832
different from that of both the first graded picture and the
second graded picture.
Appellants argue that "[b ]ecause Seetzen does not disclose or suggest
'determining a grading difference data structure' it follows that Seetzen does
not disclose or suggest 'deriving a third graded picture based on the grading
difference data structure," as claimed. Appeal Br. 19; see Reply Br. 10.
We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments. Specifically, we
agree with the Examiner that Seetzen's deriving an "output signal by
interpolating between the two input video signals or extrapolating from the
two input signals" and "multiply[ing] a difference between the
corresponding values in the first and second video signals" teaches the
claimed deriving a third graded pictured based on the grading difference data
structure and at least one of the first graded picture and second graded
picture. Final Act. 7 ( citing Seetzen ,r,r 82, 84 ); see Ans. 9. We also agree
with the Examiner that Marcu's determining "regions of the high dynamic
range image containing pixels having values that are outside a first range
and inside a second range" teaches the claimed "creation of a third graded
picture ... from first and second graded pictures." Final Act. 7 ( citing
Marcu ,r 10, Fig. 5).
Appellants have not provided persuasive evidence or argument that
the claimed "deriving a third graded picture based on the grading difference
data structure and on at least one of the first graded picture and the second
graded picture" is not taught or suggested by Seetzen's interpolating and
extrapolating from the first and second video signals to generate an output
(i.e., deriving a third graded picture based on the first and second video
signals and their differences) (see Seetzen ,r 84) and Marcu's blending
images into one image by considering the different ranges in different
8
Appeal2018-006517
Application 14/003,832
locations and calculating the weight distribution (i.e., deriving a third graded
picture based on the first and second graded pictures) (see Marcu ,r,r 33-34).
Accordingly, we sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of independent
claim 1, as well as independent claims 14 and 21, argued for the same
reasons as claim 1, and dependent claims 3, 7-10, 13, and 17-19, not
separately argued. See Appeal Br. 23-26.
DECISION
TheExaminer'srejectionofclaims 1, 3, 7-10, 13, 14, 17-19, and21
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 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
9