Ex Parte Ragozin et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 28, 2017

13977279 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 28, 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.
13/977,279 10/09/2013 Dmitry Ragozin P39967US/45631-225511 1032
73486 7590 05/02/2017
Barnes & Thornburg LLP (Intel)
11 S. Meridian Street
Indianapolis, IN 46204
EXAMINER
LHYMN, SARAH
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2613
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/02/2017 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):
INDocket@btlaw.com
inteldocket @ btlaw. com
inteldocs_docketing @ cpaglobal. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DMITRY RAGOZIN and
ALEXANDER SAPATOV
Appeal 2016-008414
Application 13/977,2791
Technology Center 2600
Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, JAMES W. DEJMEK, and
MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges.
DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 29-53. Claims 1—28 have been canceled. See Amend, at 3, mailed
June 26, 2015. We have jurisdiction over the remaining pending claims
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
1 Appellants identify Intel Corporation as the real party in interest. App.
Br. 2.
Appeal 2016-008414
Application 13/977,279
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellants’ claimed invention is directed to content-aware image
resizing using superpixels. Spec. 117. According to the Specification, a
superpixel “may correspond to any number of pixels of [an] image.” Spec.
127. In a disclosed embodiment, an image is segmented into a plurality of
superpixels and a target region including the pixels corresponding to a seam
of superpixels extending across a dimension of the image is selected. Spec.
117. Additionally, a seam of pixels in the target region is selected. Spec.
117. The image may be resized by removing or augmenting the seam of
pixels. Spec. 117.
Claim 29 is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal and is
reproduced below with the disputed limitations emphasized in italics'.
29. A computing device comprising:
a camera; and
an image co-processor to (i) segment an image captured by the
camera into a plurality of superpixels, each of the plurality of
superpixels corresponding to a plurality of pixels of the image, (ii)
select a seam of superpixels in the image extending across a dimension
of the image, (iii) select a seam of pixels within the seam of
superpiexels, [sic] the seam of pixels extending across the dimension
of the image, and (iv) resize the image by removing or augmenting the
seam of pixels.
The Examiner’s Rejections
1. Claims 29, 32—38, 41—45, and 48—53 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hong (US 2007/0116347 Al;
May 24, 2007); Fabio Drucker and John MacCormick, Fast Superpixels for
Video Analysis, Proceedings of the 2009 International Conference on Motion
2
Appeal 2016-008414
Application 13/977,279
and Video Computing, 2009 WMVC ’09, 55—62 (2009) (“Drucker”);
Avidan et al. (US 2010/0027876 Al; Feb. 4, 2010) (“Avidan”); and
Radhakrishna Achanta and Sabine Siisstrunk, Saliency Detection for
Content-Aware Image Resizing, Proceedings of the 16th IEEE International
Conference on Image Processing, ICIP ’09, 1005-08 (2009) (“Achanta”).
Final Act. 8—38.
2. Claims 30, 39, and 46 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Hong, Drucker, Avidan, Achanta, Razdan et al.
(US 2005/0168460 Al; Aug. 4, 2005) (“Razdan), and Shiri Gordon and
Hayit Greenspan, Segmentation of Non-convex Regions Within Uterine
Cervix Images, 2007 4th IEEE International Symposium on Biomedical
Imaging: From Nano to Macro, 312—15 (2007) (“Gordon”). Final Act. 39-
42.
3. Claims 31, 40, and 47 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Hong, Drucker, Avidan, Achanta, Razdan,
Gordon, and Adachi et al. (US 2005/0216237 Al; Sept. 29, 2005)
(“Adachi”). Final Act. 43^14.
Issue on Appeal2
Did the Examiner err in finding the proposed combination of
references teaches or suggests “select[ing] a seam of pixels within the seam
of superpiexels” [sic], as recited in claim 29?
2 We only address this issue, which is dispositive. We do not address
additional issues raised by Appellants’ arguments.
3
Appeal 2016-008414
Application 13/977,279
ANALYSIS3
Appellants assert the Examiner failed to articulate a reasoning for how
the cited references of Hong, Drucker, Avidan, and Achanta could be
combined to teach or suggest selecting a seam of pixels within a seam of
superpixels. App. Br. 9—12; Reply Br. 3^4. In particular, Appellants argue
that, contrary to the claim language which requires selecting a seam within a
seam (i.e., a seam of pixels within a seam of superpixels), the prior art does
not teach or suggest the claimed nesting of seams. App. Br. 12.
Drucker teaches that partitioning an image into superpixels was well-
known as an important step in video pre-processing. Drucker 55. Further,
Drucker teaches the use of seam carving as an algorithm to extract (i.e.,
select) a path across (or down) an entire image. Drucker 56. Thus, the
Examiner finds, and we agree, Drucker teaches selecting a seam of
superpixels (i.e., a plurality of pixels) in the image extending across a
dimension of the image. Final Act. 9—10; Ans. 3^4.
Avidan also teaches the use of seam carving to resize an image.
Avidan 126. Avidan further teaches a seam “refers to a set of pixels along a
path from one edge of the image (e.g., the top of the image) to the opposite
edge of the image (e.g., the bottom of the image)” wherein the seam is
monotonic and the pixels are “connected” to each other. Avidan || 26—28.
Thus, the Examiner alternatively finds, and we agree, Avidan, in
combination with Drucker, also teaches selecting a seam of superpixels (i.e.,
3 Throughout this Decision, we have considered the Appeal Brief, filed
February 29, 2016 (“App. Br.”); the Reply Brief, filed August 30, 2016
(“Reply Br.”); the Examiner’s Answer, mailed June 30, 2016 (“Ans.”); and
the Final Office Action, mailed July 29, 2015 (“Final Act.”), from which this
Appeal is taken.
4
Appeal 2016-008414
Application 13/977,279
a plurality of pixels) in the image extending across a dimension of the
image. Final Act. 10—11; Ans. 4—5.
Achanta is directed to saliency detection for content-aware image
resizing. Achanta, Title. Achanta teaches an approach based on seam
carving using saliency maps to preserve visually prominent features during
image resizing operations. Achanta, Abstract; see also Achanta 1007
(Section 5: Improved Seam Carving).
In rejecting claim 29, the Examiner relies on the combined teachings
of, inter alia, Drucker, Avidan, and Achanta to find a person of ordinary
skill in the art would have implemented the teachings of Achanta to use a
saliency map in “identifying a seam of pixels, within, for example, a seam of
superpixels” to remove as having less value with respect to the entire image.
Final Act. 14.
In the Answer, the Examiner finds the combined teachings of Drucker
and Avidan suggest selecting a seam of pixels within a seam of superpixels.
Ans. 5—8 (citing Avidan || 30-35, Drucker 55—56). The Examiner finds it
would have been obvious to modify the references to achieve the claimed
limitation. Ans. 7.
Although we agree the identified references teach selecting a seam of
superpixels in an image, we find the Examiner has not provided sufficient
evidence or technical explanation that the combination of references teaches
or suggests selecting a seam of pixels within a seam of superpixels (i.e.,
nested seams), as claimed.4
4 We note, as originally filed, claim 1 (now claim 29) recited, in relevant
part, “(iii) select a seam of pixels in the target region, the seam of pixels
extending across the dimension of the image.” Spec. 19. This language is
5
Appeal 2016-008414
Application 13/977,279
For the reasons discussed supra, we are constrained by the record
before us and do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 29. For
similar reasons, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent
claims 38 and 45, which recite similar limitations. Additionally, we do not
sustain the Examiner’s rejections of claims 30—37, 39-44, and 46—53, which
depend therefrom.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 29—53.
REVERSED
consistent with the disclosure of the Specification. See Spec. 117, Fig. 2
(items 206, 210). On June 26, 2015, Appellants amended the claim
language to its current form. Amend, at 3. In the event of further
prosecution, we invite the Examiner to determine whether the amended
claim is supported by the Specification, as required by 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph. While the Board is authorized to reject claims under
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b), no inference should be drawn when the Board elects
not to do so. See Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP)
§ 1213.02.
6