Ex Parte Souchard

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 18, 2016

13013802 (P.T.A.B. May. 18, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/013,802 01125/2011
62224 7590 05/20/2016
ADELILLP
11859 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 500
LOS ANGELES, CA 90025
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Christophe Souchard
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.
APLE.POlOODIVl 9403
EXAMINER
CHOWDHURY, NIGAR
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2484
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/20/2016 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):
mail@adelillp.com
PatentOffice@adelillp.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex Parte CHRISTOPHE SOUCHARD
Appeal2014-008590
Application 13/013,802
Technology Center 2400
Before JASON V. MORGAN, BETH Z. SHAW, and
JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, Administrative Patent Judges.
SHAW, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 21--40, which represent all the pending
claims. Claims 21 and 31 are the only independent claims. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
ii 2.
We reverse.
INVENTION
The invention is for producing wide angle video footage. See Spec.
Claim 21 is illustrative and is reproduced below:
21. A non-transitory machine readable medium storing a
computer program for a video editing application, the computer
Appeal2014-008590
Application 13/013,802
program for execution by a processor, the computer program
comprising sets of instructions for:
aligning an underexposed first video image and a second video
image;
generating a monochrome image of the first video image; and
blending the first and second images by using the monochrome
image as a mask to generate a high dynamic range video image.
REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejected claims 21-27, 29-37, 39, and 40 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Uyttendaele (US 2006/0177150
Al; pub. Aug. 10, 2006) and Kogane (US 2005/0057650 Al; pub Mar. 17,
2005). Ans. 4--11.
The Examiner rejected dependent claims 28 and 38 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Uyttendaele, Kogane, and Kawakami.
(US 2003/0043293 Al; pub. Mar. 6, 2003). Ans. 11-12.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed Appellant's arguments in the Briefs, the
Examiner's rejection, and the Examiner's response to the Appellant's
arguments. We concur with Appellant's conclusion that the Examiner erred
in finding that the combination of the references teaches or suggests
"blending the first and second images by using the monochrome image as a
mask to generate a high dynamic range video image," as recited in claim 21.
As identified by Appellant, Uyttendaele describes generating a reference
panorama from a set of images and using a cost function to select the best
2
Appeal2014-008590
Application 13/013,802
pixels for each location in the reference panorama. App. Br. 5, citing
Uyttendaele i-fi-165, 67, Figs. 3 and 8. We find no description in the cited
portions of Uyttendaele, however, regarding blending the first and second
images by using a mask. As Appellant points out, in the claim the mask is a
separate and different version of the first image. Reply Br. 8. Uyttendaele's
reference panorama cannot be both claimed elements. Id.
Thus, we disagree with the Examiner's finding that Uyttendaele
teaches blending the first and second images by using the monochrome
image as a mask, as recited in independent claim 21. The Examiner has not
found Kogane teaches this feature. See Ans. 13-14.
Similarly, we find no description in the cited portions of Uyttendaele
regarding blending the corresponding first and second pixel values of the
first and second images based on their corresponding grayscale pixel value
to generate a high dynamic range video image, as recited in independent
claim 31. The Examiner has not found Kogane teaches this feature. See
Ans. 8-10, 14.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejection
of claims 21--40.
DECISION
We reverse the rejections of claims 21--40.
REVERSED
3