Ex Parte Tan

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 29, 2016

12501416 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 29, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/501,416 07/11/2009
22879 7590 08/31/2016
HP Inc.
3390 E. Harmony Road
Mail Stop 35
FORT COLLINS, CO 80528-9544
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Kar-Han Tan
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.
82250330 4317
EXAMINER
YU,HENRYW
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2181
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/31/2016 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):
ipa.mail@hp.com
barbl@hp.com
yvonne.bailey@hp.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte KAR-HAN TAN
Appeal2015-000005
Application 12/501,416
Technology Center 2100
Before MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, AMBER L. HAGY, and
MICHAEL M. BARRY, Administrative Patent Judges.
STRAUSS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal2015-000005
Application 12/501,416
STATE~vfENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims
1-5, 11-16, 18-21, and 23. Claims 6-10, 17, and 22 are indicated to be
allowable. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm-in-part.
THE INVENTION
The claims are directed to modifying a projected image to correct for
irregularities present in a rendering medium, i.e., a surface onto which the
image is projected. Spec. i-f 1. Claims 1 and 2, reproduced below, are
representative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method, comprising operating a physical processor to
perform operations comprising:
deriving a first derived matrix of transport coefficients and
a second derived matrix of transport coefficients from a primary
matrix of transport coefficients, wherein each of the transport
coefficients describes transport of a respective image forming
element from a first position onto one or more image forming
elements at a second position;
ascertaining an approximate inverse of the first derived
matrix;
determining a modified version of a projection image from
the projection image, the approximated inverse of the first
derived matrix, and the second derived matrix; and
rendering the modified version of the projection image
from the first position onto a physical medium at the second
position.
2. The method of claim 1, wherein the deriving comprises
decomposing the primary matrix (T) into the first derived matrix
(DI) and the second derived matrix (D2) such that T=Dl +D2.
2
Appeal2015-000005
Application 12/501,416
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Bui
Tan et al.
us 5,528,528
US 2009/0073324 Al
REJECTIONS
June 18, 1996
Mar. 19, 2009
The Examiner rejected claims 1-5, 11-16, 18-21, and 23 under 35
U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over Tan and Bui. Final Act. 3-16.
APPELLANT'S CONTENTIONS
1. In connection with the rejection of claim 1, the sparse matrix
factorization techniques disclosed by Bui are incompatible with and
would not be applied to manipulating Tan's light transport matrices,
thereby rendering the modification of Tan according to Bui improper.
App. Br. 5-7.
2. In connection with the rejection of claim 2, the sparse factorization
techniques disclosed by Bui involve decomposing a matrix T into a
product of first and second derived matrices, not the sum required by
claim 2. App. Br. 8.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejection in light of Appellant's
arguments that the Examiner has erred. In connection with the rejection of
claim 2, we agree with Appellant's conclusion. However, in connection with
claim 1, we disagree with Appellant's conclusions and we adopt as our own
(1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from
3
Appeal2015-000005
Application 12/501,416
which this appeal is taken and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in
the Examiner's Answer in response to Appellant's Appeal Brief and concur
with the conclusions reached by the Examiner. We highlight the following
for emphasis.
In connection with claim 1, Appellant contends "one skilled in the art
would [not] have had any apparent reason to 'combine' the teachings of Tan
and Bui in a manner that would result in the subject matter defined in the
'deriving' element of claim 1." App. Br. 7. Appellant argues Tan discloses
transport matrices Tl and T2 that are light transport coefficient matrices, i.e.,
matrices that are fully populated with non-zero light transport coefficient
values. Id. In contrast, according to Appellant, Bui discloses sparse matrix
factorization techniques that are applicable not to Tan's light transport
coefficient matrices but only to sparse matrices, i.e., matrices that are
populated primarily with zeros. Id. Thus, according to Appellant, the
combination of Tan and Bui is improper because "[t]he Examiner ... has not
shown that Tan discloses any DCT coefficient matrices to which the sparse
matrix factorization techniques disclosed in Bui could be applied." Id.
In response to Appellant's arguments that the techniques of Bui are
incompatible with the light transport coefficient matrices of Tan, the
Examiner finds Appellant has provided insufficient explanation or evidence
in support of the argued assertions. Ans. 16-17. Furthermore, the Examiner
finds the independent claims do not specify the exact characteristics of the
required matrices, including whether the claims pertain to matrices having
only non-zero values or otherwise. Ans. 17. Instead, the Examiner
maintains one skilled in the art would "combine the elements of Tan [] and
4
Appeal2015-000005
Application 12/501,416
Bui in order to provide more efficient use of hardware application[ s] ... ,
particularly if certain transforms occur infrequently." Final Act. 6.
Appellant's contention is unpersuasive of reversible Examiner error.
As noted by the Examiner (Ans. 16-17), other than a conclusory statement
and attorney argument, 1 Appellant provides insufficient evidence the
techniques of Bui are so incompatible with the matrices of Tan that one
skilled in the art would not combine their respective teachings. In particular,
the Examiner relies on Bui only for disclosing deriving matrices Tl and T2
from a single primary matrix rather than the separate p 1 and p2 matrices of
Tan. Final Act. 5---6. Not only are the specific features argued to be
incompatible absent from the disputed claims, but Appellant's argument
improperly relies on wholesale incorporation/combination of methodologies
rather than what the combination of Bui and Tan teaches and suggests.
The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a
secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the
structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed
invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the
references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of
the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill
in the art.
In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). The artisan is not compelled
to blindly follow the teaching of one prior art reference over the other
without the exercise of independent judgment. See Lear Siegler, Inc. v.
Aeroquip Corp., 733 F.2d 881, 889 (Fed. Cir. 1984). We are further mindful
that the skilled artisan would "be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents
1 Attorney arguments and conclusory statements that are unsupported by
factual evidence are entitled to little probative value. See In re Geisler,
116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997); see also In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d
699, 705 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
5
Appeal2015-000005
Application 12/501,416
together like pieces of a puzzle" because the skilled artisan is "a person of
ordinary creativity, not an automaton." KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550
U.S. 398, 420, 421 (2007). Here, Appellant has not demonstrated the
Examiner's proffered combination in support of the conclusion of
obviousness would have been "uniquely challenging or difficult for one of
ordinary skill in the art." Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485
F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing KSR, 550 U.S. at 418).
For the reasons emphasized supra, we are unpersuaded of error in the
rejection of independent claim 1. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of
independent claim 1 and, for the same reasons, the rejection of independent
claims 13 and 18 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) over Tan and Bui, together with
the rejection of dependent claims 11, 12, and 23, which are not separately
argued.
In connection with the rejection of claim 2, the Examiner concludes
use of the phrase "such that" preceding recitation of the equation
"T=Dl +D2" results in the equation being interpreted as an intended use of
the deriving and/or decomposing steps and, therefore, not limiting. Ans. 17.
The Examiner further finds "multiplication is merely addition that is done
repeatedly a certain number of times, which can still cover the matrix
decomposition as disclosed in the claims," i.e., such that T=Dl +D2. Ans.
18. Appellant argues Bui's sparse matrix factorization involves
decomposing a matrix into a product of two matrices, not into a sum of first
and second derived matrices as claimed. App. Br. 8.
We find Appellant's contention persuasive of Examiner error. In
particular, we disagree with the Examiner in concluding use of the phrase
"such that" renders inconsequential to the issue of patentability the
6
Appeal2015-000005
Application 12/501,416
relationship expressed by the equation that follows. Instead, claim 2
requires the step of decomposing be structured so as to generate first and
second derived matrices D 1 and D2 from a primary matrix T according to
the relationship T=Dl +D2. Thus, rather than an intended use, the disputed
equation recites the required functionality of or method performed by the
decomposing step.
Furthermore, the Examiner provides insufficient evidence or
reasoning to persuade us Bui's factorization techniques for decomposing a
matrix into the product of matrices teaches or suggests decomposing a
matrix into the sum of two matrices. Although the Examiner may be correct
in finding multiplication, at least in general, can be performed by repeated
additions, we find insufficient evidence that matrix multiplication can
likewise be performed by repeated additions of a matrix.
Therefore, on the record before us, we cannot sustain the rejection of
dependent claim 2, nor, for the same reason, can we sustain the rejection of
dependent claims 14 and 19. Because claims 3-5, 15, 16, 20, and 21 further
depend from claims 2, 14, or 19, we likewise do not sustain the rejection of
these claims.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision to reject claims 1, 11-13, 18, and 23 is
affirmed.
The Examiner's decision to reject claims 2-5, 14--16, and 19-21 is
reversed.
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).
7
Appeal2015-000005
Application 12/501,416
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
8