Ex Parte Verburgh et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 8, 2015

12667241 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 8, 2015)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/667,241 12/30/2009 Reinout Verburgh
24737 7590 12/10/2015
PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS
P.O. BOX 3001
BRIARCLIFF MANOR, NY 10510
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.
2007P00630WOUS 5440
EXAMINER
SHIN, KYUNG H
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2443
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/10/2015 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):
debbie.henn@philips.com
marianne.fox@philips.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte REINOUT VERBURGH and
HANS ACHIEL GILB ER TE VAN PAR YS
Appeal2013-010994
Application 12/667,241
Technology Center 2400
Before HUNG H. BUI, JOHNF. HORVATH, and NABEEL U. KHAN,
Administrative Patent Judges.
KHAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection
of claims 1-16. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse and institute a new ground of rejection pursuant to 37
C.F.R. § 41.50(b).
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Koninklijke Philips
Electronics N.V. App. Br. 2.
Appeal2013-010994
Application 12/667 ,241
THE INVENTION
Appellants' invention relates generally to the field of generating a 3D
impression of an image. Spec. 1, 11. 5-12. Such 3D impressions can be
generated using a depth map consisting of depth values for pixels of the
image where the depth value for a pixel represents the distance of the pixel
from the viewer. Id. The Specification describes that the depth value of a
current pixel is determined based on a depth related value and color attribute
of a pixel within a neighborhood of the current pixel and based on depth
related value and color attribute of a pixel outside of the neighborhood of the
current pixel. Spec. 2, 11. 18-30.
Independent claim 1, which is illustrative, is reproduced below.
1. A system for computing a depth map comprising depth
values representing distances to a viewer for one or more of a
plurality of pixels of an image, the system comprising:
an optimization unit for defining a neighborhood of a
current pixel of the plurality of pixels and for determining a
depth related cost value of the current pixel, the depth related
cost value being a minimal cost value among cost values of
first pixels selected from the plurality of pixels in
the neighborhood of the current pixel based on a
difference between a color attribute of the first pixels and
a corresponding color attribute of the current pixel; and
second pixels selected from the plurality of pixels
outside the neighborhood based on a difference between
the color attribute of the second pixels and a
corresponding color attribute of the current pixel; and
an assigner for assigning a depth value to the current
pixel in dependence on the determined depth related cost value.
2
Appeal2013-010994
Application 12/667 ,241
REFERENCE and REJECTION
Claims 1-16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by
Ernst et al. (WIPO Patent No. WO 2005/083631 A2, Sept. 9, 2005).
ANALYSIS
Based on Appellants' arguments, the issue presented on appeal is
whether Ernst discloses "'defining a neighborhood of a current pixel'
and ... 'determining a depth related cost value of the current pixel' based on
a minimal value of first and second pixels [where] [ t ]he first and second
pixels are ... 'in the neighborhood' and 'outside the neighborhood"'
respectively ("the disputed limitations"). App. Br. 11-12.
The Examiner finds Ernst "discloses the concept of a pixel within a
neighborhood," by disclosing the "processing of pixels that are within a
predetermined distance of each other" disposed on a path. Final Act. 10
(citing Ernst 3: 1-8). The Examiner further finds that "[p ]ixels within a
predetermined distance are considered within the neighborhood ... and
pixels outside of a predetermined distance are considered outside of the
neighborhood." Ans. 11 (citing Ernst 3:1-8).
Appellants argue "pixels within a predetermined distance of each
other do not teach, disclose, or suggest pixels inside and outside of a
neighborhood." App. Br. 12. Appellants also contend that "determining
differences between pixel values on a path from the respective pixels to a
predetermined location of the image" is in "sharp contrast to the recited
'defining a neighborhood of a current pixel' and determining 'a minimal cost
value among cost values of first pixels within the neighborhood and second
pixels outside the neighborhood."' Id. (emphasis omitted).
3
Appeal2013-010994
Application 12/667 ,241
We are persuaded of error by Appellants' arguments. Although we
agree with the Examiner that pixels within a predetermined distance of the
current pixel can be considered within a neighborhood, and pixels outside a
predetermined distance of the current pixel can be considered outside a
neighborhood, the Examiner does not identify which of the pixels disposed
on the path in Ernst are outside the neighborhood. More specifically, the
Examiner does not identify whether or where Ernst explicitly defines a
neighborhood such that at least one pixel on the path from the current pixel
is within that neighborhood and at least one pixel on the path from the
current pixel is outside that neighborhood. Accordingly, we do not sustain
the Examiner's rejection of independent claim 1, and of dependent claims 2-
16, under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
T
L
NEW GROUND OF REJECTION
Claims l and 12-16
Pursuant to our authority under 37 C.F.R. §41.50(b), we reject claim 1
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Ernst. We adopt Examiner's
findings and conclusions regarding independent claims 1 and 12-16 (Final
Act. 4---6; Ans. 10-16), except as to the following limitations recited in claim
1 and similarly recited in claims 12-16:
defining a neighborhood of a current pixel of the plurality of
pixels and for determining a depth related cost value of the
current pixel, the depth related cost value being a minimal cost
value among cost values of first pixels selected from the
plurality of pixels in the neighborhood of the current pixel
based on a difference between a color attribute of the first
pixels and a corresponding color attribute of the current pixel;
and
4
Appeal2013-010994
Application 12/667 ,241
second pixels selected from the plurality of pixels outside the
neighborhood based on a difference between the color attribute
of the second pixels and a corresponding color attribute of the
current pixel.
Ernst discloses that the depth value for a current pixel is determined
by "computing a [first] cost value for [the current pixel] by combining
differences between values of pixels which are disposed on a [first] path
from the" current pixel to a second pixel, (Ernst 2:5-7), "computing a
second cost value for the [current pixel] by combining differences between
values of pixels which are disposed on a second path from the [current pixel]
to a third" pixel, (Ernst 4:2-5), and assigning a depth value for a current
pixel based on the minimum of the first and second cost values, (Ernst 4:6-
8). The differences between values of pixels on the path are determined on
the basis of luminance and/or color of those pixels. Ernst 2:21-25.
As the Examiner notes, "[ t ]he specification does not explicitly define
what constitutes a neighborhood." Ans. 11. Instead, the Specification
provides some broad examples of a local neighborhood that include "all
pixels adjacent to the current pixel; all pixels within a predetermined
distance from the current pixel; all pixels at most one pixel, three pixels, or
five pixels away from the current pixel." Spec. 15: 5-9. Under the broadest
reasonable interpretation of "neighborhood" we find the first path from the
current pixel to the second pixel to be a neighborhood. It would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that pixels on this first path would
be considered in the neighborhood while pixels on the second path would be
considered outside the neighborhood. Thus, by assigning the minimum cost
value of the two cost values where the first cost value is determined by
pixels on the first path and the second cost value is determined by pixels on
5
Appeal2013-010994
Application 12/667 ,241
the second path, Ernst teaches or suggests "defining a neighborhood of a
current pixel ... and ... determining a depth related cost value of the
current pixel ... being a minimal cost value among cost values of first pixels
... in the neighborhood ... and second pixels ... outside the
neighborhood."
For purposes of completeness, Ernst discloses "a multi-view
generation unit 400 comprising a depth map generation unit 401." Ernst
10:27-28. The depth map generating unit 401 includes a cost value
computing unit 402 for computing a cost value as described in connection
with any of Figures 1, 2, and 3, and a depth value assigning unit 404 for
assigning a depth value to a pixel based on its computed cost value. Id. at
11:21-30. Figure 2 shows alternative paths 202 and 216, and as explained
supra, Ernst discloses calculating the cost value for a pixel by determining
the minimum cost value from the first and second paths. Id. at 2: 4--8, 4: 1-8,
9:29. Thus, Ernst discloses an optimization unit in the form of the
computing unit 402 for determining the cost value of a current pixel as the
minimal cost value among cost values computed for first pixels along the
first path (in the neighborhood) and the second pixels along the second path
(outside the neighborhood) as recited in claim 1. Ernst further discloses an
assignor in the form of the depth value assigning unit 404 for assigning a
depth value based on the related cost value as recited in claim 1.
Claim 12 differs from claim 1 in that it recites the system for
computing a depth map recited in claim 1 is an integrated circuit that
includes circuitry for defining a neighborhood and computing a cost value as
a minimal cost value among first (inside the neighborhood) and second
(outside the neighborhood) pixels. Ernst discloses the depth map generating
6
Appeal2013-010994
Application 12/667 ,241
functionality may optionally be provided by an application specific
integrated circuit. Ernst 12:22-23.
Claim 13 differs from claim 1 in that the system for computing a
depth map recited in claim 1 is included in a television having a 3D display
for providing a video rendering having a three-dimensional appearance
based on a depth map. Ernst discloses an image processing apparatus 500
that includes the multi-view image generation unit 401 discussed supra
(which generates cost values and assigns depth values), and a multi-view
display device 506 for displaying the images provided by the multi-view
image generation unit 401. Ernst 12: 2 8-13: 2. The image processing
apparatus 500 can be a TV. Id. at 13:5---6. The images generated by the
multi-view image generation unit 400/401 enable video rendering having a
three-dimensional appearance. Id. at 10:27-11: 14.
Claim 14 differs from claim 1 in that it recites a camera, including a
video signal capture means, that includes the system for computing a depth
map recited in claim 1. Ernst discloses that multi-view camera systems can
generate depth information for recorded images. Ernst 1: 15-19. Ernst
further discloses the imaging processing apparatus 500 may be applied by a
film-studio or broadcaster. Id. at 13: 11-12. It would have been obvious for
a film-studio or broadcaster to use the depth map computing system, which
is a part of imaging processing apparatus 500, in a multi-view camera to
generate and broadcast depth encoded video streams to allow a remote
receiver to render the video streams to give them a three-dimensional
appearance.
7
Appeal2013-010994
Application 12/667 ,241
Claim 15 differs from claim l in that it recites the method for
computing a depth map recited in the system of claim 1. It is therefore
obvious in view of the teachings of Ernst for the reasons discussed supra.
Claim 16 differs from claim 1 in that it recites the system for
computing the depth map recited in claim 1 is a non-transitory medium that
includes computer executable instructions for computing the depth map.
Ernst discloses the cost value computing unit 402, the depth value assigning
unit 404 and the rendering unit 406 may be implemented by a processor
operating under the control of a software program. Ernst 12: 17-19. The
program may be stored in non-volatile storage such as a ROM or hard disk,
or magnetic or optical storage. Id. at 12:21-22.
Accordingly, for the reasons discussed supra, we find that Ernst
teaches or suggests each of the limitations recited in claims 1 and 12-16, and
reject these claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious in view of Ernst.
Because our rejection of claims 1 and 12-16 relies on a different rationale
than that relied on by the Examiner, we designate it a new ground of
rejection.
II. Claims 2-11
We have entered a new ground of rejection for independent claims 1
and 12-16. We leave to the Examiner to consider the patentability of
dependent claims 2-11 in light of our findings and conclusions regarding
claims 1 and 12-16. The fact that we did not enter new grounds of rejection
for claims 2-11 should not be construed to mean that we consider claims 2-
11 to be patentable over the prior art of record.
8
Appeal2013-010994
Application 12/667 ,241
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection of claims 1-16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
based on Ernst is reversed.
Pursuant to our authority under 3 7 C.F .R. § 41.50(b ), we enter a new
ground of rejection for claims 1 and 12-16 as obvious under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) over the same reference, Ernst.
This decision contains a new grounds of rejection pursuant to 37
C.F.R. § 41.50(b). Section 41.50(b) provides that a "new ground of
rejection ... shall not be considered final for judicial review."
Section 41.50(b) also provides that Appellants, WITHIN TWO
MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF THE DECISION, must exercise one of
the following two options with respect to the new ground of rejection to
avoid termination of proceedings as to the rejected claims:
(1) Reopen prosecution. Submit an appropriate
amendment of the claims so rejected or new evidence relating
to the claims so rejected; or both; and have the matter
reconsidered by the examiner, in which event the proceeding
will be remanded to the examiner ....
(2) Request rehearing. Request that the proceeding be
reheard under 37 C.F.R. § 41.52 by the Board upon the same
record.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended. See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
REVERSED
37 C.F.R § 41.50(B)
ELD
9