Ex Parte Voss et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 30, 2017

13275816 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 30, 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.
13/275,816 10/18/2011 Shane D. Voss 82756232 7104
22879
HP Tnr
7590 07/05/2017 EXAMINER
3390 E. Harmony Road
Mail Stop 35
MOYER, ANDREW M
FORT COLLINS, CO 80528-9544 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2667
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/05/2017 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):
ipa.mail@hp.com
barbl@hp.com
y vonne.bailey @ hp. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SHANE D. VOSS, OSCAR ZUNIGA, JASON E. YOST,
KEVIN MATHERSON and TANVIR ISLAM
Appeal 2015-004190
Application 13/275,816
Technology Center 2600
Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., BRUCE R. WINSOR and
MICHAEL M. BARRY, Administrative Patent Judges.
WHITEHEAD JR., Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants are appealing the Final Rejection of claims 1—15 under 35
U.S.C. § 134(a). Appeal Brief 3. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We affirm.
Introduction
The invention is directed to “filtering image data [by] determining a
desired depth of field of an image, determining a distance between a pixel of
the image and the desired depth of field.” Specification, paragraph 6.
Appeal 2015-004190
Application 13/275,816
Illustrative Claim (disputed limitations emphasized)
1. A method for filtering image data comprising:
determining a desired depth of field of an image, wherein the desired
depth of field corresponds to pixels within a determined boundary of a
subject within the image;
filtering a depth mask using a depth mask filter, wherein the depth
mask is stored within image data and provides information on a depth of
pixels and wherein the depth mask filter includes parameters to set a
spatial size and a depth range to change the depth of pixels',
determining a distance between a pixel of the image and the desired
depth of field, wherein the distance is based on a distance from the pixel of
the image and a plurality of pixels within a determined boundary of the
image, wherein the plurality of pixels within the determined boundary have
a plurality of different depths; and
adjusting a contrast of the pixel in proportion to a magnitude of a
weight of the pixel, wherein the weight is based on the distance.
Rejections on Appeal
Claims 1—3, 5—8, and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as
being unpatentable over Michrowski (U.S. Patent Application Publication
2012/0007939 Al; published January 12, 2012), Hannuksela (U.S. Patent
Application Publication 2013/0002816 Al; published January 3, 2013), and
Brian A. Barsky et al. (Camera Models and Optical Systems Used in
Computer Graphics: part II, Image-Based Techniques, Computational
Science and Its Applications-ICCSA 2003 (International
2
Appeal 2015-004190
Application 13/275,816
Conference, Montreal, Canada, May 18-21,2003, Proceedings), 256-
65 (2003)) (“Barsky”). Final Rejection 3—9.
Claim 4 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Michrowski, Hannuksela, Barsky, and Bugnariu (U.S.
Patent Application Publication 2012/0200726 Al; published August 9,
2012). Final Rejection 9—10.
Claim 9 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Michrowski, Hannuksela, Barsky, and Biskup (U.S.
Patent Application Publication 2011/0222737 Al; published September 15,
2011). Final Rejection 10—11.
Claims 11-14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Michrowski, Hannuksela, Barsky, and Ok (U.S. Patent
Application Publication 2008/0181527 Al; published July 31, 2008). Final
Rejection 11—14.
Claim 15 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Michrowski, Hannuksela, Barsky, Ok, and Bugnariu).
Final Rejection 15.
ANALYSIS
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner,
we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed October 1, 2014), the Reply Brief (filed
February 11, 2015), the Answer (mailed December 18, 2014), and the Final
Rejection (mailed June 5, 2014) for the respective details.
3
Appeal 2015-004190
Application 13/275,816
Argument A
Appellants argue the Examiner errs in the rejection of claim 1 because
the cited art, i.e., Michrowski, Hannuksela, and Barsky, does not teach the
disputed limitations of “filtering a depth mask . . . wherein the depth mask
filter includes parameters to set a spatial size and a depth range to change the
depth of pixels,” as recited. Appeal Brief 9—11; Reply Brief 2—7. This
argument is unpersuasive.
In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner finds “Hannuksela discloses
filtering a depth mask using a depth mask filter, wherein the depth mask
filter includes parameters to set a spatial size and a depth range to change the
depth of the pixels (see Hannuksela paragraphs 72—76, where bilateral and
multilateral filtering is disclosed)” and concludes “[i]t would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use
Hannuksela’s depth mask filter to remove noise from Michrowski’s depth
map through smoothing, because it is predictable that doing so would result
in a more accurate depth map and therefore a more accurate blurring.” Final
Rejection 4—5.
Appellants contend the Examiner errs in finding Hannuksela cures
Michrowski’s failure to disclose this disputed limitation. Final Rejection 4—
5. Appellants contend Hannuksela merely discloses “a simple non-linear
edge-preserving technique” that employs multilateral filtering utilizing
bilateral filters in which a “value at each image sample is replaced by a
weighted average of intensity values from nearby samples.” Appeal Brief 10
(citing Hannuksela, paragraphs 72, 75 and 76). Appellants further contend
4
Appeal 2015-004190
Application 13/275,816
“Hannuksela filters pictures based averaged weights and coding
information/coding loops from reconstructed texture images.” Appeal Brief
10.
The Examiner finds Hannuksela broadly teaches that “different
parameters and/or any features from the encoding or the encoded and
reconstructed pictures may be used in the coding of the depth information,
especially in filtering the depth picture using e.g. a loop filter in the depth
coding loop.” Answer 15—16 (quoting Hannuksela paragraph 6). The
Examiner specifically finds an ordinarily skilled artisan would have
understood Hannuksela’s disclosure of bilateral and multilateral filters
specifically teaches that “spatial size and depth range parameters may be
applied to either the depth map image or the reconstructed image.” Answer
18; see also Answer 15—18 (citing Hannuksela paragraphs 6, 65, 66, 72—76).
We agree.
Appellants reiterate in the Reply Brief that Hannuksela discloses “a
simple non-linear edge-preserving smoothing technique” that is “based on
average weights and coding information/coding loops from reconstructed
texture images.” Reply Brief 3. Appellants discuss Hannuksela’s disclosure
for bilateral filtering, but do not persuasively rebut the Examiner’s specific
findings for how an ordinarily skilled artisan would understand these
teachings in view of Hannuksela’s disclosure of both bilateral and
multilateral filtering, in view of the other disclosure in Hannuksela. Reply
Brief 3^4.
In addressing the Examiner’s identification in the Answer of
similarities between the depth mask filter algorithms disclosed by
5
Appeal 2015-004190
Application 13/275,816
Hannuksela and Appellants’ Specification (see Answer 15—17), Appellants
further contend the “depth mask filter, as claimed, is not the same as the
loop filter described by Hannuksela” because “Appellants’] depth mask
calculates spatial kernel and a depth range kernel using parameters, and only
the neighboring depths are used to calculate the depth mask filter.” Reply
Brief 5.
We do not find Appellants’ arguments persuasive because they are not
commensurate with the scope of the claims. Neither of independent claims 1
and 6 require the depth mask to calculate the spatial and depth range kernels
nor does either claim require employing only neighboring depths to calculate
the depth mask filter.
We agree with the Examiner’s findings. Therefore the obviousness
rejection of claims 1 and 6 is sustained, as well as dependent claims 2, 3, 5,
7, 8 and 10, not separately argued.1
Argument B
Appellants argue that dependent claim 4 is patentable over the
combination of Michrowski, Hannuksela, Barsky, and Bugnariu because
Bugnariu fails to address the deficiencies of the Michrowski, Hannuksela
and Barsky combination in regard to the obviousness rejection of claim 1.
Appeal Brief 11—12. We do not find Appellants’ arguments persuasive
1 Merely reciting language of the claims and asserting the cited prior art
reference does not teach or suggest the claim limitation is insufficient. See
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv); see also In reLovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed.
Cir. 2011).
6
Appeal 2015-004190
Application 13/275,816
because we do not find the noted combination deficient. We sustain the
Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claim 4.
Argument C
Appellants argue that dependent claim 9 is patentable over the
combination of Michrowski, Hannuksela, Barsky and Biskup because
Biskup fails to address the deficiencies of the Michrowski, Hannuksela and
Barsky combination in regard to the obviousness rejection of independent
claim 6. Appeal Brief 12. We do not find Appellants’ arguments persuasive
because we do not find the noted combination deficient. We sustain the
Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claim 9.
Argument D
Appellants argue the Examiner errs in rejecting independent
claim 11 over the combination of Michrowski, Hannuksela, Barsky, and Ok
for the same reasons as for claims 1 and 6, additionally arguing that Ok does
not cure the deficiencies of the other cited references. Appeal Brief 13—15.
For the same reasons discussed above for claims 1 and 6, we find these
arguments are unpersuasive. Therefore, the obviousness rejection of claim
11 is sustained, as well as, dependent claims 12-14 not argued separately.
Argument E
Appellants argue that dependent claim 15 is patentable over the
combination of Michrowski, Hannuksela, Barsky, Ok, and Bugnariu because
Bugnariu fails to address the deficiencies of the Michrowski, Hannuksela,
Barsky and Ok combination in regard to the obviousness rejection of
independent claim 11. Appeal Brief 15—16. We do not find Appellants’
7
Appeal 2015-004190
Application 13/275,816
arguments persuasive because we do not find the noted combination
deficient. We sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claim 15.
DECISION
The Examiner’s obviousness rejections of claims 1—15 are sustained.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l)(v).
AFFIRMED
8