Ex Parte Wang

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 13, 2017

12634009 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 13, 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.
12/634,009 12/09/2009 Kang-Huai Wang CAPS-00500 6778
87597 7590
Blairtech Solution LLC
18802 Afton Ave
Saratoga, CA 95070
EXAMINER
NG, JONATHAN K
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3686
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/17/2017 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):
khtzou @gmail.com
ktzou @yahoo.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte KANG—HUAI WANG
Appeal 2016-001523
Application 12/634,009
Technology Center 3600
Before ANTON W. FETTING, CYNTHIA L. MURPHY, and
TARA L. HUTCHINGS, Administrative Patent Judges.
FETTING, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE1
Kang—Huai Wang (Appellant) seeks review under 35U.S.C. § 134 of a
final rejection of claims 1, 5, 9, 14, 15, and 25, the only claims pending in
the application on appeal. We have jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
The Appellant invented a way of displaying images captured by a
capsule camera system. Specification para. 1.
1 Our decision will make reference to the Appellant’s Appeal Brief (“App.
Br.,” filed June 25, 2015) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed November 8,
Appeal 2016-001523
Application 12/634,009
An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of
exemplary claim 1, which is reproduced below (bracketed matter and some
paragraphing added).
1. A method for
controlling an image display system to display images
captured from a capsule camera,
the method comprising:
[1] receiving images captured by the capsule camera;
[2] determining image spatial complexity of the images
based on
squared sums of partial DCT coefficients
corresponding to first blocks of the images,
compressed image file size of the images,
summation of variances corresponding to second
blocks of the images,
or
density of contours or edges of the images;
and
[3] displaying the images on a display device according to the
image spatial complexity
by displaying the images to a viewer with a longer
viewing time
if the images have larger squared sums of partial
DCT coefficients corresponding to first blocks of
the images, larger compressed image file size of
the images, larger summation of variances
corresponding to second blocks of the images, or
higher density of contours or edges of the images.
2015), and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed September 21, 2015),
and Final Action (“Final Act.,” mailed March 11, 2015).
2
Appeal 2016-001523
Application 12/634,009
The Examiner relies upon the following prior art:
Shimokoriyama US 5,874,996 Feb. 23, 1999
May 1,2003
July 29, 2003
Nov. 11,2003
Choi US 2003/0081683 A1
US 6,600,872 B1
US 6,646,676 B1
Yamamoto
DaGraca
Zhuo, Tracking and Classifying Moving Objects from Video,
Proceedings 2nd IEEE Int’l. Workshop on Performance Evaluation of
Tracking and Surveillance, Dec. 9, 2011)
Claims 1,5, and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Yamamoto, Shimokoriyama, and DaGraca.2
Claims 9 and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Yamamoto, Shimokoriyama, DaGraca, and Zhuo.
Claim 25 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Yamamoto, Shimokoriyama, DaGraca, and Choi.
The issue of obviousness turns primarily on whether decreasing the time
interval between video frames increases the amount of time the replay takes
across a given total recording time interval.
The following enumerated Findings of Fact (FF) are believed to be
supported by a preponderance of the evidence.
ISSUE
FACTS PERTINENT TO THE ISSUES
3
Appeal 2016-001523
Application 12/634,009
Facts Related to the Prior Art
Yamamoto
01. Yamamoto is directed to recording apparatuses for
intermittently recording picture data of a monitor camera or the
like at a constant interval and, more particularly, to time lapse
recorders. Yamamoto 1:8—11.
02. Yamamoto describes a time lapse recorder, which uses a motion
picture coding system having a motion compensating circuit
typically MPEG2 and thus can detect abnormality without
exclusive abnormality detector, and in which when the
abnormality is detected the recording interval is adaptively
changed or the recording picture quality is improved to permit
accurate recording of the abnormal phenomenon. Yamamoto
1:42-50.
03. Yamamoto describes a time lapse recorder comprising: an
abnormality detecting means including means for computing the
unit time least mean coding bit number on the basis of the frame
coding bit number of each frame, and means for comparing the
coding bit number of the present frame and the least mean coding
bit number and determines that the frame is abnormal when the
difference is greater than a predetermined threshold value; and a
recording interval control means for controlling the number of
frames recorded in the recording means such that the recording
2 Examiner withdrew a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b). Ans. 7.
4
Appeal 2016-001523
Application 12/634,009
interval per unit time is reduced when the abnormality is detected.
Yamamoto 3:34-44.
04. Yamamoto describes a DCT (Discrete Cosine Transform)
circuit and an inverse DCT circuit. Yamamoto 6:3—6.
05. Yamamoto describes, when the abnormality detection data is
multiple-valued, the recording interval control circuit decodes this
data, and controls the recording interval according to the state
values. For example, when the data has four different states, the
frame thinning-down control data is outputted to the variable
length coding circuit such that the recording is executed at an
interval of one minutes in state 0 (normal state), at an interval of
15 seconds in state 1, at an interval of one second in state 2, and
for all the frames in state 3. In this mode, normally the recording
medium can be effectively utilized to permit recording for long
time. In the abnormality detection state, the recording frame
interval is reduced according to the circumstances, so that it is
possible to record the circumstances accurately. Yamamoto
10:33—46.
Shimokoriyama
06. Shimokoriyama is directed to an encoding apparatus which
switches an encoding method by detecting a movement of input
image data, and encodes the image data with high efficiency.
Shimokoriyama 1:12—15.
07. Shimokoriyama describes as background art, commercial VTRs
for encoding an image signal with high efficiency, and recording
5
Appeal 2016-001523
Application 12/634,009
and reproducing the encoded image signal on/ltom a medium such
as a magnetic tape. In a VTR of this type, an image signal is
divided into blocks each including a predetermined number of
pixels, and each image block is subjected to an orthogonal
transform such as a discrete cosine transform (to be referred to as
DCT hereinafter). The transformed coefficients are quantized,
and the quantized value is recorded via entropy encoding. As a
recent image compression method, one using DCT is popular, and
movement adaptive processing is performed for improving
encoding efficiency upon execution of the DCT. Shimokoriyama
1:17-31.
08. Shimokoriyama describes a movement detection device which
can reliably detect a movement independent of the pattern of input
image data (e.g., a movement detection device which never
erroneously detects a fine still image as a moving image).
Shimokoriyama 2:49—54.
09. Shimokoriyama describes a square circuit calculating a square
of input pixel data. Then, a square sum in one DCT block is
calculated by an accumulator constituted by an addition circuit,
selector, and a D-latch. The discrimination circuit receives the
sum of the vertical high-frequency components in a block, and the
square sum, and performs movement discrimination based on
these data. The circuit then outputs the discrimination result to the
output terminal. Shimokoriyama 7:51—59.
6
Appeal 2016-001523
Application 12/634,009
DaGraca
10. DaGraca is directed to a surveillance system for capturing and
storing information concerning security events, and responding to
those events using a network. DaGraca 1:10-13.
11. DaGraca describes a user inspecting a video after recording
using a video browser for fast and efficient access to recorded
security events. For example, if the user has recorded a video of a
home while gone for a week, then the user can only view scenes
with persons approaching the house, and not the other hundred
hours of the video without significant security events. DaGraca
5:9-15.
ANALYSIS
Claims 1, 5, and 15 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Yamamoto, Shimokoriyama, and DaGraca
We adopt the Examiner’s findings and analysis from Final Action 4—8
and Answer 9-10 and reach similar legal conclusions.
In particular, Appellant first argues that while the present invention
disclosed “a long display time for higher spatial complexity,” Yamamoto
teaches “reducing interval per unit time (i.e., shorter interval time) for
abnormality (i.e., higher differences or higher complexity).” App. Br. 8.
This argument is couched as both a missing limitation and as teaching away,
but this is really a singular issue. As the Examiner finds:
Yamamoto further teaches to increasing the number of frames
recorded in a given time period, such as recording one frame
7
Appeal 2016-001523
Application 12/634,009
per second, when an abnormality is detected. Thus, when an
abnormality is detected, the system stores additional frames of
the scene[,] thereby enabling a user to view the abnormality in
detail (i.e. the scene with abnormality is displayed with a longer
time to the user because there are more frames stored of the
specific scene when user views the video at a given frames per
second) and where scenes with no abnormality detected are not
shown in detail (i.e. scenes without abnormality are given
minimal display time because there are less frames stored of the
specific scene when user views the video at a given frames per
second).
Ans. 9—10. Yamamoto thus displays the abnormalities, which are a form of
complexity, for a longer time period than normal shots.
As to the Reply Brief, Appellant presents new arguments, none of which
were necessitated by the Examiner’s response, and so these arguments are
waived as untimely. The Examiner did not have an opportunity to respond.
Claims 9 and 14 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Yamamoto, Shimokoriyama, DaGraca, and Zhuo
This rejection is not separately argued.
Claim 25 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Yamamoto, Shimokoriyama, DaGraca, and Choi
This rejection is not separately argued.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The rejection of claims 1, 5, and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Yamamoto, Shimokoriyama, and DaGraca is proper.
8
Appeal 2016-001523
Application 12/634,009
The rejection of claims 9 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Yamamoto, Shimokoriyama, DaGraca, and Zhuo is
proper.
The rejection of claim 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Yamamoto, Shimokoriyama, DaGraca, and Choi is proper.
DECISION
The rejection of claims 1, 5, 9, 14, 15, and 25 is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this
appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l)(iv) (2011).
AFFIRMED
9