Redmann, William Gibbens.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Aug 12, 2020

13635170 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Aug. 12, 2020)

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.
13/635,170 09/14/2012 William Gibbens Redmann 2010P00048WOUS 7195
119110 7590 08/12/2020
Invention Mine IDC
216 S. Jefferson
Suite 102
Chicago, IL 60661
EXAMINER
PICON-FELICIANO, ANA J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2482
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/12/2020 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):
bob@inventionmine.com
docket@inventionmine.com
uspto@dockettrak.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte WILLIAM GIBBENS REDMANN
____________

Appeal 2019-001593
Application 13/635,170
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, MAHSHID D. SAADAT, and
STEVEN M. AMUNDSON, Administrative Patent Judges.

AMUNDSON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final
rejection of claims 1, 5, 8–11, 13, 17, 20, 21, and 23–28, i.e., all pending
claims. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42 (2017). Appellant submitted a Supplemental Appeal Brief
that identifies the real party in interest as InterDigital CE Patent Holdings,
SAS. Suppl. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2019-001593
Application 13/635,170

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Invention
According to the Specification, the invention relates to stereo video
and processing disparity information in a disparity map using “a sample that
does not indicate an actual disparity value.” Spec. 1:8–18.2 As the
Specification states, “When the exact disparity value is known and is within
a prescribed range, the sample specifies the disparity value. Otherwise, the
sample may indicate that a disparity value is greater or smaller than a
predetermined value or a calculated value.” Id. at 3:14–17. The
“predetermined value may be the upper or lower limit of the prescribed
range, a disparity value at a neighboring location, a specific value, or a
disparity value at a specific location.” Id. at 3:17–19. The “calculated value
may be calculated based on one or more disparity values at other locations.”
Id. at 3:19–20. The “sample may also indicate that no information about the
disparity value is available at the current location.” Id. at 3:20–22.
Exemplary Claim
Independent claim 1 exemplifies the claims at issue and reads as
follows:
1. A method, comprising:
receiving a stereo video and a disparity map
corresponding to the stereo video, the disparity map including

2 This decision uses the following abbreviations: “Spec.” for the
Specification, filed March 31, 2011; “Final Act.” for the Final Office Action,
mailed January 4, 2018; “Appeal Br.” for the Appeal Brief, filed June 22,
2018; “Ans.” for the Examiner’s Answer, mailed October 11, 2018; and
“Suppl. Appeal Br.” for the Supplemental Appeal Brief, filed April 30,
2020.
Appeal 2019-001593
Application 13/635,170

3
at least a first sample and a second sample, a first disparity
value being associated with the at least a first sample;
determining a first information from the second sample,
said first information indicating that an actual disparity value
of the second sample is unknown;
determining a second information, in addition to the first
information, from the second sample, the second information
providing that a disparity value that corresponds to the second
sample is
(1) greater than a positive disparity bound,
(2) less than a negative disparity bound,
(3) less than a disparity value at a location
to the left,
(4) less than a disparity value at a location
to the right,
(5) more than the disparity value at the location
to the left,
(6) more than the disparity value at the location
to the right,
(7) less than a disparity value that is an
interpolation between the first disparity value
and a third known disparity value,
(8) more than a disparity value that is the
interpolation between the first disparity value
and the third known disparity value, or
(9) between two disparity values; and
processing the stereo video based on the second
information.
Appeal Br. 20 (Claims App.).
Appeal 2019-001593
Application 13/635,170

4
The Prior Art Supporting the Rejection on Appeal
As evidence of unpatentability under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a),3 the
Examiner relies on the following prior art:
1. International Patent Application Publication No. WO 2007/052191
A2 to Smit et al., titled “Filling in Depth Results,” and published on May 10,
2007 (“Smit”).
2. International Patent Application Publication No. WO 2008/139351
A1 to Barenbrug, titled “Method, Apparatus and System for Processing
Depth-Related Information,” and published on November 20, 2008
(“Barenbrug”).
3. French Patent Application Publication No. 2,932,911 to
Alessandrini et al., published on December 25, 2009 (“Alessandrini”),
corresponding to U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2011/0080464 A1,
titled “Method and a Device for Filling Occluded Areas of a Depth or
Disparity Map Estimated from at Least Two Images,” filed on June 22,
2009, and published on April 7, 2011.4
The Rejection on Appeal
Claims 1, 5, 8–11, 13, 17, 20, 21, and 23–28 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Smit, Alessandrini, and Barenbrug.
Final Act. 9–29.

3 The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”), Pub. L. No. 112-29,
125 Stat. 284 (2011), amended 35 U.S.C. § 103 effective March 16, 2013.
Because the filing date for Application 13/635,170 predates the AIA’s
amendment to § 103, this decision refers to the pre-AIA version of § 103.
4 In the Answer, the Examiner cites to the published U.S. application
instead of a machine-generated translation of the French application. See
Ans. 23–24. We also cite to the published U.S. application.
Appeal 2019-001593
Application 13/635,170

5
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the § 103(a) rejection in light of Appellant’s
arguments that the Examiner erred. For the reasons explained below, we
concur with the Examiner’s conclusion concerning unpatentability under
§ 103(a). We adopt the Examiner’s findings and reasoning in the Final
Office Action and Answer. See Final Act. 2–29; Ans. 4–27. We add the
following to address and emphasize specific findings and arguments.
Claim 1: The Second “Determining” Limitation
As noted above, the § 103(a) rejection of claim 1 rests on Smit,
Alessandrini, and Barenbrug. See Final Act. 9–14. Appellant argues that
the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 because the references fail to teach
or suggest claim 1’s second “determining” limitation:
determining a second information, in addition to the first
information, from the second sample, the second information
providing that a disparity value that corresponds to the second
sample is
(1) greater than a positive disparity bound,
(2) less than a negative disparity bound,
(3) less than a disparity value at a location
to the left,
(4) less than a disparity value at a location
to the right,
(5) more than the disparity value at the location
to the left,
(6) more than the disparity value at the location
to the right,
(7) less than a disparity value that is an
interpolation between the first disparity value
and a third known disparity value,
Appeal 2019-001593
Application 13/635,170

6
(8) more than a disparity value that is the
interpolation between the first disparity value
and the third known disparity value, or
(9) between two disparity values.
See Appeal Br. 12–18.
In particular, Appellant contends that Alessandrini teaches “explicit
disparity values assigned to all pixels,” including invalid pixels
corresponding to unknown disparity values. Appeal Br. 15. Appellant seeks
to distinguish claim 1 from Alessandrini by asserting that the “second
information” in claim 1 “does not specify which precise disparity value is
associated with the second sample but simply indicates how the disparity
is relative to one or more explicit or precise disparity values (e.g. less or
greater than a value or a range of values).” Id. at 15–16.
Appellant’s arguments do not persuade us of Examiner error because
they rest on an unduly narrow claim interpretation. “[D]uring examination
proceedings, claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation
consistent with the specification.” In re Hyatt, 211 F.3d 1367, 1372
(Fed. Cir. 2000). Broadly but reasonably interpreted, the “second
information” in claim 1 encompasses an explicit or precise value
representing an unknown disparity value. See Appeal Br. 20;
Spec. 13:22–14:25, 16:20–19:4, Fig. 9.
In Alessandrini’s disparity map, an invalid pixel Pi corresponds
to an unknown disparity value. See Ans. 23–24; Alessandrini ¶ 24, code
(57). In Alessandrini, “processing each line of the map” occurs “pixel by
pixel in a predefined direction,” i.e., from right to left “if the map was
estimated from the left-hand image” or from left to right “if the map was
Appeal 2019-001593
Application 13/635,170

7
estimated from the right-hand image.” Alessandrini ¶¶ 26, 57–58, code (57);
see Ans. 24.
Alessandrini’s Figure 5a (reproduced below) shows this pixel-by-
pixel processing:

Figure 5a is a flowchart of steps for “filling occluded areas in a depth or
disparity map.” Alessandrini ¶¶ 49, 54.
Appeal 2019-001593
Application 13/635,170

8
Alessandrini “assign[s] a value to each invalid pixel Pi encountered
on a current line” in a depth or disparity map. Ans. 24; Alessandrini ¶ 27,
code (57). Alessandrini calls the assigned value Vcal(Pi). Alessandrini
¶¶ 65, 69–71. Alessandrini discloses several ways to obtain Vcal(Pi). Id.
¶¶ 24–27, 54–71, Figs. 5a–5b.
For example, Alessandrini discloses determining two valid pixels on
either side of each invalid pixel Pi: first, determine the last valid pixel P0
preceding Pi on the current line; and second, determine the next valid pixel
P1 following Pi on the current line where pixel P1 has a lesser disparity than
pixel P0. Alessandrini ¶¶ 27, 62–63, code (57), Fig. 5a; see Ans. 24.
Alessandrini also discloses (1) selecting a vicinity of pixels around pixel P1,
e.g., “a block of pixels centered on” pixel P1; (2) calculating the median or
mean disparity value of the pixels in the selected vicinity; and (3) assigning
the calculated disparity value to invalid pixel Pi as Vcal(Pi). Alessandrini
¶¶ 27, 65–68, code (57), Fig. 5a; see Ans. 24.
In Alessandrini, invalid pixel Pi corresponds to the “second sample”
in claim 1, and Vcal(Pi) corresponds to the “second information” in claim 1.
See Final Act. 11–12. Alessandrini determines the “second information”
from the “second sample” according to claim 1 because Alessandrini
determines valid pixels P0 and P1 from invalid pixel Pi and then determines
Vcal(Pi) from disparity values for pixels near pixel P1. Alessandrini ¶¶ 27,
62–68, code (57), Fig. 5a; see Final Act. 11–12; Ans. 23–24.
Also, because pixel P1 has a lesser disparity than pixel P0 and
because disparity values for pixels near pixel P1 determine Vcal(Pi),
Vcal(Pi) indicates that invalid pixel Pi is either “(3) less than a disparity
value at a location to the left” if pixel processing occurs from left to right or
Appeal 2019-001593
Application 13/635,170

9
“(4) less than a disparity value at a location to the right” if pixel processing
occurs from right to left. See Ans. 23–24; Alessandrini ¶¶ 24–27, 62–68,
code (57), Fig. 5a. As the Examiner reasons in the Answer, “there is a
determination [in Alessandrini] of an additional information with regards to
the invalid pixel (or unknown disparity value) that indicates whether the
disparity value is less or more than a disparity value at a location to the left.”
Ans. 24. We note that Appellant did not file a Reply Brief to refute the
Examiner’s reasoning in the Answer.
For the reasons discussed above, Alessandrini teaches or suggests
claim 1’s second “determining” limitation.
Claim 1: Combining the Teachings of the References
Appellant argues that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 because,
assuming “that Barenbrug teaches assigning additional information to pixels
or samples, the additional information is added to pixels/samples of an
image having a known or valid disparity value.” Appeal Br. 17. Appellant
asserts that “[a]pplying the teachings of Barenbrug to Smit and/or
Alessandrini would lead the skilled person in the art to analyze the
distribution of the disparity information of the pixels/samples” with
“a known/valid disparity value” and not analyze pixels/samples with an
unknown/invalid disparity value. Id. In addition, Appellant contends that
“[c]ombining the teachings of Smit, Alessandrini and Barenbrug would at
best lead the skilled person in the art to provide additional information to
the valid pixels and clearly not to the invalid pixels as recited in claim 1.”
Id. at 17–18.
Appellant’s arguments do not persuade us of Examiner error because
Barenbrug’s assigning additional information to pixels or samples accords
Appeal 2019-001593
Application 13/635,170

10
with Alessandrini’s assigning a value to an invalid pixel. See Final Act.
13–14; Ans. 25–26; Barenbrug 6:20–7:14, 8:23–10:15, Fig. 1A. As
discussed above, Alessandrini assigns a value Vcal(Pi) to each invalid
pixel Pi. See Ans. 23–24; Alessandrini ¶¶ 26–27, 62–66, Fig. 5a. After an
invalid pixel Pi receives a value Vcal(Pi), the value Vcal(Pi) functions like
a known/valid disparity value analyzable according to Barenbrug’s
teachings. See Final Act. 13–14; Ans. 25–26.
Summary for Claim 1
For the reasons discussed above, Appellant’s arguments have not
persuaded us that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 for obviousness
based on Smit, Alessandrini, and Barenbrug. In our view, the claimed
subject matter exemplifies the principle that “[t]he combination of familiar
elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does
no more than yield predictable results.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007). Thus, we sustain the § 103(a) rejection of
claim 1.
Independent Claims 13, 17, 20, and 21
and Dependent Claims 5, 8–11, and 23–28
Appellant does not argue patentability separately for independent
claims 13, 17, 20, and 21 or dependent claims 5, 8–11, and 23–28. See
Appeal Br. 12–18. Thus, we sustain the § 103(a) rejection of these claims
for the same reasons as claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
CONCLUSION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 5, 8–11, 13, 17,
20, 21, and 23–28.
Appeal 2019-001593
Application 13/635,170

11
In summary:
Claims
Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 5, 8–11,
13, 17, 20,
21, 23–28
103(a) Smit, Alessandrini, Barenbrug
1, 5, 8–11,
13, 17, 20,
21, 23–28

TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
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)(iv).
See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f).
AFFIRMED