Shinobu Hattori et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jun 24, 2020

14497249 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jun. 24, 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.
14/497,249 09/25/2014 Shinobu Hattori T0774.70032US00 8711
23628 7590 06/24/2020
WOLF GREENFIELD & SACKS, P.C.
600 ATLANTIC AVENUE
BOSTON, MA 02210-2206
EXAMINER
AN, SHAWN S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2483
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/24/2020 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):
Patents_eOfficeAction@WolfGreenfield.com
WGS_eOfficeAction@WolfGreenfield.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte SHINOBU HATTORI and TOSHIYA HAMADA
____________________

Appeal 2018-008389
Application 14/497,249
Technology Center 2400
____________________

Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, DAVID M. KOHUT, and
JON M. JURGOVAN, Administrative Patent Judges.

DIXON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 21–27 and 34–46. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
The claims are directed to an image processing device and method
that “can accurately reproduce a dynamic range of an image” using dynamic
range characteristics information including a “value of the maximum white
level . . . which is assigned to a developed image, and is set as

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant(s)” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42. The real parties in interest are Saturn Licensing LLC, Sony
Corporation, Thomson Licensing DTV, and Technicolor USA, Inc. (Appeal
Br. 2.)
Appeal 2018-008389
Application 14/497,249

2
max_white_level_code_value” and a “value of a white level (white 100%)
which is assigned to a developed image, and is set as
white_level_code_value.” (Abstract.)
Independent claim 34, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed
subject matter:
34. At least one non-transitory computer readable storage
medium having stored thereon computer executable
instructions, which, when executed by at least one processor,
perform an image processing method, the method comprising:
decoding image data encoded in compliance with HEVC
to produce decoded image data;
receiving dynamic range characteristic information
associated with the encoded image data, the dynamic range
characteristic information including camera iso sensitivity
information indicating, as a percentage relative to a reference
white level, a dynamic range of luminance of the encoded
image data, wherein the percentage is greater than 100%, the
dynamic range characteristic information indicating camera
sensitivity at the time of capturing of an image, the maximum
image white level information also including reference screen
luminance information indicating a reference screen white level
setting of the encoded image data, the reference screen white
level setting being used for an image production process and
having units of candela per square meter; and
adjusting a dynamic range of the decoded image data
based upon the dynamic range characteristic information,
wherein the dynamic range characteristic information is
tone mapping information defined in HEVC.
(Appeal Br. 12–16 (Claims Appendix).)

Appeal 2018-008389
Application 14/497,249

3
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Kamon US 2008/0251695 A1 Oct. 16, 2008
(“Kamon”)

Yamashita et al. US 2008/0259181 A1 Oct. 23, 2008
(“Yamashita”)

Kobiki et al. US 2012/0169796 A1 July 5, 2012
(“Kobiki”)

Knibbeler et al. US 2014/0210847 A1 July 31, 2014
(“Knibbeler”)
REJECTION
The Examiner made the following rejection:
Claims 21–27 and 34–46 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Knibbeler, Kobiki, Yamashita, and Kamon. (Final
Act. 3–8.)
ANALYSIS
With respect to independent claims 21, 34, and 41, Appellant argues
the claims together. (See Appeal Br. 4, 7; Reply Br. 2.) Based on
Appellant’s arguments and our discretion under 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv),
we select independent claim 34 as the representative claim for the group and
will address Appellant’s arguments presented in both Appeal Brief and
Reply Brief. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2017). Dependent claims 22–
27, 35–40, and 42–46 stand or fall with representative claim 34. See
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
Appellant contends the independent claims are not rendered obvious
because (i) “the cited art does not disclose dynamic range characteristic
Appeal 2018-008389
Application 14/497,249

4
information being tone mapping information defined in HEVC,” and
Knibbeler, in particular, “does not teach or suggest that either the maximum
image white level information or the reference screen luminance information
are included in tone mapping information defined in HEVC.” (Appeal Br.
7–8 (capitalization altered) (emphasis omitted); see also Reply Br. 2.)
Appellant further argues the cited art does not teach or suggest
(ii) “reference screen luminance information indicating a reference screen
white level setting of the encoded image data,” (iii) “information indicating,
as a percentage relative to a reference white level, a dynamic range of
luminance of the encoded image data, wherein the percentage is greater than
100%,” and (iv) “camera iso sensitivity information indicating, as a
percentage relative to a reference white level, a dynamic range of luminance
of the encoded image data, wherein the percentage is greater than 100%,” as
claimed (e.g., in claim 34). (Appeal Br. 8–10 (capitalization altered); see
also Reply Br. 2–5.) In particular, Appellant argues with respect to issue
(ii) that “Kobiki’s reference screen luminance [(brightness level chosen at
the display)] is a characteristic of the display selected to compensate for
brightness of ambient light” that “is completely independent of any encoded
image data that is received.” (Appeal Br. 8; see also Reply Br. 2–4.) With
respect to issue (iii), Appellant argues “Yamashita does not disclose [that]
the image data for which the dynamic range is increased to 1200% at the
intermediate step is encoded” and “[t]here is no reason provided in the
record to encode the image data until the processing performed by the signal
processing unit [of Yamashita] . . . is completed.” (Appeal Br. 8–9; see also
Reply Br. 4–5.) And, with respect to issue (iv), Appellant argues Kamon’s
ISO sensitivity is not “camera iso sensitivity information indicating, as a
Appeal 2018-008389
Application 14/497,249

5
percentage relative to a reference white level a dynamic range of luminance
of the encoded image data, much less that the percentage is greater than
100%,” as claimed. (Appeal Br. 9–10; see also Reply Br. 5.)
Appellant’s arguments do not persuade us of error in the Examiner’s
rejection, for the reasons described below.
Representative claim 34 recites the performance of an image
processing method comprising “adjusting a dynamic range of the decoded
image data based upon the dynamic range characteristic information
[associated with the encoded image data]” with “the dynamic range
characteristic information . . . [being] tone mapping information defined in
HEVC.” (See Appeal Br. 13–14 (claim 34).) We agree with the Examiner
that Knibbeler teaches and suggests these claim limitations. (Final Act. 3
(citing Knibbeler ¶¶ 16, 86, 96–97, 108, 121–134, 359, 388, Figs. 2–3);
Ans. 8–9.) In particular, Knibbeler teaches
[a] dynamic range transform being performed in the image
processing device 103 but being based on information received
preferably both from the content provider apparatus 101 and the
display 107. In this way, the dynamic range transform
(specifically a tone mapping algorithm) can be adapted to
consider the characteristics of the tone mapping that was
performed in the content provider apparatus 101 and to the
specific luminance range of the display 107. Specifically, the
tone mapping performed at the image processing device 103 can
be dependent on the target display for which the tone mapping is
performed at the content generation side.
. . .
For example, for a relatively low complexity system, the content
provider apparatus 101 may simply transmit an indication of the
white point luminance of the target display for each the encoded
image (video) that has been encoded. E.g., data may be
communicated that indicates the number of nits available at the
target display. The dynamic range transform can then adapt the
Appeal 2018-008389
Application 14/497,249

6
transformation based on the number of nits [(candela per square
meter)]. For example, if the image processing device 103 is
performing a dynamic range transform to generate an output
image for a 2000 nits display, the knowledge of whether the input
image is tone mapped to a display of 500 nits or one of 1000 bits
can be used to optimize the dynamic range transform performed
at the image processing device 103.
(See Knibbeler ¶¶ 121, 123 (emphases added).)2 Appellant argues although
Knibbeler mentions HEVC in paragraph 388, “paragraph 388 . . . does not
disclose the dynamic range characteristic information is tone mapping
information defined in HEVC,” while “paragraph 121 [describing tone
mapping] of Knibbeler makes no mention of HEVC,” and thus, “Knibbeler
does not teach or suggest the dynamic range characteristic information is
tone mapping information defined in HEVC,” as claimed. (Reply Br. 2;
Appeal Br. 7.) Appellant’s argument is not persuasive because Knibbeler’s
paragraph 388 provides that image data may be encoded in accordance with
the HEVC encoding technique, and it would have been known to the skilled

2 We additionally note, it appears the Examiner did not appreciate the
totality of the teachings of Knibbeler including Knibbeler’s description of a
target display reference indicative of a dynamic range of a target display for
which the encoded image is encoded—teaching and suggesting claim 34’s
reference screen luminance information (Knibbeler’s target display reference
information) indicating a reference screen white level setting of the encoded
image data, the reference screen white level setting having units of candela
per square meter. (See Knibbeler ¶¶ 109 (“The image signal furthermore
comprises a target display reference which is indicative of a dynamic
range of a target display for which the first encoded image is encoded,”
where “the target display reference provides a reference for the encoded
image which reflects the dynamic range for which the received image has
been constructed”), 122–124 (“The target display reference may specifically
include or be a white point luminance of the target display.”).)
Appeal 2018-008389
Application 14/497,249

7
artisan that HEVC encoding may provide tone mapping information.3 In
addition, Knibbeler teaches that dynamic range information may be part of
tone mapping information. (See Knibbeler ¶¶ 32–33, 121–123.)
Additionally, Appellant’s arguments, that the cited art does not teach
dynamic range characteristic information including maximum image white
level information, reference screen luminance information, and camera iso
sensitivity information (see Appeal Br. 7–10, Reply Br. 2–5), do not show
error in the Examiner’s rejection of the three process steps recited in claim
34. Particularly, Appellant’s arguments do not show error in the Examiner’s
rejection because the different types of “information”—i.e., “camera iso
sensitivity information indicating, as a percentage relative to a reference
white level, a dynamic range of luminance of the encoded image data,
wherein the percentage is greater than 100%,” “camera sensitivity at the
time of capturing of an image,” and “maximum image white level
information” including “reference screen luminance information indicating a
reference screen white level setting of the encoded image data, the reference
screen white level setting being used for an image production process and
having units of candela per square meter” recited in claim 34—are simply
different types of received data that does not reconfigure the claimed
“receiving” and “adjusting” steps to perform different functions than those
disclosed in the prior art. For example, Kamon teaches it is well-known to

3 For example, Appellant’s Specification explains that tone mapping
information may be conventionally provided by HEVC encoding. (See Spec.
¶¶ 4–5 (“In a draft of HEVC at a current point of time, tone mapping
information is transmitted in SEI (Supplemental Enhancement Information).
. . . Content of this tone mapping information is the same as that
standardized in AVC.”).)
Appeal 2018-008389
Application 14/497,249

8
inspect information such as “camera iso sensitivity,” and Knibbeler teaches
“receiving dynamic range characteristic information” and “adjusting a
dynamic range of the decoded image data based upon the dynamic range
characteristic information,” as recited in claim 34. (See Knibbeler ¶¶ 16,
96–97, 121–134; Kamon ¶¶ 5–8, 51, 54–55; Final Act. 3–5.)
The different types of information received in claim 34 (i.e., “camera
iso sensitivity information indicating, as a percentage relative to a reference
white level, a dynamic range of luminance of the encoded image data,” a
“percentage [that] is greater than 100%,” “camera sensitivity at the time of
capturing of an image,” “maximum image white level information,” and
“reference screen luminance information indicating a reference screen white
level setting of the encoded image data”) are not being used by Appellant’s
claimed method to adjust a dynamic range and, as such, the different types of
information are not functionally related to Appellant’s claimed dynamic
range adjustment. (See Appeal Br. 13–14 (claim 34).) These different types
of information are considered nonfunctional descriptive material and, as
such, do not distinguish Appellant’s claimed invention relative to the
dynamic range transformation disclosed by Knibbeler. See In re Gulack,
703 F.2d 1381, 1385 (Fed. Cir. 1983); In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579 (Fed. Cir.
1994); In re Ngai, 367 F.3d 1336, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2004).4

4 Relevant case law and our precedential decisions on the appropriate
handling of claims that differ from the prior art only based on
“nonfunctional descriptive material” include: (1) Ex parte Nehls, 88
USPQ2d 1883, 1889 (BPAI 2008) (precedential) (“[T]he nature of the
information being manipulated does not lend patentability to an otherwise
unpatentable computer-implemented product or process.”); (2) Ex parte
Mathias, 84 USPQ2d 1276, 1279 (BPAI 2005) (informative)
(“[N]onfunctional descriptive material cannot lend patentability to an
Appeal 2018-008389
Application 14/497,249

9
These different types of information are nonfunctional descriptive
material in the claimed invention because this information does not
reconfigure the receiving and dynamic range adjusting steps to perform a
different function than that disclosed in the prior art of Knibbeler. More
particularly, claim 34 does not indicate how the “camera iso sensitivity
information,” “percentage [that] is greater than 100%,” “camera sensitivity
at the time of capturing of an image,” “maximum image white level
information,” and “reference screen luminance information indicating a
reference screen white level setting of the encoded image data” are being
used to perform any particular claimed step or function. (See Appeal Br.
13–14 (claim 34).) For example, the claimed “adjusting a dynamic range of
the decoded image data based upon the dynamic range characteristic
information” does not indicate how the dynamic range adjustment would be
influenced by the camera iso sensitivity information, percentage greater
than 100%, camera sensitivity at the time of image capturing, maximum
image white level information, or reference screen luminance information
indicating a reference screen white level setting of the encoded image data.
(See Appeal Br. 13–14 (claim 34).) Claim 34 requires adjusting the decoded
image data’s dynamic range based upon the dynamic range characteristic
information, but the claim does not require particularly using the camera iso
sensitivity information, percentage greater than 100%, camera capturing

invention that would have otherwise been anticipated by the prior art.”),
aff’d, 191 Fed. Appx. 959 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (Rule 36); and, (3) Ex parte
Curry, 84 USPQ2d 1272, 1274 (BPAI 2005) (informative) (“Nonfunctional
descriptive material cannot render nonobvious an invention that would have
otherwise been obvious.”), aff’d, No. 06-1003 (Fed. Cir. June 12, 2006)
(Rule 36).
Appeal 2018-008389
Application 14/497,249

10
sensitivity, maximum image white level information, or reference screen
luminance information when adjusting the decoded image data’s dynamic
range. Claim 34 also does not evidence a functional difference in receiving
the claimed camera iso sensitivity information, percentage greater than
100%, camera capturing sensitivity, maximum image white level
information, and reference screen luminance information in dynamic range
characteristic information, versus receiving only conventional tone mapping
information5 in the dynamic range characteristic information. The specific
types of information (i.e., camera iso sensitivity information, percentage
greater than 100%, camera capturing sensitivity, maximum image white
level information, and reference screen luminance information) recited in
claim 34 do not depend on the claimed dynamic range adjustment, and the
dynamic range adjustment does not depend on the nature of the specific
types of information claimed.
Therefore, because the claimed informational content (of camera iso
sensitivity information, percentage greater than 100%, camera sensitivity at
the time of image capturing, maximum image white level information, and
reference screen luminance information) is not positively recited as being
used to change or affect the steps of the method in claim 34 within the broad
scope of Appellant’s claim, such informational content is nonfunctional
descriptive material, entitled to no weight in the patentability analysis
because Appellant has not shown that the claimed information changes the
three steps/functions recited in independent claim 34.

5 For example, Appellant’s Specification explains that tone mapping
information may be conventionally provided through HEVC encoding (see
Spec. ¶¶ 4–5), and Knibbeler describes tone mapping information being used
as dynamic range information (see Knibbeler ¶¶ 121, 123–124).
Appeal 2018-008389
Application 14/497,249

11
Thus, Appellant has not shown error in the Examiner’s rejection of the
steps recited in claim 34 and in the Examiner’s factual findings or
conclusion of obviousness based upon the teachings and suggestions of
Knibbeler in combination with Kobiki, Yamashita, and Kamon.
Alternatively, we find that Appellant’s claimed informational content
of camera iso sensitivity information, percentage greater than 100%, camera
capturing sensitivity, maximum image white level information, and
reference screen luminance information in the dynamic range characteristic
information is entitled to no weight in the patentability analysis. Therefore,
the information listed above does not distinguish Appellant’s image
processing steps from the image processing performed by the prior art of
Knibbeler. As a result, we agree with the Examiner that the Examiner’s
cited art is sufficient to support a prima facie obviousness rejection of claim
34.
Appellant’s Briefs have not shown error in the Examiner’s rejection of
the steps recited in claim 34. Thus, we sustain the Examiner’s decision in
rejecting representative independent claim 34, grouped independent claims
21 and 41,6 and grouped dependent claims 22–27, 35–40, and 42–46 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

6 In the event of any further prosecution, the Examiner should consider
whether independent claim 41 (reciting a “non-transitory computer readable
storage medium having stored thereon image data encoded in compliance
with HEVC and dynamic range characteristic information associated with
the encoded image data”) is directed to machine-readable media (e.g., disk
or other memory) merely serving as a support for information. Such a claim
is directed toward conveying meaning to the human reader rather than
towards establishing a functional relationship between the recorded data on
the disk, and a computer/processor. See In re Ngai, 367 F.3d at 1339
(“[w]here the printed matter is not functionally related to the substrate, the
Appeal 2018-008389
Application 14/497,249

12
CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 21–27 and 34–46 based
upon obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
DECISION
For the above reasons, we AFFIRM the Examiner’s obviousness
rejections of claims 21–27 and 34–46 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.§ Basis Affirmed Reversed
21–27, 34–46 103(a) Knibbeler, Kobiki,
Yamashita, Kamon
21–27,
34–46

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).

AFFIRMED

printed matter will not distinguish the invention from the prior art in terms of
patentability” (quoting In re Gulack, 703 F.2d at 1385)).