Sony Corporation

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jul 9, 2020

14601358 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jul. 9, 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.
14/601,358 01/21/2015 Shinobu Hattori T0774.70032US01 2481
23628 7590 07/09/2020
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
07/09/2020 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 2019-001020
Application 14/601,358
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 1–19. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
The claims are directed to image processing devices 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 2019-001020
Application 14/601,358

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 claims 1 and 14, reproduced below, are illustrative of the
claimed subject matter:
1. An image processing device, comprising:
at least one processor configured to:
encode image data in compliance with HEVC to
produce encoded image data; and
provide dynamic range characteristic information
associated with the 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 camera iso sensitivity information indicating
camera sensitivity at the time of capturing of an
image,
wherein the dynamic range characteristic information is
tone mapping information defined in HEVC.

14. An image processing device, comprising:
at least one processor configured to:
encode image data to produce encoded image data;
and
provide, when a flag indicating presence/absence
of dynamic range characteristic information associated
with the image data indicates the presence of dynamic
range characteristic information, the dynamic range
characteristic information including maximum image
white level information indicating, relative to a white
level created assuming a white content in units of cd/m2,
Appeal 2019-001020
Application 14/601,358

3
a dynamic range of luminance of the image data and
reference display information indicating a reference
display luminance of a white level.

(Appeal Br. 13–16 (Claims App.).)

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”)

Segall et al. US 8,194,997 B2 June 5, 2012
(“Segall”)

Knibbeler et al. US 2014/0210847 A1 July 31, 2014
(“Knibbeler”)

Nystad et al. US 9,626,730 B2 Apr. 18, 2017
(“Nystad”)
REJECTIONS
The Examiner made the following rejections:
Claims 7–11 and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being
anticipated by Knibbeler. (Final Act. 4–5.)
Claims 1–6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Knibbeler in view of Yamashita and Kamon. (Final Act.
6 (citing Non-Final Action (“Non-Final Act.”) mailed July 13, 2017).)
Claim 12 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Knibbeler in view of Segall. (Final Act. 6.)
Appeal 2019-001020
Application 14/601,358

4
Claims 14–17 and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Knibbeler in view of Nystad. (Final Act. 7–8.)
Claim 18 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Knibbeler in view of Nystad and Segall. (Final Act. 8–9.)

ANALYSIS
§ 102 Rejection of Claims 7–11 and 13, and
§ 103 Rejection of Claim 12

Appellant contends the Examiner erred in finding Knibbeler discloses
all the limitations of independent claim 7. (Appeal Br. 8–9; Reply Br. 4–5.)
Specifically, Appellant contends “Knibbeler does not disclose at least one
processor configured to provide dynamic range characteristic information
including both white level code value information identifying a luminance
code value of a white level of the encoded image data, and maximum white
level code value information of the encoded image data.” (Appeal Br. 9.)
More particularly, Appellant asserts:
the Examiner’s Answer cites to the white point luminance or
maximum luminance of Knibbeler. However, paragraph 16 of
Knibbeler makes clear that white point luminance and maximum
luminance are different terms to refer to the same quantity2. . . .
Since white point luminance and maximum luminance are the
same quantity, such a single quantity does not meet the claim
limitation of providing both white level code value information
and maximum white level code value information.

2 Indeed, as recognized by Appellant, the white point luminance and
maximum luminance in Knibbeler refer to the same thing, i.e., to “the
highest light output value, also referred to as the white point, white point
luminance, white luminance or maximum luminance.” (See Knibbeler ¶ 16.)
Appeal 2019-001020
Application 14/601,358

5
(Reply Br. 4–5; see also Appeal Br. 9.) Appellant acknowledges that
“Knibbeler describe[s] a luminance white point of 1000–2000 nits, and a
display capable of a maximum luminance white point of 500 nits,” but
argues that—contrary to Examiner’s position that Knibbeler’s “maximum
white point of the display is ‘maximum white level code value
information’”—the “maximum luminance white point of Knibbeler’s display
is a characteristic of the display, and is not disclosed to be provided in
association with the encoded image data.” (Appeal Br. 9 (emphasis added)
(citing Knibbeler ¶¶ 13–16, 112, 202–203, Fig. 4).) We do not agree.
We agree with the Examiner. (Final Act. 4–5; Ans. 10–11.) In
particular, the Examiner cited (see id.) to Knibbeler’s paragraphs 13, 112,
135–137, and Figure 4, disclosing a maximum output luminance of a
“target display reference.” (See Knibbeler ¶¶ 13, 112, 135–137 (referring to
“the target or reference display used to generate the encoded image or
video”), Fig. 4.) The maximum output luminance of the target display, such
as an HDR (High Dynamic Range) display, may be “a maximum white point
luminance of 2000 nits.” (See Knibbeler ¶ 112.) We agree with the
Examiner that Knibbeler’s maximum white point luminance—such as the
2000 nits associated with an “input encoded image . . . encoded for [the]
HDR display” (see Knibbeler ¶ 112)—discloses the claimed “maximum
white level code value information of the encoded image data.” (Ans. 10–
11.)
We disagree with Appellant that “the maximum luminance white
point of Knibbeler’s display . . . is not disclosed to be provided in
association with the encoded image data” because that white point is merely
“a characteristic of the display.” (Appeal Br. 9 (emphases added).)
Appeal 2019-001020
Application 14/601,358

6
Knibbeler discloses that the “maximum white point luminance of 2000 nits”
of the target HDR display mentioned in paragraph 112 pertains to encoded
image data. (See Knibbeler ¶¶ 112, 122.) For example, Knibbeler discloses
that a “content provider apparatus 101 provides a target display reference to
the image processing device 103 (either separately to or integrated with the
encoded image, i.e. the image signal may be made up of two separate data
communications),” where “[t]he target display reference may specifically
include or be a white point luminance of the target display.” (Id. (emphases
added); see also Knibbeler ¶ 109.) Thus, the maximum white point
luminance of Knibbeler’s target HDR display reference (see ¶ 112) pertains
to encoded image data, disclosing the claimed “maximum white level code
value information of the encoded image data.”
We are also unpersuaded by Appellant’s argument that “Knibbeler
does not disclose at least one processor configured to provide dynamic range
characteristic information including both white level code value information
identifying a luminance code value of a white level of the encoded image
data, and maximum white level code value information of the encoded
image data.” (See Appeal Br. 9.) In addition to the “maximum white level
code value information” discussed supra, Knibbeler’s content provider
apparatus 101 provides encoded HDR image data having high brightness
pixels. (See Knibbeler ¶¶ 92–94 (“HDR images typically contain many pixel
values (of bright image objects) above a scene white. In particular, several
pixels are brighter than two times a scene white.”), 96 (“HDR images have a
maximum luminance (white) point corresponding to more than 500 nits, and
often no less than 1000 nits, [or] 2000 nits”), 114 (“the input image may
itself be an HDR image, such as e.g. a 1000 nits image”), 202–203; Final
Appeal 2019-001020
Application 14/601,358

7
Act. 5 (citing Knibbeler ¶¶ 13–14, 96–97, 112, 135–137, 202–203); Ans. 10
(citing Fig. 3).) For example, high brightness HDR pixels may belong to an
“input encoded image . . . which is encoded for a HDR display with a
maximum white point luminance of 2000 nits.” (See Knibbeler ¶ 112.) The
“maximum luminance (white) point” of Knibbeler’s encoded HDR image
(see ¶ 96) discloses the claimed “white level code value information
identifying a luminance code value of a white level of the encoded image
data,” wherein “the maximum white level code value information is greater
than or equal to the white level code value information,” as recited in claim
7.
Thus, for the above reasons, we sustain the Examiner’s anticipation
rejection of independent claim 7, and dependent claims 8–11 and 13, argued
for their dependency on claim 7. (App. Br. 9.)
Appellant has not set forth separate arguments for patentability of
dependent claim 12. (Id.) As a result, we also sustain the Examiner’s
obviousness rejection of dependent claim 12 (argued for its dependency on
claim 7) for similar reasoning. (Id.)

§ 103 Rejection of Claims 1–6
Appellant contends independent claim 1 is not rendered obvious
because (i) “the cited art does not disclose dynamic range characteristic
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. 6–7 (capitalization altered) (emphasis omitted); see also Reply Br. 2.)
Appeal 2019-001020
Application 14/601,358

8
Appellant further argues the cited art does not teach or suggest
(ii) “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 (iii) “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. (Appeal Br. 7–8
(capitalization altered) (emphasis omitted); see also Reply Br. 3–4.) In
particular, Appellant argues with respect to issue (ii) that “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. 7–8; see also Reply Br. 3.) And, with respect to issue (iii),
Appellant argues Kamon’s ISO sensitivity is not “camera iso sensitivity
information indicating, as a 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. 8; see also Reply
Br. 4.) Appellant additionally argues that the Examiner’s combination of
Knibbeler, Yamashita, and Kamon is improper because “Yamashita and
Kamon teach away from one another in regards to whether to modify the
dynamic range.” (Appeal Br. 10–11; see also Reply Br. 6–7.)
Appellant’s arguments do not persuade us of error in the Examiner’s
rejection, for the reasons described below.
Claim 1 recites at least one processor configured to “encode image
data in compliance with HEVC to produce encoded image data” and
Appeal 2019-001020
Application 14/601,358

9
“provide dynamic range characteristic information associated with the image
data,” with “the dynamic range characteristic information . . . [being] tone
mapping information defined in HEVC.” (See Appeal Br. 13 (claim 1).)
We agree with the Examiner that Knibbeler teaches and suggests these claim
limitations. (Final Act. 6; Non-Final Act. 4–5 (citing Knibbeler ¶¶ 16–17,
24–26, 84, 96–97, 112, 121–134, 388, Figs. 2–4); Ans. 9–10.) 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
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
[sic] can be used to optimize the dynamic range transform
performed at the image processing device 103.

(See Knibbeler ¶¶ 121, 123 (emphases added).) Appellant argues although
Knibbeler mentions HEVC in paragraph 388, “paragraph 388 does not
Appeal 2019-001020
Application 14/601,358

10
disclose the dynamic range characteristic information is tone mapping
information defined in HEVC,” and “Knibbeler does not teach or suggest the
dynamic range characteristic information is tone mapping information
defined in HEVC,” as claimed.3 (Reply Br. 2; Appeal Br. 6–7.) 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 artisan that HEVC
encoding may provide tone mapping information.4 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 camera iso sensitivity
information indicating, as an over 100% percentage relative to a reference
white level, a dynamic range of luminance of the encoded image data (see
Appeal Br. 7–8, Reply Br. 3–4), do not show error in the Examiner’s
rejection of the processor’s operational steps recited in claim 1. Particularly,
Appellant’s arguments do not show error in the Examiner’s rejection
because the types of “information”—i.e., “camera iso sensitivity,”
“percentage relative to a reference white level,” and “camera iso sensitivity

3 We note Appellant also argues “reference screen luminance information”
with respect to claim 1 (see Appeal Br. 7), however, claim 1 recites “a
reference white level” but does not expressly recite a “reference screen
luminance information.”
4 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 2019-001020
Application 14/601,358

11
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%” recited in claim 1—are simply types of
supplied data that does not reconfigure the processor’s claimed “encoding”
to perform a particular function. Additionally, Kamon teaches it was well-
known to inspect information such as “camera iso sensitivity,” and
Knibbeler teaches a processor “provid[ing] dynamic range characteristic
information associated with the image data,” as recited in claim 1. (See
Knibbeler ¶¶ 16, 96–97, 121–134; Kamon ¶¶ 5–8, 51, 54–55; Non-Final
Act. 4–5.)
The type of information provided in claim 1 (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%”) is not being used by
Appellant’s claimed processor to encode image data and produce encoded
image data and, as such, the type of information is not functionally related to
Appellant’s claimed processor and its encoding. (See Appeal Br. 13 (claim
1).) The information is considered nonfunctional descriptive material and,
as such, does not distinguish Appellant’s claimed invention relative to the
encoding and dynamic range transform 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).5

5 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
Appeal 2019-001020
Application 14/601,358

12
The recited information is nonfunctional descriptive material in the
claimed invention because this information does not reconfigure the
processor’s encoding to perform a particular function. More particularly,
claim 1 does not indicate how the “camera iso sensitivity information
indicating, as a percentage [greater than 100%] relative to a reference white
level, a dynamic range of luminance of the encoded image data” is being
used by the processor to perform any particular claimed function. (See
Appeal Br. 13 (claim 1).) For example, the claimed “encode image data in
compliance with HEVC to produce encoded image data” does not indicate
how the encoding would be influenced by the camera iso sensitivity
information indicating, as an over 100% percentage, a dynamic range of
luminance of the encoded image data. (See id.) Claim 1 does not specify
that image data would be encoded differently (or how might it be encoded
differently) based on provided camera iso sensitivity information. Claim 1
requires image data to be encoded in compliance with HEVC to produce
encoded image data, but the claim does not require particularly using
dynamic range characteristic information including camera iso sensitivity
information or an over 100% dynamic range of luminance when encoding
the image data. Claim 1 also does not evidence a functional difference in

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
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 2019-001020
Application 14/601,358

13
providing the claimed camera iso sensitivity information, percentage
relative to a reference white level, and over 100% dynamic range of
luminance in dynamic range characteristic information, versus providing
only conventional tone mapping information6 in the dynamic range
characteristic information. The specific type of information (i.e., camera iso
sensitivity information, percentage relative to a reference white level, and
over 100% dynamic range of luminance) recited in claim 1 does not depend
on the claimed encoding, and the encoding does not depend on the nature of
the specific type of information claimed.
Therefore, because the claimed informational content (of dynamic
range characteristic information including camera iso sensitivity information
indicating, as an over 100% percentage, a dynamic range of luminance of
the encoded image data) is not positively recited as being used to change or
affect the processor’s image data encoding within the broad scope of
Appellant’s claim 1, 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 functional operation
recited in independent claim 1.
We are also unpersuaded by Appellant’s argument that the
Examiner’s combination of Knibbeler, Yamashita, and Kamon is improper
because “Yamashita and Kamon teach away from one another in regards to
whether to modify the dynamic range.” (Appeal Br. 10–11 (“Kamon states a
desire to avoid changing the dynamic range, yet it is unclear how this can be

6 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 2019-001020
Application 14/601,358

14
accomplished while increasing the dynamic range to greater than 100%, as
described in Yamashita”); see also Reply Br. 6–7.) Kamon has been
employed by the Examiner to show that it was known to provide camera iso
sensitivity information indicating the camera’s capturing sensitivity. (See
Non-Final Act. 5.) Appellant has not provided evidence to show that
Yamashita or Knibbeler discourage provision of such camera iso sensitivity
information, or that Kamon discourages provision of a dynamic luminance
range expressed as an over 100 percentage.
Thus, Appellant has not shown error in the Examiner’s rejection of
claim 1 and in the Examiner’s factual findings or conclusion of obviousness
based upon the teachings and suggestions of Knibbeler in combination with
Yamashita and Kamon.
Alternatively, we find that Appellant’s claimed informational content
(of camera iso sensitivity information indicating, as an over 100%
percentage relative to a reference white level, a dynamic range of luminance
of the encoded image data 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
device from the image processing device described in 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
1.
Appellant’s Briefs have not shown error in the Examiner’s § 103(a)
rejection of claim 1. Thus, we sustain the Examiner’s decision in rejecting
independent claim 1, and dependent claims 2–6 argued for their dependency
on claim 1. (Appeal Br. 8.)
Appeal 2019-001020
Application 14/601,358

15

§ 103 Rejections of Claims 14–19
With respect to independent claim 14, Appellant contends “Nystad
does not disclose at least one processor configured to provide dynamic range
characteristic information including maximum image white level
information and reference display information when the Dynamic Range
flag [of Nystad] indicates presence of dynamic range characteristic
information.” (Appeal Br. 10.) Appellant argues “Nystad’s Dynamic Range
flag simply is used to indicate whether color components are stored as
integer values or floating point values” but “[Nystad’s flag] does not indicate
presence of such dynamic range characteristic information” as claimed. (Id.
(emphasis added).) That is, “Nystad does not describe providing the
dynamic range characteristic information recited in claim 14 when the flag
indicates the presence of dynamic range characteristic information,” and
“Examiner’s Answer does not identify disclosure in either Knibbeler or
Nystad of providing dynamic range characteristic information when a flag
indicates the presence of such information.” (Appeal Br. 10; Reply Br. 6.)
Appellant further asserts that “incorporating Nystad’s flag into Knibbeler
does not result in a flag that indicates something entirely different from what
it indicates in Nystad,” as “indicating the presence/absence of such dynamic
range characteristic information by a flag is not contemplated by any of the
art of record.” (Reply Br. 6.) We do not agree.
We agree with the Examiner. (Final Act. 7; Ans. 11–12.) Particularly,
we agree with the Examiner that Nystad teaches “an apparatus for
encoding/decoding data comprising a flag (Dynamic Range flag) indicating
presence/absence of dynamic range characteristic information . . . so that
Appeal 2019-001020
Application 14/601,358

16
the corresponding format, such as LDR (low dynamic range) or HDR (high
dynamic range), of the blocks of data can be stored.” (Ans. 11 (citing
Nystad 56:23–56).) As the Examiner further asserts, it would have been
obvious to a skilled artisan to “incorporate/combine Nystad et al’s teaching
. . . so that the processor [of Knibbeler] provides dynamic range
characteristic information including maximum image white level
information and reference display information when the Dynamic Range
flag indicates the presence of dynamic range characteristic information”
(such as presence of an HDR range). (Ans. 11–12.)
We are unpersuaded by Appellant’s argument that “indicating the
presence/absence of such dynamic range characteristic information by a flag
is not contemplated by any of the art of record.” (See Reply Br. 6.)
Although Nystad’s Dynamic Range flag described at column 56 “indicates
the format in which the block color is stored” (e.g., “0 indicates LDR colors,
in which case the color components are stored as normalized 16-bit integer
values” and “1 indicates HDR color, in which case the color components are
stored as FP16 values,” see 56:23–29), Nystad does not limit the use of flags
to color components. Rather, Nystad’s disclosure contemplates the use of
flags for luminance components. (See Nystad 36:6–14, 64:35–45.) In
particular, Nystad explains that a “‘block-type’ indicator, such as a flag” is
“data indicating that the encoded texture data7 block specifies a region
within the texture in which every texture data element should be decoded to
the same data value,” where “types of texture data supported” include “LDR

7 Nystad’s “texture elements or ‘texels’[] each represent[] given texture data
(such as colour, luminance, and/or light/shadow, etc. values).” (Nystad
1:25–27.)
Appeal 2019-001020
Application 14/601,358

17
vs HDR.” (See Nystad 3:10–16 (emphases added), 38:24–26; see also
25:45–49, 56:26–55 (referring to “HDR color”), 50:47 (referring to “HDR
Luminance”).) Nystad provides that its encoding technology described with
respect to colors is equally applicable to other types of texture data, such as
luminance:
Although the above embodiment has been described with
reference to texture data in the form of colours, as discussed
above, and as will be appreciated by those skilled in the art, the
technology described herein is also applicable to other forms
of texture data, such as luminance-maps or bump-maps, etc.,
and to other, non-texture data. In such arrangements the data
can be encoded or decoded in an advantageous manner, but each
data value will, e.g., represent a luminance value or normal
vector, etc., rather than a colour.

(See Nystad 64:35–45 (emphases added); see also 36:6–14.) Thus, we agree
with the Examiner that a skilled artisan would have recognized that Nystad’s
flag can be applied to dynamic range information pertaining to luminance
(described in Knibbeler), to indicate a type (such as HDR type) of texture
data (luminance). (Ans. 12; Final Act. 7; see Nystad 38:24–26.) As the
Examiner explains, the skilled artisan would recognize a benefit is provided
by using a flag in Knibbeler. (Final Act. 7 (“so that the corresponding
format, such as LDR (low dynamic range) or HDR (high dynamic range), of
the blocks of data can be stored”).
We are also not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that “Nystad does
not disclose at least one processor configured to provide dynamic range
characteristic information including maximum image white level
information and reference display information when the Dynamic Range
flag indicates presence of dynamic range characteristic information.” (See
Appeal 2019-001020
Application 14/601,358

18
Appeal Br. 10.) This argument does not address the Examiner’s findings
and reasoned rationale (discussed supra) as to the combined teachings of
Nystad’s flag and Knibbeler’s dynamic range information (including
maximum image white level information and reference display information).
(See Final Act. 7.)
Thus, for the above reasons, we sustain the Examiner’s § 103(a)
rejection of independent claim 14, and dependent claims 15–19, argued for
their dependency on claim 14. (App. Br. 10.)

CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 7–11 and 13 as
anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1–6, 12, and 14–19 based
upon obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

DECISION
For the above reasons, we AFFIRM the Examiner’s anticipation
rejection of claims 7–11 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e), and we AFFIRM
the Examiner’s obviousness rejections of claims 1–6, 12, and 14–19 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.§ Basis Affirmed Reversed
7–11, 13 102(e) Knibbeler 7–11, 13
1–6 103(a) Knibbeler,
Yamashita, Kamon
1–6
12 103(a) Knibbeler, Segall 12
14–17, 19 103(a) Knibbeler, Nystad 14–17, 19
Appeal 2019-001020
Application 14/601,358

19
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.§ Basis Affirmed Reversed
18 103(a) Knibbeler, Nystad,
Segall
18
Overall Outcome 1–19

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