Adeel Abbas et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Oct 23, 2019

15259512 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Oct. 23, 2019)

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.
15/259,512 09/08/2016 Adeel Abbas GPRO.011A-T1 5531
142583 7590 10/23/2019
GAZDZINSKI & ASSOCIATES, PC
16644 WEST BERNARDO DRIVE, SUITE 201
SAN DIEGO, CA 92127
EXAMINER
HALLENBECK-HUBER, JEREMIAH CHARLES
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2423
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/23/2019 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ADEEL ABBAS, BALINEEDU CHOWDARY
ADSUMILLI, and DAVID NEWMAN
Appeal 2018-008588
Application 15/259,512
Technology Center 2400
Before JASON V. MORGAN, MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, and
DANIEL N. FISHMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
STRAUSS, Administrative Patent Judge.
Appeal 2018-008588
Application 15/259,512
2
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE1
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant2 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 9–143, 24–32, and 34–42. Final Act. 1.
Claims 1–8, 15–23, and 33 are canceled. Appeal Br. 10–13 (Claims
Appendix). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to compressing video content. Spec., Title.
Claim 9, reproduced below with a disputed limitation emphasized in italics,
is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
9. A system configured to use an augmented image to improve
encoding, the system comprising:
a network interface;
one or more processor apparatus; and
a storage apparatus in data communication with the one or
more processor apparatus and comprising machine
readable instructions, the machine readable instructions
being configured to, when executed by the one or more
processor apparatus, cause the system to:

1 We refer to the Specification, filed September 8, 2016 (“Spec.”); Final
Office Action, mailed September 5, 2017 (“Final Act.”); Appeal Brief, filed
April 5, 2018 (“Appeal Br.”); Examiner’s Answer, mailed July 10, 2018
(“Ans.”); and Reply Brief, filed August 14, 2018 (“Reply Br.”).
2 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as GoPro, Inc. Appeal
Br. 1.
3 The Examiner omits claim 14 from the listing of claims rejected on page 1
of the Final Action but indicates the claim is rejected in the narrative portion
of the Action at pages 13–14.
Appeal 2018-008588
Application 15/259,512
3
partition an image, the partitioned image including a
first image facet and a second image facet;
encode the first image facet;
transform the encoded first image facet via application
of both of a rotation operation and a translation
operation in order to produce a transformed
encoded first image facet;
combine at least the transformed encoded first image
facet with the second image facet to form the
augmented image;
encode the second image facet based on the augmented
image; and
transmit at least the encoded first image facet and the
encoded second image facet to a display device for
display.
REFERENCES4
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Imura et al. US 9,277,122 B1 Mar. 01, 2016
Krishnan US 2016/0012855 A1 Jan. 14, 2016
Budagavi et al. US 2016/0142697 A1 May 19, 2016

REJECTIONS
Claims 9–13, 24–32, and 34–42 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Budagavi and Krishnan. Final Act. 5–13.
Claim 14 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Budagavi, Krishnan, and Imura. Final Act. 13–14.

4 All citations herein to these references are by reference to the first named
inventor only.
Appeal 2018-008588
Application 15/259,512
4
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s
arguments the Examiner has erred. We agree with Appellant’s conclusions
as to the rejections of the claims.
The Examiner finds Budagavi teaches all of the limitations of claim 9
except Budagavi “does not explicitly disclose performing separate encoding
of a first image facet prior to transformation” for which the Examiner
applies Krishnan. Final Act. 5–7. Concerning the disputed limitation
requiring the first image facet be transformed via application of both rotation
and translation operations, the Examiner finds Budagavi’s equirectangular
mapping inherently includes translation and rotation operations. Id. at 5–6.
The Examiner supports the inherency finding, directing attention to
Budagavi’s Figures 5A and 5B, which are reproduced below.

Budagavi’s Figures 5A and 5B illustrate an example of stitching and
equirectangular mapping. Budagavi ¶ 14. Figure 5A illustrates seven
images from seven cameras, five laid out horizontally in the middle, one on
top, and one on bottom. Id. ¶ 64. Figure 5B illustrates the corresponding
stitched image, where the five middle images form the middle of the stitched
together image while the top and bottom images respectively form the top
and bottom of the stitched together image. Id.
In reference to Budagavi’s Figures 5A and 5B, the Examiner explains:
Appeal 2018-008588
Application 15/259,512
5
[In] Figs. 5A and 5B the black squares of the checkerboard
pattern shown in the ‘top’ facet of Fig. 5A, which are shown as
being in different positions [compared with Fig. 5B] showing
that the equirectangular mapping inherently includes a
translation operation, also note the black squares which are
rotated into diamond shapes showing that the equirectangular
mapping also inherently includes a rotation operation.
Final Act. 5–6.
Appellant contends, instead of Fig. 5A depicting a top facet of
squares, it includes diamond shapes which, rather than being rotated by the
equirectangular mapping process, are merely stretched to span the width of
the five middle facets or images. App. Br. 5. “Appellant further notes that
neither the terms ‘rotation’ nor ‘translation’ are used anywhere within the
body of the specification for Budagavi.” Id. at 5–6.
The Examiner responds, explaining:
The ‘top’ and ‘bottom’ images in Fig. 5A of Budagavi are shown
with a checkerboard pattern that comprises squares. After
transformation this checkerboard pattern is shown as the warped
top and bottom portions of Fig. 5B wherein some of the squares
have become diamond shapes indicative of rotation, and have
been translated left and right from their original positions in Fig.
5A. Thus the figures of Budagavi illustrate that the ‘stretching’
operation is not a simple scaling, but inherently includes rotation
and translation of the image portions as part of the
transformation.
Ans. 12.
We find the Examiner erred in finding Budagavi’s equirectangular
mapping inherently includes translation and rotation operations. As an
initial matter, it is not clear from the drawings exactly what shapes are
initially present in the top and bottom images of Budagavi’s Fig. 5A,
whether squares, diamond, or other shapes. (See Reply Br. 2 arguing there is
Appeal 2018-008588
Application 15/259,512
6
a mixture of “a roughly-shaped diamond, X-shaped dark spots, lines that
appear to be oriented at approximately 45°, and irregularly shaped dots.”)
Thus, it is not evident whether the original shapes depicted in Fig. 5A were
rotated and translated in forming the top portion of the resultant stitched
image depicted in Fig. 5B. It appears the various textures and shadings used
in each of the seven images depicted in Fig. 5A are intended to visually
distinguish the images from one another in illustrating how each of the
separate images maps to corresponding portions of the resultant stitched
image depicted in Fig. 5B. Standing alone, Budagavi’s figures are deficient
in disclosing with any particularity how the equirectangular mapping process
alters the constituent images.
We also find instructive the evidentiary weight given to patent
drawings in the past. In particular, our reviewing court has stated, “it is well
established that patent drawings do not define the precise proportions of the
elements and may not be relied on to show particular sizes if the
specification is completely silent on the issue.” Hockerson-Halberstadt, Inc.
v. Avia Grp. Int’l, Inc., 222 F.3d 951, 956 (Fed. Cir. 2000). Similarly, in the
present case, we find Budagavi’s drawings cannot be relied upon for
disclosing specific shapes constituting each of the images depicted.
Therefore, in the absence of any description in Budagavi’s specification,
reliance by either the Examiner or Appellant on Budagavi’s Figs. 5A and 5B
as depicting specific shapes and/or how those shapes are affected by
Budagavi’s equirectangular mapping is unpersuasive of whether image
rotation and/or translation is inherently disclosed.
Furthermore, even if Budagavi’s drawings clearly and unequivocally
depicted rotation and translation, the drawings nonetheless would be
Appeal 2018-008588
Application 15/259,512
7
insufficient standing alone to support the Examiner’s finding that
equirectangular mapping inherently includes translation and rotation
operations.
To establish inherency, the extrinsic evidence must make clear
that the missing descriptive matter is necessarily present in the
thing described in the reference, and that it would be so
recognized by persons of ordinary skill. Inherency, however,
may not be established by probabilities or possibilities. The mere
fact that a certain thing may result from a given set of
circumstances is not sufficient.
In re Robertson, 169 F.3d 743, 745 (Fed. Cir. 1999). “In relying upon the
theory of inherency, the Examiner must provide a basis in fact and/or
technical reasoning to reasonably support the determination that the
allegedly inherent characteristic necessarily flows from the teachings of the
applied prior art.” Ex parte Levy, 17 USPQ2d 1461, 1464 (Bd. Pat. App. &
Inter. 1990). See also In re Rijckaert, 9 F.3d 1531, 1534, (Fed. Cir. 1993),
MPEP § 2112(IV). Thus, it would be insufficient to prove Budagavi’s
equirectangular mapping could perform rotation and/or translation. To
support a finding of inherency, the Examiner must provide rationale or
evidence supporting a finding that equirectangular mapping necessarily
includes translation and/or rotation operations. In the present case, even if
sufficient detail were present to conclude that Budagavi’s Figs. 5A and 5B
depict equirectangular mapping that may result in image rotation and/or
translation, such a determination nonetheless falls short of proving
equirectangular mapping necessarily results in image rotation and/or
translation. Therefore, it would be improper to find equirectangular
mapping inherently includes translation and/or rotation operations.
Appeal 2018-008588
Application 15/259,512
8
For the reasons discussed above, the Examiner’s findings are deficient
to show the Budagavi inherently teaches the disputed transforming of an
encoded first image facet via application of both of a rotation operation and
a translation operation in order to produce a transformed encoded first image
facet as recited by independent claim 9. Therefore, the Examiner erred in
rejecting claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Budagavi and Krishnan. For
the same reasons, the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claims 24 and
30 which include limitations substantively similar to the disputed limitation
of claim 9.
Because we agree with at least one of the arguments advanced by
Appellant, we need not reach the merits of Appellant’s other arguments.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of independent claims 9, 24,
and 30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 or the rejection of dependent claims 10–13,
25–29, 31, 32, and 34–42 which stand with their respective base claim.
DECISION SUMMARY
We reverse the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 9–14, 24–32, and
34–42.
Claims
Rejected
35
U.S.C. §
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
9–13, 24–32,
34–42 103 Budagavi, Krishnan
9–13, 24–32,
34–42
14 103 Budagavi, Krishnan, Imura 14
Overall
Outcome
9–14, 24–32,
34–42

REVERSED