Adobe Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Apr 21, 2020

13725041 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Apr. 21, 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.
13/725,041 12/21/2012 Hailin Jin 2391US01 6254
108982 7590 04/21/2020
SBMC
116 W. Pacific Avenue
Suite 200
Spokane, WA 99201
EXAMINER
ITSKOVICH, MIKHAIL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2483
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/21/2020 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):
docket@sbmc-law.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte HAILIN JIN
____________

Appeal 2019-001896
Application 13/725,041
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before JOHN A. EVANS, JASON J. CHUNG, and BETH Z. SHAW,
Administrative Patent Judges.
EVANS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner’s
final rejection of Claims 23–42. Appeal Br. 2. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.2

1 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 Adobe Systems
Incorporated. Appeal Br. 2.
2 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellant and the Examiner, we refer to
the Appeal Brief (filed August 9, 2018, “Appeal Br.”), the Reply Brief (filed
January 2, 2019, “Reply. Br.”), the Examiner’s Answer (mailed November 2,
2018, “Ans.”), the Final Action (mailed February 15, 2018, “Final Act.”), and the
Specification (filed December 21, 2012, “Spec.”) for their respective details.
Appeal 2019-001896
Application 13/725,041

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Invention
The claims relate to systems and methods for estimating camera rotation in
image sequences. See Abstract.
Claims
Claims 23, 31, and 36 are independent. Claims App. An understanding of
the invention can be derived from a reading of illustrative Claim 1 which is
reproduced below with some formatting added:
23. A method, comprising:
generating, by one or more computing devices, an initial
reconstruction of camera motion for a plurality of frames in an image
sequence, said generating comprises:
selecting a subset of the plurality of frames in the image
sequence as keyframes;
selecting, from the keyframes, candidate adjacent-2 keyframe
pairs, each one of said candidate adjacent-2 keyframe pairs including
a pair of keyframes that are two keyframes apart from each other;
computing a score for each of the candidate adjacent-2
keyframe pairs, the score being computed based on point trajectories
that overlap in the candidate adjacent-2 keyframe pairs;
identifying candidate adjacent-2 keyframe pairs having scores
higher than a threshold value, the threshold value computed based on
video dimensions of the image sequence;
selecting, from the identified candidate adjacent-2 keyframe
pairs, a best pair of adjacent-2 keyframe pairs based on the computed
score; and
generating the initial reconstruction according to the selected
best pair of adjacent-2 keyframe pairs.
Appeal 2019-001896
Application 13/725,041

3
REFERENCES AND REJECTIONS
References.
Name Publication Number Date
Lyons et al.
(Lyons)
US 6,970,591 B1 Nov. 29, 2005
Kuhn US 2008/0043848 A1 Feb. 21, 2008
Rejections3
Claims 23–42 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Lyons and Kuhn. Final Act. 5–11.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the rejections of Claims 23–42 in light of Appellant’s
arguments that the Examiner erred. We are persuaded that Appellant identifies
reversible error. We consider Appellant’s arguments seriatim, as they are
presented in the Appeal Brief, pages 6–40; and in the Reply Brief, pages 4–13.
CLAIMS 23–42: OBVIOUSNESS OVER LYONS AND KUHN.
Appellant contends the cited art fails to teach: “selecting, from the
keyframes, candidate adjacent-2 keyframe pairs, each one of said candidate
adjacent-2 keyframe pairs including a pair of keyframes that are two keyframes
apart from each other,” as recited in independent Claim 23. Appeal Br. 10.
Independent Claims 31 and 38 contain commensurate recitations.

3 The Application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Final Act. 2.
Appeal 2019-001896
Application 13/725,041

4
Appellant argues:
Lyons describes that “keyframe selector 60 uses information from
feature detector and tracker 50 about the tracked features in each
frame to select a sub-set of the input image frames as ‘keyframes’,
and groups the selected keyframes for further processing.” Keyframe
selector 60 together with central controller 30 select so-called ‘triples’
of keyframes, that is respective groups each of which comprises three
keyframes, for which subsequent processing will be carried out to
determine transformations.”
Appeal Br. 11 (citing Lyons, col. 7, ll. 45–49; col. 15, ll. 8–12) (Footnote and
emphasis omitted). Thus, Appellant argues: “the algorithms used by Lyons
explicitly require three different keyframes, and Lyons simply does not teach or
suggest selecting pairs of keyframes. Kuhn fails to cure this defect alone and/or in
combination with Lyons.” Id., 12.
The Examiner finds Lyons discloses:
Keyframe selector 60 uses information from feature 45 detector and
tracker 50 about the tracked features in each frame to select a sub-set
of the input image frames as “keyframes,” where each frame is
located between keyframes which are two or more frames apart as
either frames 232-234-236 or frames 232-236-242 in an embodiment
where only keyframes (1, 2, 3) are considered for the sequence.
Ans. 5 (quoting Lyons, col. 7, ll. 45–49).
Appellant contends, inter alia, “Throughout Lyons, discussion of selection
of keyframes relies upon ‘triples’.” Reply Br. 8. Appellant argues: “Lyons does
not arbitrarily use three keyframes; rather, Lyons processes triples using
methodology that specifically requires three keyframes.” Id. (quoting Lyons, col.
18, ll. 16–21) (“To calculate the relative camera transformations at step S182,
camera transformation calculator 70 calculates a full perspective transformation
Appeal 2019-001896
Application 13/725,041

5
and a scaled affine transformation defining the movement between frame 1 and
frame 2 in the triple, and a full perspective transformation and a scaled affine
transformation defining the movement between frame 2 and frame 3 in the
triple.”). We agree with Appellant.
We find an algorithm that specifically requires three keyframes, i.e., “a
scaled affine transformation defining the movement between frame 1 and frame 2
in the triple . . . and a scaled affine transformation defining the movement between
frame 2 and frame 3 in the triple” (Lyons, col. 18, ll. 19–23, cited by Appellant),
does not teach “selecting, from the keyframes, candidate adjacent-2 keyframe
pairs, each one of said candidate adjacent-2 keyframe pairs including a pair of
keyframes that are two keyframes apart from each other,” as recited in independent
Claims 23, 31, and 36. In view of the foregoing, we decline to sustain the rejection
of Claims 23–42 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
CONCLUSION4
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
23–42 103 Lyons and Kuhn 23–42

REVERSED

4 Because we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection for the reasons discussed
herein, we need not address Appellant’s further arguments. See Beloit Corp. v.
Valmet Oy, 742 F.2d 1421, 1423 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (finding an administrative
agency is at liberty to reach a decision based on “a single dispositive issue”).