Adobe Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Apr 1, 2022

2020004223 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 1, 2022)

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. 12/758,647 04/12/2010 Simon Chen B1180 5361 108982 7590 04/01/2022 FIG. 1 Patents 116 W. Pacific Avenue Suite 200 Spokane, WA 99201 EXAMINER COTHRAN, BERNARD E ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2147 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 04/01/2022 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): Fig1Docket@fig1patents.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte SIMON CHEN, ERIC CHAN, HAILIN JIN, and JEN-CHAN CHIEN Appeal 2020-004223 Application 12/758,647 Technology Center 2100 Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, BARBARA A. BENOIT, and PHILLIP A. BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges. BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-7, 9, 10, 16-18, and 21-28.1 Claims 8, 11-15, 19, and 20 are cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. 1 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies Adobe, Inc., as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2020-004223 Application 12/758,647 2 IDENTIFICATION OF RELATED APPEALS Appellant states “[n]o appeals are known to Appellant or Appellant’s representative that may be related to, directly affect or may be directly affected by, or have a bearing on the Board's decision in the pending appeal.” Appeal Br. 2. This application was subject to a prior appeal that was not identified by Appellant. Specifically, on December 30, 2016, we decided Appeal 2016-003415, which affirmed the Examiner’s rejection of the then pending claims. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(ii) states: A statement identifying by application, patent, appeal, interference, or trial number all other prior and pending appeals, interferences, trials before the Board, or judicial proceedings (collectively, “related cases”) which satisfy all of the following conditions: involve an application or patent owned by the appellant or assignee, are known to appellant, the appellant’s legal representative, or assignee, and may be related to, directly affect or be directly affected by or have a bearing on the Board’s decision in the pending appeal, except that such statement is not required if there are no such related cases. Both appeals involve the same application and assignee. Moreover, the prior decision involved some of the same prior art references involved in this Appeal. As such, it “may . . . directly affect . . . or have a bearing on the Board’s decision” in this Appeal. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(ii). We remind Appellants of this requirement, which was not met in this Appeal. CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to “retargeting and prioritized interpolation of lens profiles.” Spec. ¶ 30. According to Appellant’s Specification: The types and the amount of lens distortion in a captured image are functions of the specific camera body, the lens, and the camera/lens settings (e.g., focal length, aperture, and focus distance) that are used capture the image. However, lens profiles Appeal 2020-004223 Application 12/758,647 3 that describe the camera model are typically generated from calibration chart images shot from a reference camera body with the same type of lens, typically sampled at a finite number of camera settings. Spec. ¶ 30. The Specification further describes that “the camera body in the camera settings described in the lens profile may not exactly match that of [the] camera body and the camera settings used to capture [a] target image.” Spec. ¶ 30. Appellant’s claims seek to address the problem of non-matching profiles by analyzing the aberrations that are present in the received image and prioritizing the image shooting conditions that are best-suited to correct the aberration. Spec. ¶ 49. The Specification explains: If an exact match is not found, then a sub-profile may be generated. Generating the sub-profile may involve generating an interpolated aberration correction model for one or more aberrations modeled in the camera model (e.g., a geometric distortion model, a lateral chromatic aberration model, and a vignette model, in some embodiments). However, different camera settings (e.g., focal length, focus distance, and aperture) may have different levels of effect on a particular aberration. The two sub-profiles having the closest matching settings to the prioritized image shooting conditions are used to generate an interpolated mathematical model for correcting the aberration. Spec. ¶ 49. Claims 1, 16, and 21 are independent. Claim 1 is reproduced below and is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A computer implemented method comprising: obtaining a target image, the target image including image data captured by an image sensor of a camera and image metadata including parameters that describe image shooting conditions associated with the capture of the image data; responsive to obtaining the target image, obtaining a lens profile file for a camera/lens combination, the lens profile file Appeal 2020-004223 Application 12/758,647 4 including a set of sub-profiles associated with different aberrations of the camera/lens combination, each of the sub- profiles including: a mathematical model for correcting a respective aberration of the different aberrations; and sub-profile metadata specifying one or more camera settings; prioritizing the image shooting conditions based on a particular aberration of the different aberrations to correct in the target image; comparing the parameters to the one or more camera settings specified in the sub-profile metadata of each sub-profile; determining, based on the comparing, that the sub-profiles do not include any matching sub-profiles, a matching sub-profile having sub-profile metadata that specifies one or more camera settings which match the shooting conditions described by the parameters; locating two of the sub-profiles having the camera settings that best match the image shooting conditions described by at least one of the parameters included in the image metadata, including describing a highest-priority image shooting condition according to the prioritizing; generating an interpolated mathematical model for correcting the particular aberration by interpolating a first mathematical model of a first of the two sub-profiles with a second mathematical model of a second of the two sub-profiles; and responsive to the generating, correcting the particular aberration in the target image by applying the interpolated mathematical model to the target image. Appeal Br. 33 (Claims Appendix). Appeal 2020-004223 Application 12/758,647 5 REFERENCES2 The Examiner relies on these references: Name Reference Date Heffelfinger US 5,891,314 Apr. 6, 1999 Enomoto US 6,323,934 B1 Nov. 27, 2001 Battles US 2004/0252217 A1 Dec. 16, 2004 Slonaker US 2006/0066841 A1 Mar. 30, 2006 Yanagi US 2007/0171282 A1 July 26, 2007 Chaudhri US 2008/0303922 A1 Dec. 11, 2008 Petteri Pontinen, Study on Chromatic Aberration of Two Fisheye Lenses, THE INTERNATIONAL ARCHIVES OF THE PHOTOGRAMMETRY, REMOTE SENSING AND SPATIAL INFORMATION SCIENCES, Vol. XXXVII, Part B3a, Beijing (2008) (hereinafter “Pontinen”) Dan B. Goldman, Vignette and Exposure Calibration and Compensation, IEEE TRANSACTIONS OF PATTERN ANALYSIS AND MACHINE INTELLIGENCE (2010) (hereinafter “Goldman”) REJECTIONS Claims 1-6 and 27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Chaudhri, Pontinen, Slonaker, and Battles. Final Act. 14- 24 (claims 1-6), 24-25 (claim 27). Claims 93 and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Chaudhri, Pontinen, Slonaker, Battles, and Enomoto. Final Act. 24 (claim 9), 25-27 (claim 10). 2 Citations to the references are to the first named inventor/author only. 3 Claim 9 is erroneously listed in the statement of rejection of claims 1-6 and 27. See Final Act. 14. However, in setting forth the substance of the rejection of claim 9, the Examiner relies additionally on the teachings of Enomoto. As such, we include claim 9 in the rejection based on Chaudhri, Pontinen, Slonaker, Battles, and Enomoto. Appeal 2020-004223 Application 12/758,647 6 Claim 26 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Chaudhri, Pontinen, Slonaker, Battles, and Yanagi. Final Act. 27-29. Claim 7 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Chaudhri, Pontinen, Slonaker, Battles, and Goldman. Final Act. 29-31. Claims 16-18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Chaudhri, Pontinen, and Enomoto. Final Act. 31-38. Claim 28 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Chaudhri, Pontinen, Enmoto, and Heffelfinger. Final Act. 39-40. Claims 21-25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Chaudhri, Pontinen, Battles, and Heffelfinger. Final Act. 40-48. ISSUE Has the Examiner erred in finding the cited references teach or suggest the limitation “prioritizing the image shooting conditions based on a particular aberration of the different aberrations to correct in the target image,” as recited in claim 1, and recited commensurately in independent claims 16 and 21? ANALYSIS The Examiner rejects claim 1 as obvious over the combined teachings of Chaudhri, Pontinen, Slonaker, and Battles. Final Act. 14-22. The Examiner primarily relies on Chaudhri and Pontinen as teaching most of the claim limitations. Final Act. 14-19. The Examiner finds Chaudhri and Appeal 2020-004223 Application 12/758,647 7 Pontinen deficient with respect to, inter alia, the limitation “prioritizing the image shooting conditions based on a particular aberration of the different aberrations to correct in the target image.” Final Act. 19. The Examiner introduces Battles for teaching this limitation. Final Act. 20. Specifically, the Examiner finds Battles’ description of performing a pixel by pixel analysis to determine if an image includes a predominance of either black or white pixels so as to adjust the exposure in the camera settings teaches the “prioritizing” limitation. Final Act. 20 (citing Battles ¶¶ 26, 34, 38-39); see also Final Act. 7 (additionally citing Battles ¶ 41). Appellant argues the Examiner has erred with respect to the teachings of Battles. Appeal Br. 10-12; see also Reply Br. 3-4. Specifically, Appellant asserts “there is no indication in Battles of prioritizing image shooting conditions based on a particular aberration . . . [because] Battles merely determines whether a setting can be changed to improve an image.” Appeal Br. 11. Appellant further argues Battles’ pixel by pixel analysis does not teach the argued limitation because Battles “in no way indicates that the R, G, and B values are parameters ‘describing a highest-priority image shooting condition according to the prioritizing,’ as recited in claim 1.” Appeal Br. 11. Appellant further argues there is no suggestion in Battles “that the R, G, and B values are of any higher priority than other parameters, or that image exposure is of any higher priority than other parameters.” Appeal Br. 12. We are persuaded the Examiner has erred. Battles describes a system that “is applicable to any digital camera that provides an ‘instant review’ function.” Battles ¶ 12. Battles seeks provides users the ability to capture an image using the digital camera, in order to perform a review of the Appeal 2020-004223 Application 12/758,647 8 captured image “determine whether the image includes deficiencies that may not be apparent to the user when viewing the captured image on the image display in the instant review mode.” Battles ¶ 20 (reference numerals omitted). Battles provides “image and analysis logic [that] dynamically analyzes one or more characteristics of the captured image and presents to the user, via the image display and the user interface, an analysis of the captured image.” Battles ¶ 20 (reference numerals omitted). Battles performs a pixel by pixel analysis of the captured image in which “each pixel may be analyzed to determine whether a significant number of the pixels forming the image is either black or white.” Battles ¶ 20. Battles notes that this pixel analysis can be used to detect various potential problems in the image. For example, “[a] predominance of white pixels may be indicative of overexposure and a predominance of black pixels may be indicative of under exposure.” Battles ¶ 20. Battles provides another example in which “dynamic analyses can be performed to determine whether an image is in focus” by examining “whether Sharp transitions exist between pixels” such that “a black pixel adjoining a white pixel may indicate that the image is in focus, while a black pixel separated from a white pixel by a number of gray pixels may indicate that the image is out of focus.” Battles ¶ 21. Thus, under Battles’ image correction scheme, whenever a potential problem is found in an analyzed image, a suggestion is made as to changes to the camera settings and/or environmental conditions (such as lighting) which may improve the image. Battles ¶ 39. We agree with Appellant, however, that Battles does not teach prioritization of the settings. Instead, Battles appears to treat all of the suggested changes equally. That is, each Appeal 2020-004223 Application 12/758,647 9 problem found in an image is given a suggested setting and/or condition modification, but no specific suggested modification is identified or otherwise treated as having priority over any other. As such, we agree with Appellant that Battles does not teach or suggest the claimed “prioritizing the image shooting conditions based on a particular aberration of the different aberrations to correct in the target image,” and we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1. Independent claim 21 recites a limitation commensurate in scope, and the Examiner relies on similar findings made with respect to Battles in that rejection. Final Act. 45-46 (citing Battles ¶¶ 26, 38-39, 41). Appellant’s arguments with respect to claim 21 (Appeal Br. 27-29) are persuasive for the same reasons. Claim 16 also recites a similar limitation: “determining priorities of the camera settings described by the parameters based on the particular aberration.” Appeal Br. 36 (Claims Appendix). Unlike claims 1 and 21, the Examiner does not rely on Battles for teaching this limitation in rejecting claim 16. Final Act. 31-33. Instead, the Examiner cites Pontinen’s description of the use of maximum and minimum aperture values for different color profiles as teaching this limitation. Final Act. 35 (citing Pontinen 30, Figs. 22-24); see also Ans. 55. Appellant argues Pontinen is deficient because “Pontinen is directed to a study on aberrations of fisheye lenses, and describes obtaining color profiles with maximum and minimum aperture using a Sigma lens.” Appeal Br. 23. Appellant asserts that nothing in Pontinen indicates “that aperture is prioritized, much less prioritized ‘based on the particular aberration.’” Appeal Br. 23. According to Appellant, “Pontinen only evaluates the color Appeal 2020-004223 Application 12/758,647 10 with maximum and minimum aperture to obtain color profiles.” Appeal Br. 23. We are persuaded by Appellant’s arguments. Pontinen is a scientific paper published “to study the lateral chromatic aberration of fisheye lenses.” Pontinen 27. In the cited portions of the reference, Pontinen “describes the effect of aperture and focus settings on the chromatic aberration” into different fisheye lenses. Pontinen 30 (§ 4 “Aperture and Focus”). Pontinen depicts “colour profiles obtained with maximum and minimum aperture is of Nikkor lens” and describes pertinent observations regarding the obtained profiles. Id. We do not discern in the cited portions any indication that a specific camera setting is given a priority based on any specific aberration. At best, Pontinen indicates that aperture settings can impact the chromatic aberration in an image with respect to the fisheye lenses under consideration. As such, we are persuaded that the Examiner has erred in determining that the disputed limitation of claim 16 is taught or suggested by Pontinen, and we do not sustain the rejection. Remaining Claims The remaining claims are dependent. Accordingly, we also do not sustain the Examiner’s rejections of these claims for the reasons stated with respect to the independent claims from which they depend. CONCLUSION We reverse the Examiner’s decision to reject the claims. Appeal 2020-004223 Application 12/758,647 11 DECISION SUMMARY Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1-6, 27 103 Chaudhri, Pontinen, Slonaker, Battles 1-6, 27 9, 10 103 Chaudhri, Pontinen, Slonaker, Battles, Enomoto 9, 10 26 103 Chaudhri, Pontinen, Slonaker, Battles, Yanagi 26 7 103 Chaudhri, Pontinen, Slonaker, Goldman 7 16-18 103 Chaudhri, Pontinen, Enomoto 16-18 28 103 Chaudhri, Pontinen, Enomoto, Heffelfinger, 28 21-25 103 Chaudhri, Pontinen, Battles, Heffelfinger 21-25 Overall Outcome 1-7, 9, 10, 16-18, 21- 28 REVERSED