Christopher A. Segall

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Oct 3, 2019

15351366 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Oct. 3, 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.
15/351,366 11/14/2016 Christopher A. Segall SLA2105.6 6438
55692 7590 10/03/2019
Brooks Acordia IP Law, A Professional Corporation
11601 Wilshire Blvd.
Fifth Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90025
EXAMINER
WERNER, DAVID N
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2487
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/03/2019 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):
eofficeaction@appcoll.com
patents@brooksacordia.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte CHRISTOPHER A. SEGALL
____________

Appeal 2018-008585
Application 15/351,366
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before JASON V. MORGAN, MELISSA A. HAAPALA, and
DAVID J. CUTITTA II, Administrative Patent Judges.

CUTITTA, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claim 1. We have jurisdiction over the
pending claim under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “Applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Sharp
Laboratories of America, Inc. See Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2018-008585
Application 15/351,366

2

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Invention
Appellant’s invention generally relates to predicting “an enhancement
layer, such as a higher dynamic range (HDR) layer” base on decoded lower
dynamic range base layer information, on which scaling or offset has been
performed. Spec. ¶ 25, ll. 28–30.2
Illustrative Claim
Claim 1 is reproduced below with limitations at issue italicized.
1. A method for predicting a high dynamic range
image block with differentially-coded prediction data, the
method comprising:
receiving high dynamic range (HDR) image data for a first
image block, the first image block HDR image data comprising
a first prediction data for the first image block;
receiving high dynamic range (HDR) image data for a
second image block, the second image block HDR image data
comprising a prediction difference data related to the first
prediction data;
combining the first prediction data and the prediction
difference data to determine second prediction data for the
second image block; and
determining a first HDR residual image block based on
the received HDR image data for the first image block and a
decoded low dynamic range (LDR) image, wherein the LDR
image is a scaled decoded LDR image, and wherein the scaled
decoded LDR image is an offset scaled decoded LDR image.

2 This Decision refers to: (1) Appellant’s Specification filed November 14,
2016 (“Spec.”); (2) the Final Office Action mailed October 19, 2017 (“Final
Act.”); (3) the Appeal Brief filed April 20, 2018 (“Appeal Br.”); and (4) the
Examiner’s Answer mailed June 20, 2018 (“Ans.”).
Appeal 2018-008585
Application 15/351,366

3

Appeal Br. 9 (Claims Appendix).

REFERENCES AND REJECTION
Claim 1 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Choi et al. (US
2004/0013309 Al, Jan. 22, 2004) (“Choi”) and Ward et al. (WO
2005/104035 Al, Nov. 3, 2005) (“Ward”). See Final Act. 5–7.
Our review in this appeal is limited to the above rejection and the
issues raised by Appellant. Arguments not made are waived. See
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2017).
DISCUSSION
The Examiner finds “Choi teaches the claimed invention” except for
specific application to HDR and LDR images. Final Act. 6. The Examiner
notes “Choi does not require HDR” but finds Ward teaches the specifics of
the invention related to HDR and LDR. Id. The Examiner concludes “it
would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to apply
conventional encoding techniques such as the motion vector coding of Choi
to a sequence of HDR images, as taught by Ward.” Final Act. 6–7.
Appellant disputes the Examiner’s factual findings, arguing Choi fails
to teach “determining a first HDR residual image block,” as claimed,
because Choi “is silent as to any HDR/LDR type of image and only
discloses encoding steps of motion vectors and neither the Choi or Ward
reference (in combination or individually) determines an HDR residual
image block based on a decoded LDR image.” Appeal Br. 5.
The Examiner responds that “the claim does not require any HDR-
specific processing.” Ans. 6. The Examiner finds “Choi teaches the claimed
invention except for application to HDR images” (Final Act. 6; Ans. 5) and
Appeal 2018-008585
Application 15/351,366

4

Ward “was cited to teach the application of the claimed process to HDR, and
steps in the process specific to HDR processing” (Ans. 5). Because “Ward
teaches the specifics of the invention related to HDR, it is not necessary for
Choi also to teach the same HDR processing of Ward for the combination of
Choi and Ward to teach the claimed invention.” Id. at 6.
Appellant’s first argument that the “Choi reference is silent as to any
HDR/LDR type of image” is unpersuasive because it does not address the
Examiner’s reliance on Ward to teach HDR and LDR operations. See Final
Act. 6 (Ward teaches “[r]econstructing the HDR image from the HDR
information and the LDR tone map.”).
Appellant’s second argument that Ward does not teach “determine[]
an HDR residual image block based on a decoded LDR image” falls short of
identifying an error in the Examiner’s rejection as required on appeal.
Arguments must address the Examiner’s action. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv)
(“The arguments shall explain why the examiner erred as to each ground of
rejection contested by appellant.”); In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed.
Cir. 2011) (“[T]he Board reasonably interpreted Rule 41.37 to require more
substantive arguments in an appeal brief than a mere recitation of the claim
elements and a naked assertion that the corresponding elements were not
found in the prior art”).
We, thus, conclude that neither of Appellant’s preceding arguments
address the actual reasoning of the Examiner’s rejection based on the
combined teachings of the cited combination.
Next, Appellant argues Choi does not teach the first prediction data,
as claimed, because Choi “discloses at paragraph 0066 that: ‘a predictive
motion vector PMV_X, which is a predictive value for encoding a
Appeal 2018-008585
Application 15/351,366

5

differential vector and the differential vector DMV X, which is a differential
value using the predictive value, are calculated.’” Appeal Br. 6 (citing Choi
¶ 66) (emphasis omitted).
The Examiner finds Choi’s paragraph 68 teaches “combining first
prediction data and prediction difference data to determine second prediction
data,” as recited in claim 1. Final Act. 5 (citing Choi ¶ 68) (“Motion vector
MV_X for the present block, formed from an addition of the median
neighbor motion blocks PMV_X and the differential motion vector
DMV_X, is the claimed second prediction data formed by ‘combining’ the
first prediction data and the prediction difference data.”). More specifically,
the Examiner finds the claimed first prediction data is taught by Choi’s
predictive motion vector PMV_X, which is calculated as the median of
motion vectors of neighboring blocks A, B, and C. Id.
We find Appellant’s argument unpersuasive. As stated by the
Examiner, “‘prediction data’ is claimed broadly, and so is to be interpreted
broadly.” Ans. 6. “There is nothing within the claim that precludes the
claimed ‘first prediction data’ from being a neighboring block motion vector
or a prediction motion vector as in Choi.” Id.
Appellant, in turn, fails to persuasively demonstrate that the
Examiner’s broad interpretation of prediction data as encompassing a
predictive motion vector, is inconsistent with Appellant’s Specification or is
otherwise unreasonable. See In re Smith Int’l, Inc., 871 F.3d 1375, 1382–83
(Fed. Cir. 2017).
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 1. See App. Br. 5–7.
Appeal 2018-008585
Application 15/351,366

6

DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a).
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).

CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
Basis Affirmed Reversed
1 § 103(a) Choi, Ward 1

AFFIRMED