Dolby Laboratories Licensing Corporation

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 15, 2021

2020005996 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 15, 2021)

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.
15/228,370 08/04/2016 Gregory John Ward 23156-0015004 6761
143308 7590 12/15/2021
FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. (Dolby)
PO BOX 1022
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55440-1022
EXAMINER
ITSKOVICH, MIKHAIL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2483
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/15/2021 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):
PATDOCTC@fr.com
mguo@dolby.com
patents@dolby.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte GREGORY J. WARD and
MARYANN SIMMONS
Appeal 2020-005996
Application 15/228,370
Technology Center 2400

Before HUNG H. BUI, AMBER L. HAGY, and DAVID J. CUTITTA II,
Administrative Patent Judges.

CUTITTA, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–3, 5–10, and 21–27.2 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 Dolby Laboratories Licensing Corporation as the real
party in interest. Appeal Brief filed April 13, 2020 (“Appeal Br.”) at 1.
2 Claims 4 and 11–20 are canceled. Appeal Br. 20, 21.
Appeal 2020-005996
Application 15/228,370

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Summary
The subject matter of Appellant’s application relates to decoding high
dynamic range (“HDR”) image data having greater dynamic range of
luminosity values than conventional image data formats, such as data
encoded in JPEG and MPEG, while also providing backwards compatibility
by allowing decoding of the conventional image formats. Spec. ¶¶ 2–4. This
is accomplished by providing both HDR information and corresponding
pixel values in a separate tone map that can be read by legacy systems. Spec.
¶¶ 20–30. The tone map includes pixels that correspond to pixels in the HDR
information, but the tone map is backwards compatible with legacy systems.
Id. The HDR information contains information that may be combined by a
decoder with the tone map data to reconstruct HDR image data or a close
approximation thereto. Id. The HDR data has a dynamic range that is higher
than that of tone map data. Id.
Illustrative Claim
Claim 1, reproduced below with certain dispositive limitation(s) at
issue italicized, illustrates the claimed subject matter:
1. A method for decoding a first image, the method
comprising:
receiving, at a decoder, a compressed data structure
representing a first image, the compressed data structure
including:
a first representation of a second image, and
image data that is generated by an application of a first
nonlinear function to ratios between (i) values of a parameter
determined from pixel values of the first image and (ii) values
Appeal 2020-005996
Application 15/228,370

3
of the parameter determined from corresponding pixel values in
a second representation of the second image,
a dynamic range of the second image being lower than a
dynamic range of the first image, and color values of the first
image being scaled from corresponding original color values;
decompressing the compressed data structure to retrieve
the first representation of the second image and the image data;
applying, by the decoder, a second nonlinear function to
the image data to generate reconstructed image data, the
second nonlinear function being an inverse function of the first
nonlinear function, and the reconstructed image data including
ratio data representing the ratios between (i) the values of the
parameter determined from pixel values of the first image and
(ii) values of the parameter determined from the corresponding
pixel values in the second representation of the second image,
the ratio data being adjusted to represent the original color
values;
generating a representation of a reconstructed high
dynamic range image by computing a pixel-wise product of the
representation of the second image and the corresponding
adjusted ratio data of the reconstructed image data; and
rendering the representation of the reconstructed high
dynamic range image on a display device.
Appeal Br. 19–20 (Appendix of Claims).
REFERENCES AND REJECTION
The Examiner rejects claims 1–3, 5–10, and 21–27 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over the combined teachings of Spaulding et al.
(US 6,301,393 B1, issued Oct. 9, 2001) (“Spaulding”) and Chaddha (US
5,742,892, issued Apr. 21, 1998). Final Act. 14–24.

Appeal 2020-005996
Application 15/228,370

4
OPINION
We review the appealed rejection for error based upon the issues
identified by Appellant and in light of Appellant’s arguments and evidence.
Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential).
The Examiner finds that claim 1 is unpatentable over the combined
teachings of Spaulding and Chaddha. Final Act. 14–17. Of particular
relevance, the Examiner relies on Spaulding’s residual image to teach or
suggest “image data that is generated by an application of a first nonlinear
function to ratios between (i) values of a parameter determined from pixel
values of the first image and (ii) values of the parameter determined from
corresponding pixel values in a second representation of the second image.”
Final Act. 15 (citing Spaulding 5:53–64, 6:64–67, 9:64–66 and Fig. 3, 7, 9).
Referring to the “applying, by the decoder,” limitation of claim 1, the
Examiner notes “Spaulding does not explicitly teach that signals can be
decoded by reversing the data scaling, compression, and quantizing
operation of the encoder using the corresponding ratio/function” because
“Spaulding prefers decoding with addition rather than by multiplication.” Id.
at 17 (citing Spaulding 6:42–44).
The Examiner, however, determines “a person of skill in the art would
have known that a division operation can be reversed by multiplication, and
logarithmic scaling can be reversed by an exponential function, and that
addition operations may be preferable due to lower computing requirements
compared to multiplication and exponential functions.” Id. at 17. The
Examiner further finds “Chaddha teaches reversing the scaling operations of
the encoder, such as quantization and perceptual weighting (corresponding
to the ratio image), in the context of image coding.” Id. at 17 (citing
Appeal 2020-005996
Application 15/228,370

5
Chaddha 4:1, 1:55). The Examiner concludes that “it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Spaulding to reverse
compression and scaling operations of the encoder in the reverse order as
taught in Chaddha, in order to decode scalable encoded images and video
according to an established standard.” Id. at 17 (citing Chaddha 1:53–54).
According to Appellant, “the examiner equates the residual image
described in Spaulding to the ‘image data representing an application of a
first nonlinear function to ratios between values of a parameter determined
from the representation of the first image and the representation of the
second image.’” Appeal 11. Appellant argues, however, that in contrast with
the Examiner’s finding, the “residual image of Spaulding is not ‘generated
by an application of a first nonlinear function to ratios between (i) values of
a parameter determined from pixel values of the first image and (ii) values of
the parameter determined from corresponding pixel values in a second
representation of the second image.’” Id. (emphasis omitted).
We are persuaded by Appellant’s argument that Spaulding does not
teach or suggest applying a non-linear function to ratios, as recited in claim
1. The Examiner relies, inter alia, on the reconstruction process illustrated in
Figure 9 of Spaulding to teach or suggest the challenged limitations. Appeal
Br. 11. Figure 9 of Spaulding depicts a process for “reconstructing an
extended color gamut digital image from [a] limited color gamut digital
image and [a] residual image.” Spaulding 9:64–66. The process generates a
“clipped limited color gamut digital image 96,” and uses a “reconstruct
extended color gamut digital image step 97” to form “a reconstructed
extended color gamut digital image 98 by combining the clipped limited
color gamut digital image 96 and the residual image 93.” Spaulding 10:4–10.
Appeal 2020-005996
Application 15/228,370

6
Thus, the extended color gamut digital image in Spaulding is formed by
adding the residual image to the clipped limited color gamut digital image.
Id. In contrast, Figure 6 of Spaulding shows how the clipped limited gamut
digital image is created by clipping color values of the extended color gamut
digital image that are determined to be outside the limited color gamut of a
storage color space. Spaulding 4:23–26.
Appellant argues that “[t]he examiner appears to equate the clipping
or scaling of values of an extended color gamut, as described by Spaulding,
to the ‘application of a first nonlinear function,’” as recited in claim 1.
Appeal Br. 11. However, according to Appellant:
even under the examiner’s own position, the clipping operation
is not applied on any ratios, let alone ratios of values of a
parameter determined from the representations of the first and
second images. Rather, the clipping operation is performed on a
range of values associated with an extended gamut color image
(that the Office equates to the “first image”), which results in
values associated with a limited color gamut image (that the
Office equates to the “second image”).
Id.
The Examiner responds that claim 1 is “essentially directed to storing
an HDR image (claimed as first image) as two complementary image
components, (1) the LDR image (claimed as second image) and (2) ratio
data representing division of pixel values of HDR by LDR (also claimed as
image data including ratio data).” Ans. 4. According to the Examiner,
“Spaulding teaches the claimed decoding, except instead of ‘ratio data’
(representing division, LDR= HDR/ratio), Spaulding only teaches a
preferred embodiment of decoding a ‘residual image’ (representing a
difference, LDR= HDR - residual). Id.
Appeal 2020-005996
Application 15/228,370

7
We note that the Examiner’s response does not address Appellant’s
argument. We agree with Appellant that the Examiner has not shown that
Spaulding applies a non-linear function to any ratios. Appellant’s
Specification discloses an example of the claimed non-linear function in
which a logarithm is applied to the ratio. Spec. ¶ 37. The Examiner has not
identified any portion of Spaulding that discusses applying a logarithm or
other non-linear function to residual image 26. And while we agree with the
Examiner’s finding that clipping is a type of non-linear function, the
Examiner has not demonstrated that Spaulding’s clipping operation is
applied to residual image 26 or to any other ratio of pixel values or
difference data. Of further relevance, the Examiner appears to alternatively
rely on Spaulding’s Figure 7 to teach a non-linear function. Final Act. 15.
Spaulding’s Figure 7 illustrates a lookup table that may be used “to clip the
portions of the limited color gamut digital image 22.” Spaulding 9:8–9.
Spaulding further explains that if the lookup table of Figure 7 “were used to
modify the remapped limited color gamut code values, the highly quantized
shadow and highlight portions of the remapped limited color gamut digital
image would be clipped to constant values.” Id. at 9:14–18. Spaulding,
therefore, only discloses applying the clipping algorithm to the limited color
gamut digital image 22 rather than to residual image 26.
Given the current record, the Examiner has not demonstrated that
Spaulding teaches or suggests the limitations at issue in claim 1. Nor does
the Examiner show that Chaddha compensates for the noted deficiencies of
Spaulding. Therefore, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1.
Appeal 2020-005996
Application 15/228,370

8
Because we agree with at least one of the dispositive arguments
advanced by Appellant, we need not reach the merits of Appellant’s other
arguments seeking to distinguish claim 1.
For similar reasons, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
claims 2, 3, 5–10, and 21–27, which depend directly or indirectly from claim
1.
CONCLUSION
We reverse the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–3, 5–10, and
21–27.

DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:

REVERSED

Claim(s)
Rejected
35
U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/
Basis
Affirmed Reversed
1–3, 5–10,
21–27
103(a) Spaulding,
Chaddha
1–3, 5–10,
21–27