Ex Parte Carletta et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 26, 201612221505 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 26, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 12/221,505 08/04/2008 Joan Elizabeth Carletta 26360 7590 08/26/2016 Renner Kenner Greive Bobak Taylor & Weber Co., LPA First National Tower, Suite 400 106 South Main Street Akron, OH 44308-1412 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 ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 089498.0706 1968 EXAMINER ROZ, MARK ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2669 MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE 08/26/2016 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 JOAN ELIZABETH CARLETTA and FIRAS HUSSEIN HASSAN Appeal2015-003883 Application 12/221,505 Technology Center 2600 Before JAMES W. DEJMEK, JOHN D. HAMANN, and MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's rejection of claims 1--4, 6-8, and 17.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). We affirm. 1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is the University of Akron. Br. 2. 2 Claims 5 and 9-16 have been cancelled. Final Act. 2. Appeal2015-003883 Application 12/221,505 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction Appellants' application relates to "a method capable of real-time implementable local tone mapping of high dynamic range images." Spec. 1: 11-12. Claim 1 is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal and reads as follows with the disputed limitation italicized: 1. A method for achieving the local tone mapping of high dynamic range images comprising the steps of: (A) providing at least one HDR RGB triplet suitable for local tone mapping; (B) calculating at least one luminance component of the at least one HDR RGB triplet using a luminance computation sub-block; (C) supplying the one or more luminance components to at least one approximated Gaussian pyramid sub-block and at least one log average sub-block, wherein the luminance components supplied to the at least one approximated Gaussian pyramid sub-block and at least one log average sub-block are used to, respectively, generate at least one local illumination estimate and at least one global illumination estimate, wherein the approximated Gaussian pyramid uses a number of different two-dimensional windows to calculate a number of different averages around a pixel in order to select the most suitable local illumination estimate; (D) buffering the HDR RGB triplet in at least one buffer sub-block; (E) supplying the at least one local illumination estimate, the at least one global illumination estimate, the at least one luminance component and the buffered RGB triplet to a color tone mapping sub-block to generate a mapped RGB triplet; and wherein steps (B), (C) and (D) are carried out simultaneously for multiple levels of the approximated Gaussian pyramid. 2 Appeal2015-003883 Application 12/221,505 The Examiner's Rejections Claims 1, 5, and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Nolan Goodnight et al., Interactive Time-Dependent Tone Mapping Using Programmable Graphics Hardware, Eurographics Symposium on Rendering 2003 (Per Christianson and Daniel Cohen-Or eds., 2003) The Eurographics Association ("Goodnight"); E. H. Adelson et al., Pyramid methods in image processing, 29-6, RCA Engineer Nov./Dec. 1984 ("Adelson"); and Paul Debevec et al., High Dynamic Range Imaging, SIGGRAPH 2004 Course 13 ("Debevec"). Ans. 3-7. Claims 2, 3, 6, and 7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Goodnight, Adelson, Debevec, and Ben Cope et al., Have GP Us made FPGAs redundant in the field of Video Processing?, (2005) IEEE ("Cope"). Ans. 8-9. Claims 4 and 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Goodnight, ,,L\ .. delson, Debevec, and l\1cClanahan (US 2006/0034489 Al; Feb. 16, 2006). Ans. 9-10. ANALYSIS Claim 1 Appellants contend the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Goodnight, Adelson, and Debevec teaches or suggests "wherein steps (B), (C) and (D) are carried out simultaneously for multiple levels of the approximated Gaussian pyramid," as recited in claim 1. Br. 6. In particular, Appellants argue Adelson's method of creating a Gaussian pyramid (related to step (C) of the claims) "creates the levels of the Gaussian pyramid one level at a time," instead of simultaneously. Br. 6. Appellants argue a 3 Appeal2015-003883 Application 12/221,505 combination of Goodnight and Adelson would not achieve the claimed invention because Adelson's method of using a Gaussian pyramid cannot be used simultaneously across multiple levels. Id. The Examiner responds that Goodnight teaches processing pyramid levels simultaneously and Adelson is relied on only for teaching an approximated Gaussian pyramid. Ans. 10; see also Goodnight, Fig. 2. Appellants have not persuaded us the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1. Appellants have identified no persuasive evidence in the record to support the argument that the method of Adelson could not be applied simultaneously across multiple levels of the approximated Gaussian pyramid. Attorney arguments and conclusory statements that are unsupported by factual evidence are entitled to little probative value. See In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997); see also In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705 (Fed. Cir. 1984). ~,.1oreover, the Examiner relies on .LA~delson only for teaching an approximated Gaussian pyramid, relying instead on Goodnight for teaching simultaneous processing for multiple levels of a pyramid. See Ans. 10. Accordingly, Appellants' argument focuses on the individual disclosure of Adelson when the Examiner relies on the combination of Goodnight, Adelson, and Debevec for the disputed limitation. One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually when the rejection is based on a combination of references. In re Merck & Co. Inc., 800 F .2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986); see also In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981 ). In addition, Appellants' argument presumes that an ordinarily skilled artisan would bodily incorporate the teachings of Adelson into Goodnight. 4 Appeal2015-003883 Application 12/221,505 However, "[t]he test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference .... Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of those references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art." In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981); see also In re Nievelt, 482 F.2d 965, 968 (CCPA 1973) ("Combining the teachings of references does not involve an ability to combine their specific structures."). Further, Appellants have not asserted the proposed modification would have been beyond the capabilities of a person of ordinary skill in the art. Absent such an assertion, we "take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ," and find a person of ordinary skill in the art would overcome those difficulties within their level of skill. KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007); see also id. at 421 ("A person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinaf'J creativity, not an automaton."). Accordingly, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 over the combination of Goodnight, Adelson, and Debevec. Claims 2 and 6 Claims 2 and 6 recite, "[t]he method of claim 1, wherein the method is carried out in an embedded system selected from general purpose digital signal processors, field programmable gate arrays (FPGAs ), or application specific integrated circuits. "3 The Examiner relies on Cope, which discloses 3 In the event of further prosecution, we invite the Examiner to determine whether claims 2 and 6, 3 and 7, and 4 and 8 are directed to separately distinct, patentable matter. 5 Appeal2015-003883 Application 12/221,505 image processing on FPGAs, as teaching the disputed limitation. Final Act. 8 (citing Cope Fig. 2, § 5.2). Appellants argue the Examiner erred in relying on Cope because it would not have been obvious to switch from Goodnight's GPU implementation to Cope's FPGA implementation. Br. 8. Appellants argue GPU s are FPGAs are different in several ways and an ordinarily skilled artisan would not have found it obvious to switch from one to the other. Id. Appellants have not persuaded us that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 2 and 6. The Examiner finds FPGAs and GPUs have several differences, including those argued by Appellants. Ans. 12. The Examiner further finds, and we agree, that Cope teaches FPGAs have several advantages for image processing. Id. Appellants have identified no persuasive evidence in the record that rebuts the Examiner's finding that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to use FPGAs to achieve these advantages or that implementing the method taught by the combination of Goodnight, Adelson, and Debevec would have been "uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art." See Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 419 (2007)). Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claims 2 and 6. Claim 17 Claim 17 recites, "[t]he method of claim 1, wherein the tone mapping occurs in real time." Appellants argue the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 7 because Goodnight does not teach or suggest real time tone mapping. Br. 7. In particular, Appellants argue Goodnight teaches real time tone 6 Appeal2015-003883 Application 12/221,505 mapping for an "extremely simplified algorithm that does not include the Gaussian pyramid." Id. Appellants argue Goodnight's algorithm cannot achieve real time tone mapping when applied to a Gaussian pyramid. Id. The Examiner finds Goodnight teaches "real-time frame rates are easily achievable if we limit ourselves to smaller image resolutions or a smaller number of zones." Ans. 11-12; see also Goodnight 34. Appellants have not persuaded us the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 17. As found by the Examiner, Goodnight teaches real-time local tone mapping under certain conditions. Id. Appellants' argument that Goodnight cannot achieve real-time tone mapping under all conditions is unpersuasive because the conditions taught by Goodnight fall within the scope of claim 17. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 17. CONCLUSIONS On the record before us and in viev'l1 of the analysis above, .LA~ppellants have not persuaded us the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 as unpatentable over Goodnight, Adelson, and Debevec. Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claim 1. We also sustain the rejections of claims 4 and 8, which were not argued separately. On the record before us, and in view of the analysis above, Appellants have not persuaded us the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 2 and 6 as unpatentable over Goodnight, Adelson, Debevec, and Cope. Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claims 2 and 6. We also sustain the rejections of claims 3 and 7, which were not argued separately. On the record before us, and in view of the analysis above, Appellants have not persuaded us the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 7 as 7 Appeal2015-003883 Application 12/221,505 unpatentable over Goodnight, Adelson, and Debevec. Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claim 17. DECISION We affirm the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1--4, 6-8, and 17. AFFIRMED 8 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation