Ex Parte Chen et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 28, 2016

12758647 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 28, 2016)

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
Wolfe-SBMC
116 W. Pacific Avenue
Suite 300
Spokane, WA 99201
12/30/2016 EXAMINER
COTHRAN, BERNARD E
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2128
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/30/2016 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 SIMON CHEN, ERIC CHAN, HAILIN JIN,
and JEN-CHAN CHIEN1
Appeal 2016-003415
Application 12/758,647
Technology Center 2100
Before DEBRA K. STEPHENS, BRUCE R. WINSOR, and
PHILLIP A. BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.
BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1—7, 9, 10, 16-18, and 21—28, which are all of the claims
pending in this application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 Appellants’ Brief (“App. Br.”) identifies Adobe Systems Incorporated as
the real party in interest. App. Br. 3.
Appeal 2016-003415
Application 12/758,647
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to retargeting and prioritized interpolation of
lens profiles. Claim 1, reproduced below with disputed limitations
emphasized, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A computer-implemented method comprising:
obtaining a target image, the target image including
metadata describing one or more camera settings used to
capture the target image;
responsive to obtaining the target image and after the
target image is captured, obtaining a lens profile file for a
camera/lens combination, the lens profile file including one or
more sub-profiles, each of the one or more sub-profiles
including:
a mathematical model for correcting an aberration
of the camera/lens combination; and
one or more camera settings generated
independent of the one or more camera settings used to
capture the target image;
comparing the one or more camera settings used to
capture the target image to the one or more camera settings of
each sub-profile included in the lens profde fde\
locating the one or more sub-profiles in the lens profile
file that best matches the one or more camera settings used to
capture the target image based on the comparing;
retargeting the lens profile file to the target image; and
responsive to the retargeting, correcting one or more
aberrations in the target image based on the located one or more
sub-profiles.
App. Br. 24 (Claims Appendix).
2
Appeal 2016-003415
Application 12/758,647
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Heffelfmger et al. US 5,891,314 Apr. 6, 1999
Chaudhri et al. US 2008/0303922 Al 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) (“Pontinen”).
Dan B. Goldman, Vignette and Exposure Calibration and Compensation,
IEEE Transactions of Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence
(2010) (“Goldman”).
Tommaselli et al., A Mathematical Model for Camera Calibration using
Straight Lines (2006) (“Tommaselli”).
REJECTIONS
Claims 1—6, 9, 16—18, and 26—28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Pontinen, Chaudhri, and Heffelfmger.
Claims 7 and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Pontinen, Chaudhri, Heffelfmger, and Goldman.
Claims 21—25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Pontinen, Chaudhri, Heffelfmger, and Tommaselli.
ISSUES FOR DECISION
(1) Has the Examiner erred in finding the cited combination
teaches or suggests “one or more camera settings generated independent of
the one or more camera settings used to capture the target image,” as recited
in claim 1 ?
3
Appeal 2016-003415
Application 12/758,647
(2) Has the Examiner erred in finding Pontinen does not teach
away from the claimed invention?
(3) Has the Examiner provided a sufficient motivation to combine
Chaudhri and Pontinen?
(4) Has the Examiner erred in finding Chaudhri teaches or suggests
“comparing the one or more camera settings used to capture the target image
to the one or more camera settings of each sub-profile included in the lens
profile file” as recited in claim 1 ?
(5) Has the Examiner erred in finding the cited combination
teaches or suggests
comparing a camera setting used to capture a target image to
the particular camera setting of each of the one or more sub-
profiles included in the selected lens profile file, the particular
camera setting of one of the one or more sub-profiles being
generated independent of the camera setting used to capture the
target image, the target image being captured prior to the
comparing,
as recited in independent claim 16.
(6) Has the Examiner erred in finding Chaudhri teaches or suggests
“compar[ing] metadata of the captured image with metadata of the lens
profile file, the metadata of the lens profile file being generated independent
of the captured image,” as recited in independent claim 21?
ANALYSIS
First Issue
In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner finds Chaudhri teaches the
limitation of “one or more camera settings generated independent of the one
or more camera settings used to capture the target image.” Ans. 4.
4
Appeal 2016-003415
Application 12/758,647
Asserting Examiner error, Appellants argue “Pontinen fails to provide any
basis for ‘one or more camera settings generated independent of the one or
more camera settings used to capture the target image’” as recited in
claim 1. App. Br. 13—14. We are not persuaded by this argument because
the Examiner finds Chaudhri, and not Pontinen, teaches this claim limitation.
Ans. 4 (“Chaudhri et al. discloses ‘and one or more camera settings
generated independent of the one or more camera settings used to capture
the target image’ as [Chaudhri et al. (paragraph [0052], paragraph
[0059])].”)
Appellants also argue Chaudhri does not teach the recited “one or
more camera settings generated independent of the one or more camera
settings used to capture the target image.” More specifically, Appellants
argue any independently-generated camera settings in Chaudhri are not
included in a sub-profile of a lens profile file for a camera/lens combination,
as required by the claim. App. Br. 15. We are not persuaded by this
argument because the Examiner finds Pontinen, and not Chaudhri, teaches
“the lens profile file including one or more sub-profiles.” Ans. 3 (“‘the lens
profile file including one or more sub-profiles’ as [Pontinen (Abstract, Pg.
28, sec.3 Correction Models, 1st — 3rd paragraph, ‘The green colour channels
of the [images], etc.’)]). Appellants are attacking the references individually
where the rejection is based upon the combined teachings of Pontinen and
Chaudhri. In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986)
(“Non-obviousness cannot be established by attacking references
individually where the rejection is based upon the teachings of a
combination of references.”) Accordingly, we do not find error in the
Examiner’s determination that Chaudhri teaches “one or more camera
5
Appeal 2016-003415
Application 12/758,647
settings generated independent of the one or more camera settings used to
capture the target image.”
Second Issue
Appellants also argue the Examiner erred in relying on Pontinen to
conclude the claims are obvious because Pontinen’s use of color channels
from captured images to correct chromatic aberrations teaches away from
the claimed subject matter. More specifically, Appellants contend:
Pontinen is clearly limited to embodiments in which camera
settings used to capture an image are used to correct an
aberration. Using camera settings other than those used to
capture an image would render Pontinen unfit for its intended
purpose of applying camera settings used to capture an image
for correcting an aberration. Accordingly, Pontinen teaches
away from the features of claim 1 and the rejection [in] view of
Pontinen is improper for at least this reason.
App. Br. 14. A reference does not teach away by merely expressing a
general preference for an alternative invention if it does not “criticize,
discredit, or otherwise discourage” investigation into the invention claimed.
In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Appellants have not
identified any teaching in Pontinen discrediting a system that corrects
aberrations by using camera settings generated independently of the captured
image (as recited in claim 1 and taught by Chaudhri). Although Pontinen
corrects aberrations using camera settings used to capture an image (see,
e.g., Pontinen Abstract), Appellants have not proffered sufficient evidence to
persuade us Pontinen discourages additionally using camera settings
generated independently of the captured image to correct aberrations.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded that Pontinen teaches away from the
claimed invention.
6
Appeal 2016-003415
Application 12/758,647
Third Issue
Appellants also challenge the Examiner’s rationale for combining
Pontinen and Chaudhri as being “misplaced and legally insufficient” because
the reasoning is too general and lacks particularity. App. Br. 16. Appellants
argue the only reason given by the Examiner for combining the references
was to “provid[e] improved image capturing technique,” and that the
Office’s own publications indicate this reasoning is inadequate. App. Br. 16
(citing “Formulating and Communicating Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. [§]
103 for Applications Directed to Computer-Implemented Business Method
Inventions,” http://www.uspto.gov/web/menu/busmethp/
busmethl03rej .htm.)
We are not persuaded the Examiner failed to provide a sufficient
rationale for combining Pontinen and Chaudhri. Appellants argue the
Examiner merely set forth the rationale as “providing improved image
capturing technique.” Appellants overlook the additional analysis in the
Final Office Action which additionally finds:
The motivation for doing so would have been because Chaudhri
et al. teaches that by having an ambient light sensor (ALS)
coupled to a processor, the ability to know information about
the lighting conditions during the image capturing can be
accomplished (paragraph [0008] - [0009]).
Final Act. 8—9. Moreover, the Examiner provided additional findings in the
Answer (see Ans. 27—28), which stand unrebutted in the Reply Brief.2 As
such, Appellants do not apprise us of error in the Examiner’s rationale, as
2 Although Appellants have filed a Reply Brief, it contained no substantive
argument and only “maintains the positions set forth in the Appeal Brief
dated August 24, 2015 . . . .” Reply Br. 5.
7
Appeal 2016-003415
Application 12/758,647
the Examiner has articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning,
which remains unaddressed by Appellants.
Fourth Issue
Claim 1 recites the limitation “comparing the one or more camera
settings used to capture the target image to the one or more camera settings
of each sub-profile included in the lens profile file.” The Examiner finds
Chaudhri teaches this comparison in paragraph 59. Ans. 4, 28. Appellants
contend the Examiner’s finding is unsupported by the evidence for two
reasons.
First, Appellants argue Chaudhri teaches comparing image types and
not camera settings. App. Br. 18—19. We are unpersuaded by Appellants’
first argument because the image types in Chaudhri are simply collections or
groups of stored camera settings. Chaudhri teaches that each image type is
associated with a set of lighting conditions, and the camera settings used to
capture images in those lighting conditions are saved as “image type[s].”
Chaudhri | 58. As such, a comparison of image types in Chaudhri compares
camera settings. Ans. 28.
Second, Appellants argue Chaudhri matches images types to capture a
new image, and not for the purpose of correcting an aberration in a captured
image as required by claim 1. App. Br. 19. We are similarly unpersuaded
by Appellants’ second argument because Pontinen, and not Chaudhri is
relied upon for teaching correcting image aberrations in a captured image.
See Ans. 4 (“Pontinen teaches obtaining a target. . . .”).
Fifth Issue
Claim 16 recites the limitation
8
Appeal 2016-003415
Application 12/758,647
comparing a camera setting used to capture a target image to
the particular camera setting of each of the one or more sub­
profiles included in the selected lens profile file, the particular
camera setting of one of the one or more sub-profiles being
generated independent of the camera setting used to capture the
target image, the target image being captured prior to the
comparing.
App. Br. 27—28 (Claims Appendix). This claim limitation is essentially a
combination of the two limitations discussed in connection with the First
Issue and the Fourth Issue above, and Appellants present substantially
similar arguments seeking reversal—namely, that Chaudhri does not
compare stored camera settings and that Chaudhri matches image types in
order to capture a new image, and not for the purpose of correcting an
aberration in a captured image. App. Br. 20. The Examiner finds the
“arguments regarding claim 16 are the same arguments that are mentioned
for claim 1. The response for these arguments is the same as the response
for the arguments listed above.” Ans. 28—29.
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments for the same reasons
discussed above with respect to claim 1. Specifically, because image types
in Chaudhri are simply collections or groups of stored camera settings, we
agree with the Examiner that a comparison of image types in Chaudhri also
compares camera settings. Moreover, we are unpersuaded by Appellants’
contention that Chaudhri is limited to matching image types in order to
capture new images, because as we noted above, the Examiner relies on
Pontinen for that aspect of the claim.
Sixth Issue
Claim 21 recites the claim limitation of “compar[ing] metadata of the
captured image with metadata of the lens profile file, the metadata of the
9
Appeal 2016-003415
Application 12/758,647
lens profile file being generated independent of the captured image.”
Appellants offer substantially similar arguments in connection with claim 21
as those presented in connection with claims 1 and 16 discussed above.
App. Br. 22. For the same reasons, we do not find these arguments
persuasive.
Summary
For the reasons discussed above, we are not persuaded the Examiner
erred in concluding independent claims 1,16, and 21 are unpatentable over
the prior art. Accordingly, we sustain the rejections of those claims.
Appellants do not argue with particularity for patentability of the dependent
claims. See App. Br. 19, 21, 23. Accordingly, we also sustain the rejections
of claims 2—7, 9, 10, 17, 18, and 22—28.
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—7, 9, 10, 16—18, and 21—28 is
affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
10