Ex Parte de HAAN et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 29, 201612584959 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 29, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 12/584,959 09/15/2009 23280 7590 10/03/2016 Davidson, Davidson & Kappel, LLC 589 8th A venue 16th Floor New York, NY 10018 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Matthias M. de HAAN 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. 590.1033 2796 EXAMINER THIRUGNANAM, GANDHI ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2666 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 10/03/2016 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): ddk@ddkpatent.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Exparte MATTHIAS M. DE HAAN, RICHARD MARKFRIEDHOFF, TIMOTHY KING RODGERS JR., CASEY ARTHUR SMITH, and YOUNGROCK YOON Appeal2015-005910 Application 12/584,959 Technology Center 2600 Before JENNIFER L. McKEOWN, KAMRAN JIV ANI, and MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges. McKEOWN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-3 and 5-32. Claim 4 is canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). We reverse. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants' invention relates to: [A] method and system implementing image processing techniques that analyze aspects of a digital image received from a remote source, for example, form a cell phone or remote computer system. The analysis is in respect to information in the image relevant to a logical deduction regarding material and Appeal2015-005910 Application 12/584,959 illumination aspects of an image, such as, for example, spatio- spectral information relevant to an image, to perform an image segregation operation on the image received from a remote source, for more accurate further processing, such as, for example, performance of an object recognition or optical character recognition task. Spec. i-f 3. Claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed invention and reads as follows: 1. An automated, computerized method for processing an image, comprising the steps of: at a computer system, receiving an image recorded at and transmitted from a remote source; at the computer system, processing the transmitted image, for segregation of the transmitted image into a corresponding intrinsic image, the processing of the transmitted image being carried out by executing a spatio-spectral operator/constrain /solver model utilizing spectral relationships among contiguous pixels, in terms of color bands, and the spatial extent of the pixel spectral characteristics relevant to a single material depicted in the image or illumination flux effecting the image for image segregation such that the corresponding intrinsic image comprises a representation of one of material or illumination, expressed as a separate, multi-band representation for the one of material or illumination, independent of the other of the material or illumination, wherein each band corresponds to a segment of the electro-magnetic spectrum; and at the computer system, processing the corresponding intrinsic image to perform a preselected task, for a result. THE REJECTIONS The Examiner rejected claims 1-3 and 5-32 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. Final Act. 4--5. The Examiner rejected claims 1, 5, 6, 9, 11, 17, 18, and 31under35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Yau-Chat Tsoi and Michael S. Brown, 2 Appeal2015-005910 Application 12/584,959 Geometric and Shading Correction of Images of Printed Materials A Unified Approach Using Boundary, IEEE Trans. on Image Process., Vol. 15, No. 6, 1544--54, June 2006 ("Tsoi"). Final Act. 6-10. 1 The Examiner rejected claims 12, 14, 15, 23, 27, and 28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Tsoi and Michael S. Brown and Yau- Chat Tsoi, Geometric and Shading Correction for Images of Printed Materials Using Boundary, IEEE Trans. on Image Process., Vol. 15, No. 6, 1544--54, June 2006 ("Brown"). Final Act. 11-19. The Examiner rejected claims 2 and 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Tsoi and Kagehiro (US 2003/0044068 Al; Mar. 6, 2003). Final Act. 19-21. The Examiner rejected claims 7, 8, 10, 19-22, and 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Tsoi and Hyakutake (US 2006/0168148 Al; July 27, 2006). Final Act. 21-26. The Examiner rejected claim 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Tsoi, Hyakutake, and Brown. Final Act. 26-27. The Examiner rejected claims 13, 16, and 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Tsoi, Brown, and Hyakutake. Final Act. 27-31. The Examiner rejected claims 29, 30, and 32 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Tsoi and Bruce A. Maxwell et al., A Bi-Illuminant Dichromatic Reflection Model for Understanding Images, Computer Vision 1 Throughout this opinion, we also refer to ( 1) the Final Action mailed June 23, 2014 ("Final Act."); (2) the Appeal Brief filed Dec. 17, 2014 ("App. Br."); (3) the Examiner's Answer mailed Apr. 21, 2015 ("Ans."); and (4) the Reply Brief filed May 14, 2015 ("Reply Br."). 3 Appeal2015-005910 Application 12/584,959 and Pattern Recognition, IEEE Conference, 1-8 June 2008 ("Maxwell"). Final Act. 31-34. ANALYSIS THE WRITTEN DESCRIPTION REJECTION Claims 1-3 and 5-32 Based on the record before us, we are persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-3 and 5-32 for lack of written description support. The test for determining compliance with the written description requirement is whether the disclosure of the application as originally filed reasonably conveys to the artisan that the inventor had possession at that time of the later claimed subject matter, rather than the presence or absence of literal support in the specification for the claim language ... The content of the drawings may also be considered in determining compliance with the written description requirement. In re Kaslow, 707 F.2d 1366, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (citations omitted); see also Agilent Techs., Inc. v. Aj]j;metrix, Inc., 567 F.3d 1366, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (citation omitted) (brackets in original)("Adequate written description means that the applicant, in the specification, must 'convey with reasonable clarity to those skilled in the art that, as of the filing date sought, he or she was in possession of the [claimed] invention.'"). As Appellants explain, paragraph 38 introduces the spatio-spectral operator/constraint/solver model of the present invention and identifies that the processing of the received image can include an image segregation operation performed by the CPU 12, according to this model, to identify the illumination and material components of the image. App. Br. 11. The following paragraphs, including, for example, paragraphs 39--43 and 51-53, describe exemplary features of the spatio-spectral operator/constraint/solver 4 Appeal2015-005910 Application 12/584,959 model. Moreover, we note that the claim merely requires the spatio-spectral operator/constraint/solver model to utilize spectral relationships and the spatial extent of the pixel spectral characteristics as described, for example, in paragraph 39. Again, exemplary ways for the spatio-spectral operator/constraint/solver model to implement use of these features are described in the following paragraphs. As such, we are persuaded that spatio-spectral operator/constraint/solver model is sufficiently described in the Specification. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-3 and 5-32 under 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for lack of written description support. THE ANTICIPATION AND OBVIOUSNESS REJECTIONS Based on the record before us, we are persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1, 5, 6, 9, 11, 17, 18, and 31 as anticipated by Tsoi and rejecting the remaining claims as unpatentable over Tsoi and the additionally cited prior art references. Namely, we agree with Appellants that the Examiner erred in interpreting the claims. The Examiner finds that claim 1 (as well as the independent claims reciting a similar limitation) merely requires the use of the spectral relationship or luminance flux. Ans. 11-12; see also, e.g., Final Act. 7, 8, 10. Specifically, the Examiner states It is respectfully submitted that the claim language uses the "OR" notation. The model uses spectral relationships... OR illumination flux. The Examiner fully agrees that Tsai does not disclose using spectral relationships among contiguous pixels, in terms of color bands, and the spatial extent of the pixel spectral characteristics relevant to a single material depicted in the image. 5 Appeal2015-005910 Application 12/584,959 It is also abundantly clear that Tsai uses Illumination Flux. Applicant has failed to show or even argue that Tsai does not disclose Illumination Flux. Ans. 12. However, claim 1 recites, in part: the processing of the transmitted image being carried out by executing a spatio-spectral operator/constraint/solver model utilizing spectral relationships among contiguous pixels, in terms of color bands, and the spatial extent of the pixel spectral characteristics relevant to a single material depicted in the image or illumination flux effecting the image for image segregation. App. Br., Claims App'x (emphasis added). In other words, claim 1 requires the spatio-spectral operation/constraint/solver model (hereinafter "model") to use spectral relations and the spatial extent of the pixel spectral characteristics, where the spatial extent of the pixel spectral characteristics are relevant to either a single material depicted in the image or the illumination flux effecting the image. As such, because the Examiner finds that Tsoi only discloses using illumination flux and "fully agrees that Tsai does not disclose using spectral relationships among contiguous pixels, in terms of color bands, and the spatial extent of the pixel spectral characteristics relevant to a single material depicted in the image" (Ans. 12), we are persuaded of error. Each of independent claims 9, 12, 14, 17, 23, 24, 26, 27, and 28 also include the model limitation utilizing spectral relationships and the spatial extent of pixel spectral characteristics. The Examiner similarly relies on the interpretation that the claims merely require use of illumination flux. See, e.g., Final Act. 7, 8, 10. None of the additionally cited prior art cure this deficiency. As such, we determine that the Examiner erred in rejecting 6 Appeal2015-005910 Application 12/584,959 independent claims 1, 9, 12, 14, 17, 23, 24, 26, 27, and 28 as well as claims depending therefrom. Accordingly, we do not sustain the anticipation and obviousness rejections of claims 1-3 and 5-32. DECISION We reverse the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-3 and 5-32. REVERSED 7 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation