Ex Parte Gaubatz et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 23, 2016

13088795 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 23, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/088,795 04/18/2011
22879 7590 09/27/2016
HP Inc.
3390 E. Harmony Road
Mail Stop 35
FORT COLLINS, CO 80528-9544
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Matthew D. Gaubatz
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.
82676474 9215
EXAMINER
BEKELE, MEKONEN T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2666
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/27/2016 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):
ipa.mail@hp.com
barbl@hp.com
yvonne.bailey@hp.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MATTHEW D. GAUBATZ, STEPHEN L. LASZLO,
and KUNAL A. DESAI
Appeal2015-002525
Application 13/088,795
Technology Center 2600
Before THU A. DANG, JAMES R. HUGHES, and
LINZY T. McCARTNEY, Administrative Patent Judges.
DANG, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 1-22. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ).
We affirm.
Appeal2015-002525
Application 13/088,795
A. INVENTION
According to Appellants, the invention relates to "MANUALLY-
ASSISTED DETECTION OF REDEYE ARTIFACTS" (title).
B. REPRESENTATIVE CLAIM
Claims 1 is exemplary:
1. A machine-implemented method of processing an input
image, the method comprising:
receiving user input that manually identifies a location in
the input image that corresponds to a potential redeye artifact;
receiving a set of detected redeye artifacts in the input
image;
identifying one of the detected redeye artifacts that is
closest to the manually identified location; and
storing the identified detected redeye artifact in a list of
redeye artifacts that are identified with manual assistance if the
identified detected redeye artifact is within a threshold distance
from the manually identified location.
C. REJECTIONS
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Deer
Luo
Matsuhira
US 2006/0008169 Al
US 7,116,820 B2
US 2009/0244614 Al
Jan. 12,2006
Oct. 3, 2006
Oct. 1, 2009
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 12, 13, 21, and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
102(b) as anticipated by Deer.
Claims 7-11, 14, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Deer and Luo.
2
Appeal2015-002525
Application 13/088,795
Claims 15-18, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Deer and Matsuhira.
Claims 3 and 6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Deer.
II. ISSUES
The principal issues before us are whether the Examiner erred in
finding that Deer discloses "identifying one of the detected redeye artifacts
that is closest to the manually identified location;" and "storing the identified
detected redeye artifact ... if the identified detected redeye artifact is within
a threshold distance from the manually identified location" (claim 1
(emphases added)).
III. FINDINGS OF FACT
The following Findings of Fact (FF) are shown by a preponderance of
the evidence.
Deer
Deer discloses reducing red eye effect from image data have image
attributes (Abstract), wherein Figure 6 is reproduced below:
3
Appeal2015-002525
Application 13/088,795
r~;~:=~·--~r--
, ·"" !l<"la
~fl' MlNll>1\,:;"i,1 Mm.J~ ~~"'Mil) MNC!ii ~<·1 ~ ···
i ~
Figure 6, reproduced above, shows the red eye identification method
for conducting a red eye search within a range. As shown in the figure, the
method begins with a user providing a suggested center in step 604. Next in
step 606 the minimum radius RMIN as well as the maximum radius RMAX
from the center is provided either as a predetermined number or by user
input (i-f 50). To find the extent of the red eye, the image is divided into a
plurality of concentric circular rings between RMIN and RMAX (step 628),
wherein at step 612, the pixels in each ring are determined, and at step 616,
the pixels within the ring are counted (i-f 52). The red eye pixels continue to
be counted from minimum to greater radial distances, wherein at step 620, a
threshold is determined for the current ring. At step 624, if the pixel count is
4
Appeal2015-002525
Application 13/088,795
greater than the threshold, the counting continues, but if the count is less, at
step 632, the counting stops and the radius is set (i-f 53).
IV. ANALYSIS
As to claim 1, Appellants contend the Examiner "does not identify
any disclosure that teaches or suggests identifying a detected redeye artifact
that is closest to a manually identified location" (App. Br. 6). According
to Appellants, since "Deer does not identify such an artifact, ... Deer also
does not determine whether such an artifact is within a threshold distance
from a manually identified location" (id. at 7). Instead, "Deer simply counts
the number [of] red pixels within the ring and compares this number to a
threshold number" (id.).
We have considered all of Appellants' arguments and evidence
presented. However, we disagree with Appellants' contentions regarding the
Examiner's rejections of the claims. Based on the record before us, we are
unpersuaded that the Examiner erred in finding that claim 1 is anticipated by
Deer.
As a preliminary matter of claim construction, we give the claims
their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the Specification.
See In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997). While we interpret
claims broadly but reasonably in light of the Specification, we nonetheless
must not import limitations from the Specification into the claims. See
Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en bane).
We find no error with the Examiner's finding that Deer discloses
"receiving a suggested potential redeye center point manually determined by
a user ... "and "receiving a set of potential redeye pixels( artifact), wherein
5
Appeal2015-002525
Application 13/088,795
the set of potential redeye pixels [is] detected by setting a minimum radius
and a maximum radius in the input image ... "(Ans. 4; FF). In particular,
Deer discloses identifying redeye pixels/artifacts, wherein the pixels/artifacts
are identified within circular rings between a minimum and maximum radius
(FF).
We also find no error with the Examiner's finding that Deer's
pixels/ artifacts identified comprise redeye artifacts "that is closest to the
manually identified location" as required by claim 1. As the Examiner
explains, "distance (minimum radius) from the pixels inscribed in the
detected minimum radius to the suggested potential redeye center point
(which is manually determined by a user) is the shortest (closest) distance"
(Ans. 4). That is, Deer's identified pixels/artifacts are identified within
circular rings between a minimum and maximum radius, wherein such
pixels/artifacts include at least the one inscribed in the minimum radius with
the shortest distance (closest) to the suggested potential redeye center point
provided by the user (FF).
Furthermore, as the Examiner finds, Deer teaches that "the number of
red eye pixels counted in each ring ... is compared with the variable
threshold, T," and "as long as the red eye pixel count is greater [than] T ... ,
the counting continues onto a next circular ring," wherein "the ring in which
the number of red eye pixels drops below the threshold T can be considered
a boundary of the red eye region" such that when this ring is detected, "the
process of counting red eye pixels can stop" (Ans. 6, emphasis omitted; FF).
According to the Examiner, "[t]he threshold distance from the
manually identified location corresponds to the distance between the outer
perimeter of this ring and the suggested red eye center" (id., emphasis
6
Appeal2015-002525
Application 13/088,795
omitted). We find no error with the Examiner's broad but reasonable
interpretation, and thus, agree with the Examiner's finding that Deer
discloses determining if the identified detected redeye artifact is "within a
threshold distance from the manually identified location", as recited in claim
1.
Here, we note claim 1 does not provide any specific definition for "a
threshold distance" other than it is "from the manually identified location"
(claim 1 ). The Specification also does not provide any clear definition.
Giving the term its broadest, reasonable interpretation consistent with the
Specification and claims, we conclude a "threshold distance" is any distance
from the manually identified location, within which the identified
pixels/artifacts are stored. Thus, we are unpersuaded that the Examiner's
interpretation of "threshold distance" is overly broad or unreasonable, and
thus, find no error with the Examiner's reliance on Deer's disclosure of
identifying redeye pixels/artifacts within a threshold distance (ring of a
given radius) from the manually identified location (FF).
On this record, we are not persuaded of error in the Examiner's
reliance on Deer for disclosing the contested limitations of claim 1.
Appellants do not provide substantive arguments for claims 2, 4, 5, 12, and
13 separate from claim 1 (App. Br. 8), and thus, these claims fall with claim
1.
As for independent claims 21 and 22, Appellants merely repeat "Deer
does not identify such an artifact [closest to a manually identified location]"
(App. Br. 9, 11). Based on this record and for the reasons discussed above,
we are also unpersuaded of error in the rejection of claims 21 and 22 over
Deer.
7
Appeal2015-002525
Application 13/088,795
As for claims 3, 6-11, and 14--20, Appellants merely contend "the
Examiner has not established a primafacie case of obviousness" (App. Br.
11-12). Based on this record and for the reasons discussed above with
respect to claim 1 from which they depend, we are also unpersuaded of error
in the rejections of claims 7-11, 14, and 19 over Deer in further view of
Luo; of claims 15-18, and 20 over Deer in further view of Matsuhira; and of
claims 3 and 6 over Deer.
V. CONCLUSION AND DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's rejections of claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 12, 13, 21,
and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) and claims 3, 6-11, and 14--20 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)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
8