Ex Parte He et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 8, 2016

13433948 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 8, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/433,948 03/29/2012
22879 7590 08/10/2016
HP Inc,
3390 E. Harmony Road
Mail Stop 35
FORT COLLINS, CO 80528-9544
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Lulu He
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.
82900065 9870
EXAMINER
HARANDI, SIAMAK
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2665
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/10/2016 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 LULU HE, FENG TANG, and QIAN LIN
Appeal2014-008847
Application 13/433,948
Technology Center 2600
Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, HUNG H. BUI, and
MICHAEL M. BARRY, Administrative Patent Judges.
KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1-20. 1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm.
1 The Examiner has noted claim 4 is objected to but would be allowable if
rewritten in independent forms including all of the limitations of the base
claims and any intervening claims (Final Act. 19).
Appeal2014-008847
Application 13/433,948
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants' invention is directed to an image segmentation system
defining a first discriminative classifier and a second discriminative
classifier (Abstract).
Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is exemplary of the subject
matter on appeal.
1. An image segmentation method, comprising:
identifying a reference segment of an object;
defining a first discriminative classifier associated with a
first segment of the object in an image based on a first
foreground sample region associated with the first segment of
the object in the image and a first background sample region
associated with the first segment of the object in the image,
wherein a location of the first foreground sample region and the
first background sample region are selected relative to the
reference segment;
defining a second discriminative classifier associated
with a second segment of the object based on a second
foreground sample region associated with the second segment
of the object in the image and a second background sample
region associated with the second segment of the object in the
image, wherein a location of the second foreground sample
region and the second background sample region are selected
relative to the reference segment;
identifying at least a portion of the first segment using
the first discriminative classifier; and
identifying at least a portion of the second segment using
the second discriminative classifier.
REFERENCES and REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejected claims 1-3, 6-14, and 16-19 under 35 U.S.C.
2
Appeal2014-008847
Application 13/433,948
§ 103(a) based upon the teachings of Dollar (Multiple Component Learning
for Object Detection, Computer Vision-ECCV (2008)) and Luo (US
6,697,502 B2; Feb. 24, 2004) (Final Act. 5-17).
The Examiner rejected claims 5, 15, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
based upon the teachings of Dollar and Gokturk (US 8,315,442 B2; Nov. 20,
2012) (Final Act. 17-19).
ANALYSIS
Appellants assert Dollar does not "sample foreground and background
regions associated with particular segments of an object" (App. Br. 9).
Thus, Appellants contend, Dollar does not utilize a reference segment (App.
Br. 10). Appellants then assert Luo does not cure the deficiencies of Dollar
as Luo detects skin regions by comparing an average color of a region to a
predetermined distribution and does not "utilize reference segments,
background samples, and/or foreground samples" as claimed (App. Br. 13).
We do not agree.
We agree with and adopt the Examiner's findings as our own (Final
Act. 5-19; Ans. 3-8). Particularly, the Examiner relies on Dollar for
disclosing classifying regions based on background and foreground regions
(patches) and Luo for determining a reference region and other regions
referenced to the reference region (Ans. 5---6). Thus, applying Luo's
teachings to Dollar's system to identify regions that can be individually
classified and then combined to identify an object, would result in
Appellants' claimed invention (id.). We further note paragraph 1016 of
Appellants' Specification states "[ o ]ften, reference segments are visually
distinctive or have visual properties that can be identified from other
3
Appeal2014-008847
Application 13/433,948
portions of an image. As examples, the face of a person, the corolla of a
flower, and the license plate of an automobile can be reference segments."
Thus, Appellants' example of reference segments is broad enough to cover
the reference regions disclosed in Luo (Ans. 5).
Appellants' arguments, for the most part, recite the claims, state what
each reference teaches, and then assert the reference does not disclose the
claimed invention, without responding to the Examiner's findings (App. Br.
8-20). For example, the Examiner finds:
Luo discloses detecting a potential face (reference segment)
using skin/color detection. Then Luo detects human parts which
are associated with the face (reference segment) through the
"link nodes", in which they are relatively associated with the face
(reference segment). This teaching of Luo, when used to modify
Dollar's system, would allow the combination of Dollar and Luo
to function as the claimed invention.
(Final Act. 3)
Appellants' response merely asserts the two references cannot be
combined without providing persuasive reasoning or argument as to why
and how the Examiner erred (see, e.g., App. Br. 13-19). Further, Appellants
appear to be arguing the references separately: Appellants argue Luo does
not disclose background and foreground sample features, however, the
Examiner relies on Dollar for these features (App. Br. 18; Final Act. 4--6;
Ans. 6).
Thus, on this record, we are not persuaded the Examiner's reading of
the claims on the cited combination of references is overly broad,
unreasonable, or inconsistent with the Specification. We find the weight of
the evidence supports the Examiner's ultimate legal conclusion of
obviousness and, therefore, sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent
4
Appeal2014-008847
Application 13/433,948
claims 1, 9, and 16, argued together, dependent claims 2, 3, 6-8, 10-14, and
17-19 dependent therefrom, and claims 5, 15, and 20 not separately argued
(App. Br. 20).
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-20 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)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
5