Ex Parte Kamat et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 16, 2017

12968281 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 16, 2017)

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.
12/968,281 12/15/2010 Pawankumar Jagannath KAMAT 82263407 2073
22879
HP Tnr
7590 03/20/2017 EXAMINER
3390 E. Harmony Road
Mail Stop 35
AZIMA, SHAGHAYEGH
FORT COLLINS, CO 80528-9544 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2665
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/20/2017 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
y vonne.bailey @ hp. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte PAWANKUMAR JAGANNATH KAMAT,
SERENE BANERJEE, SREENATH RAMANNA,
ANJANEYULU SEETHA RAMA KUCHIBHOTLA,
and KADAGATTUR GOPINATHA SRINIDHI
Appeal 2016-003825
Application 12/968,2811
Technology Center 2600
Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, JUSTIN BUSCH, and
CARL L. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection2 of claims 1—8, 10, 12, 13, and 15—20. Final Act. 11—26.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Hewlett-Packard
Development Company, LP. App. Br. 2.
2 Claims 9, 11, and 14 are objected to by the Examiner as being dependent
upon a rejected base claim. Final Act. 26.
Appeal 2016-003825
Application 12/968,281
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The disclosed and claimed invention relates to image processing.
Abstract. Claim 1, reproduced below, is exemplary of the subject matter on
appeal (emphasis added):
1. A method for pipelined image processing in a networked
computing environment comprising:
receiving one or more swaths of an image by a server from a
client device connected via a network;
processing the received one or more swaths on a swath by
swath basis to obtain one or more image quality parameters; and
based on the obtained one or more image quality parameters,
selectively further processing the image to improve said one or more
image quality parameters, said further processing being performed on
either said server or said client device.
App. Br. 24. (Claims Appx.).
THE REJECTIONS
Claims 1—4, 10, 12, 15, 17, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Fan et al. (US 6,621,595 Bl; iss. Sept.
16, 2003) (“Fan”) in view of Furukawa (US 2009/0172754 Al; pub. July 2,
2009). Final Act. 11-19.
Claims 5 and 7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Fan, Furukawa, and Kishi et al. (US 7,680,863 B2; iss.
March 16, 2010) (“Kishi”). Final Act. 19—20.
Claims 6, 8, and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Fan, Furukawa, and Dawson et al. (US 2004/0184523 Al;
pub. Sept. 23, 2004) (“Dawson”). Final Act. 20—22.
2
Appeal 2016-003825
Application 12/968,281
Claim 16 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Fan, Furukawa, and Depelteau (US 7,103,637 B2; iss.
Sept. 5, 2006). Final Act. 22—23.
Claim 18 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Fan, Furukawa, and Westerhoff et al. (US 2009/0210487
Al; pub. Aug. 20, 2009) (“Westerhoff’). Final Act. 24—25.
Claim 19 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Fan, Furukawa, and Otsuka (US 2005/0275506 Al; pub.
Dec. 15, 2005). Final Act. 25-26.
ANALYSIS
Appellants argue the combination of Fan and Furukawa does not teach
the claim 1 limitations:
1) processing the received one or more swaths on a swath by
swath basis to obtain one or more image quality parameters;
and
2) based on the obtained one or more image quality parameters,
selectively further processing the image to improve said one
or more image quality parameters, said further processing
being performed on either said server or said client device.
App. Br. 10—14; Reply Br. 10—14.
According to Appellants, “[tjhus, an image quality parameter comes
from processing swaths of the image and that parameter is used to further
process the image to improve that same parameter within the image.” App.
Br. 10. Appellants argue Fan may teach obtaining image parameters (such
as text edge) but does not then teach “based on the obtained one or more
image quality parameters, selectively further processing [of] the image to
3
Appeal 2016-003825
Application 12/968,281
improve said one or more image quality parameters, said [further]
processing being performed on either said server or said client device,” and
the Examiner errs by relying on Furukawa for this limitation. Id. at 11
(emphasis added).
Appellants argue Furukawa teaches:
[T]hat a server (10) is passing video from a source (camera 16 or
VoD 18) to a client (12) through the Internet (14). The client
may control the image quality, i.e., “the client terminal 12
controls a parameter relating to image quality from an image
display application GUI in the image distribution system started
up by the client terminal 12, whereby the client terminal 12
transmits a parameter 22 to the server 10 through the Internet 14.
The server 10 analyzes the received parameter 22, and issues a
quality control instruction.” (Id.).
App. Br. 12-13.
Based on the asserted teaching of Fan and Furukawa, Appellants
argue the Examiner’s combination would not result in the claimed invention,
as interpreted supra. Id. at 13; see also Reply Br. 13—14.
The Examiner finds Fan teaches limitation (1) including “image
quality parameters such as text edge, background luminance, etc.” Final
Act. 11—12 (citing Fan 3:10-55; 9:28—35; Fig. 7). The Examiner finds the
combination of Fan and Furukawa teaches limitation (2). Id. at 12—13
(citing Furukawa 137). Regarding Furukawa, the “Examiner notes the
parameter 22 transmitted to the server is a quality parameter obtained by
processing the image, further server processes the received image quality
parameter 22, and transmits back improved values of the image quality
parameter 22 to the client, therefore client displays the improved quality
image.” Ans. 6 (citing Furukawa ^fl[ 37—38).
4
Appeal 2016-003825
Application 12/968,281
Regarding the combination of Fan and Furukawa, the Examiner
determines:
At the time of the invention it would have been obvious to
a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Furukawa
technique of improving image quality in server and client system
into Fan technique to provide the known and expected uses and
benefits of Furukawa technique over enhancing and transmitting
an image link by link between client and server technique of Fan.
The proposed combination would have constituted a mere
arrangement of old elements with each performing their known
function, the combination yielding no more than one would
expect from such an arrangement.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of
ordinary skill in the art to incorporate Furukawa to Fan in order
to provide high resolution image from plurality of low resolution
images in client server system. (Refer to Furukawa paragraph
[0004].)
Final Act. 13.
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments and, instead,
agree with the Examiner’s findings above that the combination of Fan and
Furukawa teaches the disputed limitations. Appellants’ arguments are not
commensurate with the scope of the claims as broadly but reasonably
interpreted. Claim terms in a patent application are given the broadest
reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, as understood by
one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Crish, 393 F.3d 1253, 1256 (Fed. Cir.
2004).
Here, we conclude the scope of the recited “one or more image quality
parameters” (claim 1) broadly but reasonably covers any image quality
parameter, absent a definition in the Specification (actually argued by
Appellants in the principal Brief) that would preclude the Examiner’s
5
Appeal 2016-003825
Application 12/968,281
broader reading.3 Appellants are arguing limitations that are not expressly
claimed. (Id. ). Regardless of the specific type of image parameter improved
by Furukawa, it is not excluded by any limiting definition for the antecedent
“one or more image quality parameters” which broadly but reasonably cover
all types of image quality parameters, such as those image quality
parameters taught or suggested by the cited features of both references.
(Claim 1). Fan teaches various image quality parameters as set forth in (1)
and Furukawa generally teaches improving image quality in a server/client
system. We agree with the Examiner that one of ordinary skill in the art
would have understood the respective teachings of the cited references, and
would have been motivated to make the combination, which would have
realized a predictable result, to thus render obvious the contested claim 1
limitations.
Appellants present no persuasive arguments that the Examiner’s
findings and claim interpretation are unreasonable or overly broad. Nor do
Appellants present persuasive evidence that the Examiner’s conclusion of
obviousness is not supported by a preponderance of the evidence cited by
the Examiner.
Appellants’ arguments impute an unreasonably narrow claim
interpretation, and Appellants argue the references individually whereas the
rejection is based on the combination of the references. In re Keller, 642
F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981)(“[0]ne cannot show non-obviousness by
attacking references individually where, as here, the rejections are based on
3 Because “applicants may amend claims to narrow their scope, a broad
construction during prosecution creates no unfairness to the applicant or
patentee.” In re ICON Health and Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1379 (Fed.
Cir. 2007) (citation omitted).
6
Appeal 2016-003825
Application 12/968,281
combinations of references” (citations omitted)); In re Merck & Co., Inc.,
800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary
reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary
reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in
any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined
teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill
in the art. See Keller, 642 F.2d at 425.
As stated by the Supreme Court, the Examiner’s obviousness rejection
must be based on:
[S]ome articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to
support the legal conclusion of obviousness .... [Hjowever, the
analysis need not seek out precise teachings directed to the
specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can
take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of
ordinary skill in the art would employ.
KSRInt’l. Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (quoting In re
Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)).
The Examiner’s findings are reasonable because the skilled artisan
would “be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of
a puzzle” since the skilled artisan is “a person of ordinary creativity, not an
automaton.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 420-21.
On this record, Appellants do not present sufficient evidence that the
combination of the cited references was “uniquely challenging or difficult
for one of ordinary skill in the art” or “represented an unobvious step over
the prior art.” Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157,
1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing KSR, 550 U.S. at 418-19). Nor have
7
Appeal 2016-003825
Application 12/968,281
Appellants provided objective evidence of secondary considerations, which
our reviewing court guides “operates as a beneficial check on hindsight.”
Cheese Sys., Inc. v. Tetra Pak Cheese and Powder Sys., Inc., 725 F.3d 1341,
1352 (Fed. Cir. 2013).
In view of the above, we sustain the rejection of claim 1 and
independent claim 10, which recites similar limitations as claim 1, and for
which Appellants present similar arguments (App. Br. 14—16).
Regarding independent claim 20, which recites send the obtained one
or more image quality parameters to the client device for further processing
of the image by the client device, Appellants present similar arguments as
discussed supra for claim 1 and argue “neither Fan, Furukawa, nor any
combination thereof, teaches or suggests to ‘send the obtained one or more
image quality parameters to the client device [that provided the image in the
first place] for further processing of the image by the client deviceApp.
Br. 16-17.
The Examiner finds, and we agree, Furukawa teaches:
The client terminal 12 which receives the imase sisnal displays
the received imase by the image display application started up
by the client terminal 12. Further paragraph [0040] discloses
[i]n the client terminal 12,_a "high-resolution position"
parameter switch 26A in the display window 26performs region
selection control of the region where high resolution is achieved
using a low-resolution image displayed in a low-resolution
image display region 26B. A high-resolution image size is
controlled by a "high-resolution image size " parameter switch
26C, and the image quality of the high-resolution image is
controlled by an "image quality setting”parameter switch 26D.
(Examiner notes displaying the high resolution image, region
selection control... are further processing of the image.) "
Ans. 12 (citing Furukawa ^fl[ 37, 40; see also Figs. 1, 2).
8
Appeal 2016-003825
Application 12/968,281
Therefore, we sustain the rejection of independent claim 20.
Regarding dependent claim 5, which depends from claim 4,
Appellants argue the Examiner errs in finding Kishi teaches wherein the
predetermined number of swaths of the image is based on an identification
of the image type. App. Br. 18 (citing Kishi 5:24—30). According to
Appellants, Kishi merely teaches “the amount of data is proportional to the
desired resolution” and “does not explain where or how Kishi can be
reasonably be taken as teaching ‘wherein the predetermined number of
swaths of the image is based on an identification of the image type.’” Id.
Regarding claim 7, which also depends from claim 4, Appellants
argue Kishi does not teach wherein the predetermined number of swaths is
based on a resolution of the image. Id. at 19 (citing Kishi 5:24—30).
According to Appellants, the Examiner “does not explain where or how
Kishi can be reasonably taken as teaching [this limitation].” Id.
The Examiner finds, and we agree:
Kishi, Column 5; line 25-30 discloses the amount of information
for such a map data file may be determined based on a desired
resolution. If the desired contents data comprises image data on
a landscape photo or a portrait of a person, the amount of
information is preferably determined based on a desired
resolution. Basically the amount, size of the vavload which
would be interpreted as a number of swaths which comprises the
vavload is determined based on desired resolution which would
be the imase tvve (e.g. high resolution, low resolution etc.))
Ans. 13.
Regarding claim 6, which also depends from claim 4 and recites
wherein the predetermined number of swaths is based on a bandwidth of the
network between the server and the client device, Appellants argue
9
Appeal 2016-003825
Application 12/968,281
Examiner error in finding Dawson teaches this limitation. App. Br. 20
(citing Dawson | 52). According to Appellants, “Dawson teaches adjusting
frame rate and image quality based on bandwidth, but not adjusting the
number of swaths of an image based on bandwidth” and “Fan merely
mentions transmitting the image in swaths, but does not mention how the
number of swaths might be determined.” Id.
The Examiner finds the combination of Fan, Furukawa, and Dawson
teach the limitations of claim 6 and we agree. Ans. 16. Regarding Dawson,
the Examiner finds:
Dawson Figure 7, Step 701, and 703, Column 5; Paragraph
[0052] discloses a frame rate and image quality of the
transmitted video signal is adjusted according to available
bandwidth. Examiner would like to add, that determined frame
rate based on quality and bandwidth would be the number of
transmitted frames or payload in specific time, which would be
interpreted as predetermined number of transmitted swaths or
payload in specific time.
Ans. 16.
Regarding claim 16 which recites determining a number or size of
swaths of the image that the client device should send to the server and, with
the server, instructing the client device accordingly, Appellants argue the
Examiner errs by finding Depelteau teaches this limitation. App. Br. 20—21
(citing Depelteau 4:45—54). According to Appellants, “transfer[ring] a
plurality of files in a particular sequence is not the same thing as determining
a number and size of swaths into which a particular image should be
divided” and “[t]he teachings of Depelteau are entirely inapposite in this
regard.” Id. at 21.
10
Appeal 2016-003825
Application 12/968,281
The Examiner finds, and we agree, the combination of Fan, Furakawa,
and Depelteau teaches the limitation. Ans. 17—18.
Regarding dependent claim 18 which recites wherein said further
processing of the image is performed simultaneously by both the client
device and the server, Appellants argue the Examiner errs by relying on
Westerhoff. Reply Br. 16—17. According to Appellants, “[t]his portion of
the reference suggests the opposite of claim 18, i.e., that one or the other of
the server or client is chosen to perform a particular processing task, not that
“further processing of the image is performed simultaneously by both the
client device and the server.”’ Id. at 17.
The Examiner finds the combination of Fan, Furukawa, and
Westerhoff teach the limitations of claim 18, and we agree. Ans. 19-20.
Regarding Westerhoff, the Examiner finds:
Westerhoff abstract, and paragraph [0013] disclose a system
including one or more client computers that are coupled to, and
can simultaneously connect with, a render server that renders
and/or otherwise processes image data (including, by way of
non-limiting example, 2D, 3D, and 4D medical or microscopy
image data). The client computers generate messages that cause
the render server to render images (or to perform other data
processing tasks) and to return the results to the client computers
for display or further yrocessins. Rendering speed and
application responsiveness on the client computers is improved
by performing certain image rendering operations on either the
server or the client, e.g., depending on which is better suited for
the tasks requested by the user at any point in time, optionally,
adjusting this division of work dynamically. We refer to this as
client-server virtualization with hybrid data processing."
Moreover Examiner notes Figure 4A, items 50, 52, 54, 56, 58,
and 60 discloses client and server are simultaneously processing
the image. As client requested the image, the server is computing
the splice.
11
Appeal 2016-003825
Application 12/968,281
Id.
Regarding claim 19, Appellants rely on dependency to independent
claim 1, discussed supra, without presenting separate argument and,
therefore, we sustain the rejection of claim 19. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—8, 10, 12, 13,
and 15—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
12