Ex Parte Le Meur et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 13, 2016

12735073 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 13, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
121735,073 06/14/2010
72109 7590 06/15/2016
MYERS WOLIN, LLC
100 HEADQUARTERS PLAZA
NORTH TOWER, 6TH FLOOR
MORRISTOWN, NJ 07960-6834
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Olivier Le Meur
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.
THOM 3263 (PF070141) 2351
EXAMINER
SPINKS, ANTOINETTE T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2663
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/15/2016 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):
patent@myerswolin.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte OLIVIER Le MEUR, JEAN-CLAUDE CHEVET, and
PHILLIPE GUILLOTEL
Appeal2015-000513
Application 12/735,073
Technology Center 2600
Before KALYAN K. DESHPANDE, DAVID M. KOHUT, and
JUSTIN T. ARBES, Administrative Patent Judges.
DESHPANDE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal2015-000513
Application 12/735,073
STATEMENT OF CASE1
Appellants seek review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 1-5 and 8-11. 2 We have jurisdiction over the
appeal pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
INVENTION
Appellants' invention is directed to "a device for helping the capture
of images and an image capturing device comprising the help device." Spec.
1:4-6.
An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of
exemplary claim 1, which is reproduced below:
1. A device for helping the capture of images comprising:
an analyzer to calculate perceptual interest data for regions
of an image having to be captured,
a display to overlay on the image at least one graphic
indicator indicating the position of at least one region in the
image whose perceptual interest is high, called region of interest,
wherein the display is further to modify the thickness of
said at least one graphic indicator proportional to a rate of
perceptual interest of the region of the image by the graphic
indicator.
1 Our decision makes reference to Appellants' Reply Brief ("Reply Br.,"
filed September 25, 2014) and Appeal Brief ("App. Br.," filed June 23,
2014), and the Examiner's Answer ("Ans.," mailed July 28, 2014) and Final
Office Action ("Final Act.," mailed February 21, 2014).
2 Claims 6, 7, and 12 were canceled previously.
2
Appeal2015-000513
Application 12/735,073
Cheatle
Takenori
(hereinafter
"Denso")
Taguchi
Le Meur
Le Meur
(hereinafter
"WIPO")
REFERENCES
US 2002/0191861 Al
JP 2003185458 A2
JP 2006285475 A
EP 1 748 385 A2
WO 2007/088193 Al
REJECTIONS
Dec. 19, 2002
Mar. 7, 2003
Oct. 19, 2006
Jan. 31, 2007
Aug. 9, 2007
Claims 1, 2, 4, and 9-11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Cheatle and Denso. Final Act. 3-6; Ans. 2-5.
Claim 3 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Cheatle, Denso, and Le Meur. Final Act. 7-8; Ans. 6-7.
Claim 5 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Cheatle, Denso, and Taguchi. Final Act. 8-9; Ans. 7-8.
Claim 8 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Cheatle, Denso, and WIPO. Final Act. 9-10; Ans. 8-9.
ISSUE
The issue of whether the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-5 and
8-11 turns on whether (a) the combination of Cheatle and Denso teaches "a
rate of perceptual interest,"; and (b) Denso teaches "the thickness of [a]
graphic indicator proportional to a rate of perceptual interest," as recited in
independent claims 1 and 10.
3
Appeal2015-000513
Application 12/735,073
ANALYSIS
Claims 1, 2, 4, and 9-11 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Cheatle and Denso
Independent claim 1 recites "the display is further to modify the
thickness of said at least one graphic indicator proportional to a rate of
perceptual interest of the region of the image by the graphic indicator."
Independent claim 10 recites similar limitations. The Examiner finds
Cheatle teaches identifying areas of significant interest within an image by
applying a graphic indicator and using an "interest metric" to create a
saliency map for the image. Final Act. 3--4 (citing Cheatle iii! 23-28, 112-
114); Ans. 10 (citing Cheatle iJ 57). The Examiner finds Cheatle's "interest
metric" teaches "a rate of perceptual interest" because the metric more
heavily values the interesting area pixels within an image relative to the rest
of the pixels in the image. Ans. 10 (citing Cheatle iJ 58).
Appellants argue Cheatle's saliency map, which comprises a sum of
values for pixels within specific areas of an image, does not teach a rate of
perceptual interest because a "rate is a quantity measured with respect to
another measured quantity, not ... merely a sum of two or more quantities."
App. Br. 8; Reply Br. 2.
We disagree with Appellants. Cheatle's "interest metric" assigns
higher value to the pixels within an interesting area of an image relative to
the rest of the image's pixels. See Cheatle iii! 58, 93-96. The relative values
of pixels are illustrated using a saliency map. See id. iii! 93-96, 112-114,
Fig. 7. Cheatle further discloses that "[ c ]ertain regions may be denoted as
more salient than others by allocating high salience to [certain] regions."
Cheatle iJ 60. As such, Cheatle discloses a spectrum of values from low
interest to high interest for the "interest metric." Therefore, we agree with
4
Appeal2015-000513
Application 12/735,073
the Examiner's finding that Cheatle's use of the "interest metric" to produce
a saliency map teaches "a rate of perceptual interest" because the saliency
map shows the relative value of the interesting area pixels compared to the
value of the pixels in the rest of the image, and is not a simple sum of
quantities. See Ans. 10. We also find the Examiner's analysis of "a rate of
perceptual interest" is consistent with the Specification's use of the term.
The Specification describes an example of the "rate of perceptual interest" as
a "ratio between the sum of the perceptual interest data associated with the
pixels of the image covered by the graphic indicator and the sum of the
perceptual interest data associated with all the pixels of the image." Spec.
2:20-23. Thus, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in finding that
Cheatle teaches "a rate of perceptual interest," as recited in independent
claims 1 and 10.
Appellants also argue Denso fails to teach "the thickness of [a]
graphic indicator proportional to a rate of perceptual interest," as recited in
independent claims 1 and 10. App. Br. 9-11; Reply Br. 3-4. Specifically,
Appellants argue that the term "proportional" "implies a relationship
between two variables in which one is a constant multiple of the other."
App. Br. 9-10. As such, Appellants argue that the thickness of the claimed
graphic indicator increases in accordance with a multiplicative constant
value as interest increases. App. Br. 9-1 O; Reply Br. 3. Denso, according to
Appellants, teaches different frame thicknesses which are not constant
multiples of each other. App. Br. 9-10; Reply Br. 3.
We do not find Appellants' argument persuasive. The term
"proportional" is not defined expressly in the Specification. The plain and
5
Appeal2015-000513
Application 12/735,073
ordinary meaning of "proportional" is having a constant relation. 3
Therefore, we agree with the Examiner that the broadest reasonable
interpretation of the term "proportional," as used in the claims and in light of
the Specification, encompasses a graphic indicator that changes its thickness
according to a constant relationship relative to the rate of perceptual interest.
See Ans. 10-11.
The Examiner finds Denso teaches increasing the thickness of frames
surrounding interesting areas as interest increases. See Final Act. 4; Ans. 3,
10-11. Therefore, we do not find Appellants' argument persuasive because
Appellants fail to demonstrate error in the Examiner's reliance on Denso to
teach that the thickness of the surrounding frame (graphic indicator) is
modified proportionally according to a constant relation relative to the
interest level of the framed area. Thus, we are not persuaded that the
Examiner erred in finding that Denso teaches "the thickness of [a] graphic
indicator proportional to a rate of perceptual interest," as recited in
independent claims 1 and 10.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent
claims 1 and 10. Appellants argue that claims 2, 4, 9, and 11 are patentable
for the same reasons as independent claims 1 and 10. App. Br. 11-12. As
such, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of these claims for the reasons
discussed above in our analysis of claims 1 and 10.
3 See proportional, Dictionary.com, available at
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/proportional (last visited June 8, 2016)
("having the same or a constant ratio or relation" or "a constant multiple").
6
Appeal2015-000513
Application 12/735,073
Claim 3 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Cheatle, Denso,
andLeMeur
Claim 3 depends from independent claim 1 and is not argued
separately. App. Br. 12-13. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's
rejection of claim 3 for the same reasons discussed above in our analysis of
claim 1.
Claim 5 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Cheatle, Denso,
and Taguchi
Claim 5 depends from independent claim 1 and is not argued
separately. App. Br. 13. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection
of claim 5 for the same reasons discussed above in our analysis of claim 1.
Claim 8 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Cheatle, Denso,
and WIPO
Claim 8 depends from independent claim 1 and is not argued
separately. App. Br. 13-14. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's
rejection of claim 8 for the same reasons discussed above in our analysis of
claim 1.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1, 2, 4, and 9-11 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Cheatle and Denso.
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claim 3 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Cheatle, Denso, and Le Meur.
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claim 5 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Cheatle, Denso, and Taguchi.
7
Appeal2015-000513
Application 12/735,073
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claim 8 under 35 U .S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Cheatle, Denso, and WIPO.
DECISION
To summarize:
• the rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, and 9-11under35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Cheatle and Denso is affirmed.
• the rejection of claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Cheatle, Denso, and Le Meur is affirmed.
• the rejection of claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Cheatle, Denso, and Taguchi is affirmed.
• the rejection of claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Cheatle, Denso, and WIPO is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § l .136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
8