Ex Parte Li et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 30, 201812737661 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 30, 2018) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 12/737,661 02/04/2011 24498 7590 09/04/2018 Brian J. Dorini THOMSON Licensing LLC 4 Research Way 3rd Floor Princeton, NJ 08543 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Zhen Li 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. PU080126 9226 EXAMINER HESS, MICHAEL J ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2481 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/04/2018 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): uspto@technicolor.com russell. smith@technicolor.com patricia.verlangieri@interdigital.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte ZHEN LI, ADEEL ABBAS, XIAOAN LU and CRISTINA GOMILA Appeal 2018-001532 Application 12/737 ,661 1 Technology Center 2400 Before TERRENCE W. McMILLIN, KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, and SCOTT B. HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judges. McMILLIN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the final rejection of claims 1, 5, 6, 8, 12-15, 19, and23-31. 2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). We AFFIRM. 1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Thomson Licensing DTV. Br. 3. 2 The listing of claims presents two claims listed as claim 28, one dependent on the apparatus of claim 26 and the other dependent on method claim 1. Br. 18. We consider this to be a harmless typographical error and the claims should be renumbered correctly. Appeal 2018-001532 Application 12/737 ,661 THE CLAIMED INVENTION The present invention relates generally to "digital image and video content," and more particularly to "detecting dark noise artifacts in digital image and video content." Spec. 1. Independent claim 1 is directed to a method; independent claim 14 is directed to an apparatus; and independent claim 29 is directed to a computer program product. Br. 15, 16, 18. Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A method comprising: determining a mean luminance, a variance of luminance, and a mean of a chrominance component for an area in a reconstructed image; identifying the area as a candidate area for a particular type of compression artifact, responsive to: the mean luminance being within a first predetermined range, the variance of luminance being less than a predetermined value, and the mean of the chrominance component being within a second predetermined range; assigning an artifact strength to the candidate compression artifact area to represent severity of compression artifact responsive to the mean luminance of the candidate compression artifact area, wherein a higher artifact strength is assigned when the mean luminance of said candidate compression artifact area is lower; and wherein the particular type of compression artifact includes at least one of severe blockiness and variations on perceived chroma pattern in low luminance areas. 2 Appeal 2018-001532 Application 12/737 ,661 REJECTIONS ON APPEAL Claims 1, 5, 8, 12-14, 19, and 23-29 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Leontaris et al. (US 2009/0086816 Al; published Apr. 2, 2009) ("Leontaris"), Saunders et al. (US 5,995,149; issued Nov. 30, 1999) ("Saunders"), and Arakawa (US 2007/0092001 Al; published Apr. 26, 2007). Final Act. 2. 3 Claims 30 and 31 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Leontaris, Saunders, Arakawa, and Saka et al. (US 2006/0115121 Al; published June 1, 2006) ("Saka"). Final Act. 7. Claims 6 and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Leontaris, Saunders, Arakawa, and Luo et al. (US 2006/0098889 Al; published May 11, 2006) ("Luo"). Final Act. 8. ANALYSIS Claim 1 recites "identifying the area as a candidate area for a particular type of compression artifact, responsive to: the mean luminance being within a first predetermined range, the variance of luminance being less than a predetermined value, and the mean of the chrominance component being within a second predetermined range." Appellants contend Leontaris' s average luminance used to guide rate control and reduce compression artifacts, used with temporal information to compute the quantization parameter for the block, does not teach "differentiating different types of artifacts based on the mean 3 The Examiner's statement of rejection included canceled claim 22 and excluded claims 22-29, which are included in the body of the rejection. Final Act. 2, 6-7. We consider this to be a harmless typographical error. 3 Appeal 2018-001532 Application 12/737 ,661 lmninance/ chrominance and the variance of luminance." Br. 8. Appellants further argue Saunders's quantizing a block with very low average luminance more harshly does not teach detecting dark noise compression artifacts in a low luminance area, and also does not teach detecting a particular type of compression artifact. Br. 10. According to Appellants, Arakawa' s use of variance of luminance and variance of chrominance to control quantization does not teach comparing the average chrominance value with a predetermined range in identifying artifacts, and does not teach using the mean chrominance. Br. 12. We are not persuaded of Examiner error. First, we agree with the Examiner's determination that the claimed "'identifying' limitation does not require differentiating different types of artifacts, reciting instead, 'a candidate compression artifact area."' Ans. 11. As such, Appellants' argument that Leontaris does not teach differentiating different types of artifacts is outside of the scope of claim 1, which requires only identifying a "candidate area for a particular type of compression artifact." As cited by the Examiner (Final Act. 3; Ans. 11 ), Leontaris describes "pictures with low average luminance, where compression artifacts are highly visible for the same compression ratio." Leontaris ,r 92 (emphases added). Leontaris further describes "average value of the luminance and/or chrominance pixel values in the block can be determined" (Leontaris ,r 271 ), and a parameter that "can represent the average luminance and/ or chrominance value for the macroblock" (Leontaris ,r 277). As further cited by the Examiner (Final Act. 3; Ans. 13), Saunders describes "[b ]locks having a low activity, e.g. relatively 'smooth' surfaces, relatively dark areas or areas having colours corresponding to skin tones, are compressed less 4 Appeal 2018-001532 Application 12/737 ,661 harshly, since the user is more likely to spot compression artifacts in those areas." Saunders col. 4, 11. 45--49 ( emphases added). Saunders further describes "a block having a very low or a very high average luminance level is quantized more harshly (i.e. given a higher notional activity) than a block having a mid-range average luminance level." Saunders col. 4, 11. 31-34 ( emphases added). The Examiner cites Arakawa (Final Act. 3) for teaching using "variance of the luminance and the variance of the chrominance ... to detect when color distortion occurs." Arakawa ,r 25 ( emphasis added). In other words, Leontaris teaches using average luminance (i.e., mean luminance) and average chrominance (i.e., mean of the chrominance component) when considering visibility of compression artifacts (i.e., determining visible compression artifacts, or otherwise identifying visible compression artifacts). Saunders teaches spotting compression artifacts (i.e., identifying compression artifacts) based on average luminance values being very low (i.e., based on average luminance values being compared to values or within a range of values). Arakawa teaches analyzing variance of the luminance (i.e., variance of luminance). Appellants have not rebutted the Examiner's finding that the combination of Leontaris, Saunders, and Arakawa teaches determining compression artifacts using mean luminance, variance of luminance, and mean chrominance, compared to ranges of values, as required by claim 1. Specifically, Appellants have not provided persuasive argument or evidence that the claimed "identifying the area as a candidate area for a particular type of compression artifact, responsive to the mean luminance ... and the mean of chrominance component" is not taught or otherwise suggested by Leontaris's determining visible compression artifacts (i.e., compression 5 Appeal 2018-001532 Application 12/737 ,661 artifacts are highly visible) based on average value of luminance and/or chrominance; that the claimed comparing to "the variance of luminance" is not taught or otherwise suggested by Arakawa's using variance of luminance; and that the claimed comparison of the mean luminance, variance of luminance, and mean of the chrominance being "within a first predetermined range ... less than a predetermined value, and ... within a second predetermined range" is not taught or otherwise suggested by Saunders' comparing luminance to a range of values to determine whether to quantize harshly (i.e., related to determining compression artifacts). Accordingly, we sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of independent claim 1, as well as the rejections of commensurate independent claims 14 and 29 and dependent claims 5, 6, 8, 12, 13, 15, 19, 23-28, 30, and 31, not separately argued. See Br. 6. DECISION The Examiner's rejections of claims 1, 5, 6, 8, 12-15, 19, and 23-31 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are 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 6 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation