Ex Parte Luo et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 25, 201612998387 (P.T.A.B. May. 25, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 12/998,387 04/13/2011 24498 7590 05/27/2016 Robert D, Shedd, Patent Operations THOMSON Licensing LLC 4 Research Way 3rd Floor Princeton, NJ 08543 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Ying Luo 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. PU080097 1546 EXAMINER ALLISON, ANDRAE S ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2668 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/27/2016 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): uspto@technicolor.com pat. verlangieri@technicolor.com russell. smith@technicolor.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte YING LUO and JU GU0 1 Appeal2015-000635 Application 12/998,387 Technology Center 2600 Before JASON V. MORGAN, JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, and MICHAEL J. ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judges. ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 1-8 and 14--20, which are all of the claims pending in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. Appellants' Invention The application is related to resizing an image. Abstract. Claim 1 is representative and reproduced below with the key limitation emphasized: 1. A method for resizing an image comprising: defining a low-energy seam in the image; determining seams neighboring the low-energy seam; 1 Appellants state that the real party in interest is Thomson Licensing. Br. 3. 1 Appeal2015-000635 Application 12/998,387 interpolating neighboring seams into a new seam; and adding the new seam to the image to resize the image. Rejections Claims 1-8 and 14-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Avidan et al. (US 2008/0267528 Al; Oct. 30, 2008). ISSUE Did the Examiner err in finding A vidan discloses "interpolating neighboring seams into a new seam," as recited in claim 1? ANALYSIS Claims 1--8 and 14-20 Like the present application, A vidan discloses a method of changing the size of computer images (which A vidan calls "retargeting") using one or more seams. ii,vidan i-fi-13, 5, ii,bstract, Figs. LA .. ---C. A seam is "a set of pixels, one pixel wide, crossing the image from top edge to the bottom edge, or from the left edge to the right edge." A vidan ,-r 48; Spec. 1. Figure 1 C of Avidan shows a sample image with seams 101 and 102. Avidan i-fi-154-57. "By successively removing or inserting seams, it is possible to reduce, as well as to enlarge, the size of an image in both directions." Id. ,-r 48. Avidan's methods "only remove or insert pixels where the pixels blend with surrounding pixels," which Avidan calls "low energy." Id. ,-r 50. For example, "to increase the size of the source image I by one, we determine the optimal vertical (or horizontal) seam s in the image source image I, and duplicate the pixels of seam s by averaging the pixels with their left and right neighbors." Id. ,-r 82. 2 Appeal2015-000635 Application 12/998,387 Appellants contend the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 because "the teachings of A vidan for averaging pixels with their neighbors" is not "interpolating neighboring seams into a new seam." Br. 12. We are not persuaded. We agree with the Examiner that "Avidan clearly teaches that an image size is increased by inserting between seams, new artificial seams" and "averaging the neighboring seams to create new artificial seams is effectively 'interpolating' within the art." Ans. 4. While Appellants argue A vidan fails to use the particular algorithm taught in the Specification or achieve the same results (Br. 10-12), we find the claims as written are not limited to that specific algorithm or those results. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1, and claims 2-7 and 14--20, which Appellants argue are patentable for similar reasons. See Br. 12; 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2013). DECISION For the reasons above, we affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-8 and 14--20. TIME TO RESPOND No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(±). AFFIRMED 3 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation