Ex Parte Mertens

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 20, 2016

14037492 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 20, 2016)

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.
14/037,492 09/26/2013 Mark Jozef Willem MERTENS 2008P00905US01 1560
24737 7590 12/22/2016
PTTTT TPS TNTFT T FfTTTAT PROPFRTY fr STANDARDS
EXAMINER
465 Columbus Avenue SALTARELLI, DOMINIC D
Suite 340
Valhalla, NY 10595 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2421
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/22/2016 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):
marianne. fox @ philips, com
debbie.henn @philips .com
patti. demichele @ Philips, com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MARK JOZEF WILLEM MERTENS
Appeal 2016-004292
Application 14/037,492
Technology Center 2400
Before DEBRA K. STEPHENS, JON M. JURGOVAN, and
MICHAEL J. ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judges.
STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1—16. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
STATEMENT OF THE INVENTION
According to Appellant, the claims are directed to an apparatus and
method for processing audiovisual signals and tuning an audiovisual system
to present audiovisual content more responsive to a viewer attention level
Appeal 2016-004292
Application 14/037,492
(Abstract). Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the claimed
subject matter:
1. An audiovisual signal processing device, comprising a signal
processing unit configured to
receive a video signal comprising a plurality of images;
identify at least first and second video components of the
plurality of images, the first video component relating to
motion of the first video component between at least a first
portion of the plurality of images and the second video
component relating to a substantial lack of motion of the
second video component between at least a second portion
of the plurality of images;
select at least one image from the second portion of the
plurality of images including the second video component;
and
transform the received video signal by inserting the first
video component into a plurality of the selected at least one
image to create a temporally repeating sequence of the at
least one image including the first video component, wherein
superposition of the first video component in the temporally
repeating sequence of the at least one image varies based on
the motion of the first video component.
REFERENCE
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Cooper US 2007/0296814 A1 Dec. 27,2007
2
Appeal 2016-004292
Application 14/037,492
REJECTION
Claims 1—16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being
anticipated by Cooper (Final Act. 3—7).
ISSUE
35 U.S.C. § 102(e): Claims 1-16
Appellant contends the invention as recited in claims 1—16 is not
anticipated by Cooper (App. Br. 3—7).1 The issue presented by the
arguments is:
Issue: Has the Examiner erred in finding Cooper discloses
identify at least first and second video components of the
plurality of images, the first video component relating to
motion of the first video component between at least a first
portion of the plurality of images and the second video
component relating to a substantial lack of motion of the
second video component between at least a second portion of
the plurality of images; and
transform the received video signal by inserting the first video
component into a plurality of the selected at least one image
to create a temporally repeating sequence of the at least one
image including the first video component, wherein
superposition of the first video component in the temporally
repeating sequence of the at least one image varies based on
the motion of the first video component,
as recited in claim 1?
1 Rather than repeat the arguments here, we refer to the Appeal Brief and
Reply Brief for the positions of Appellant and the Final Office Action and
Answer for the positions of the Examiner. Only those arguments actually
made by Appellant have been considered in this decision. Arguments that
Appellant did not make in the Briefs have not been considered and are
deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2016).
3
Appeal 2016-004292
Application 14/037,492
ANALYSIS
We disagree with Appellant’s conclusions and adopt as our own:
(1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from
which this appeal is taken; and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in
the Answer in response to the Appeal Brief. With respect to the claims
argued by Appellant, we highlight and address specific findings and
arguments for emphasis as follows.
Appellant contends claim 1 requires that the first video component
(having motion) is identified from a first portion of images while the second
video component (having lack of motion) is identified from a second portion
of the images (App. Br. 8). Appellant further contends the background may
be updated on a schedule, regardless of what is present in the video signal at
the time and not based on identifying the background from a plurality of
images of a video signal (Reply Br. 4).
In contrast, Appellant argues Cooper, in each of the described three
examples, “only distinguishes between motion objects and ‘static
background’ objects and does not distinguish between different portions of
the plurality of images (i.e., first and second portions of the plurality of
images as recited in the claims)” (App. Br. 9). Thus, according to Appellant,
the background is present in all portions of the plurality of images that
include motion, and Cooper merely removes or reduces clutter provided by
the static background (id.; Reply 5).
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments. Appellant is arguing
limitations not recited in the claim. Specifically, the claim does not require
the first video component be identified from a first portion of images as
argued by Appellants (App. Br. 8). Instead, the claim recites identifying the
4
Appeal 2016-004292
Application 14/037,492
first video component, the first video component relating to motion of the
first component between at least a portion of the plurality of images.
As a matter of claim construction, we first note neither the term
“video component” nor the term “portion” is defined explicitly in
Appellant’s Specification. Furthermore, Appellant does not appear to use
the term “portion” at all in the Specification. Additionally, the claim recites
“the first video component relating to motion of the first video component”
and thus, the claim could be interpreted as reciting the first video component
relates to an element of itself. Similarly, the claim could be interpreted as
reciting the second video component relates to an element of itself. The
claim continues to recite that the motion is “between at least a first portion
of the plurality of images” (claim 1). Because only one element is listed
after “between,” the claim could be interpreted as lacking the required points
for which the lack of motion is between. Again, the issue is similar with the
recited “second video component.”
Nonetheless, even setting aside these potential claim construction
issues, Appellant has not persuaded us the Examiner’s findings are in error
(Ans. 2). More specifically, the Examiner finds, and we agree, Cooper
describes the background image being captured from a portion of a plurality
of images (Cooper 122). The video signal captured has both the
background and change components, and for each image, “the background is
subtracted from the captured image to reveal those pixels or blocks of pixels
that have changed from the background” (id. H 12, 22). Thus, Cooper
describes identifying the background and change components of the
captured images.
5
Appeal 2016-004292
Application 14/037,492
Appellant has not persuaded us Cooper fails to disclose the first video
component relating to motion of the first video component between at least
a first portion of the plurality of images and the second video component
relating to a substantial lack of motion of the second video component
between at least a second portion of the plurality of images. Cooper’s
background images relate to one portion of the plurality of images with a
lack of motion, thus describing the recited “second video component” that
“relat[es] to a substantial lack of motion of the second video component
between at least a second portion of the plurality of images,” as recited
(Cooper || 12, 21, 22). Similarly, Cooper’s change images describe “the
first video component” because the change images “relat[e] to motion of the
first video component between at least a first portion of the plurality of
images,” as recited (id.). We note given the term “portion” is not explicitly
defined, the Examiner’s interpretation is not unreasonably broad. We
further note Cooper’s pixels and blocks of pixels described in paragraph 22
may also be considered portions.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded Cooper fails to disclose:
identify at least first and second video components of the
plurality of images, the first video component relating to motion
of the first video component between at least a first portion of the
plurality of images and the second video component relating to a
substantial lack of motion of the second video component
between at least a second portion of the plurality of images,
as recited in claim 1.
Next, Appellant argues the recitation of claim 1 requires “the at least
one image” to be selected from the second portion of the plurality of images
which Cooper fails to disclose (App. Br. 10).
6
Appeal 2016-004292
Application 14/037,492
Initially, we agree claim 1 recites the “at least one image” is selected
from “from the second portion” of the images (id.). As a matter of claim
construction, we note the claim recites “select at least one image” which can
be read as selecting one image, yet the claim further recites “inserting the
first video component into a plurality of the selected at least one image”
(emphasis added). Thus, the claim may be interpreted as how the
component may be inserted into a plurality of one image.
Regardless of the possible claim construction issue, Appellant has not
persuaded us the Examiner’s findings are in error. According to Appellant,
Cooper describes a receiver end of a video processing technique used to save
on transmitting video data (App. Br. 10). Appellant contends an ordinarily
skilled artisan would understand Cooper’s disclosure is “similar to MPEG
video compression” and thus, the purpose of Cooper’s reconstruction is to
reconstruct the original image with the background removed or dimmed (id.
at 10-11). Thus, in Cooper, Appellant argues, the receiver reconstructs the
original video signal (plurality of images) received by the receiver utilizing
the background image and the motion information (id. at 11; Reply Br. 6).
Appellant further contends Cooper does not teach a transformation of the
video signal (App. Br. 12; Reply Br. 7). Moreover, Appellant argues
Cooper’s adding of an element to the background without capturing a
complete new background image does not disclose the original video signal
is transformed by adding to the background image and further, it is unlikely
a new object (e.g., a chair) as well as the background would be updated with
motion information as the background is updated when motion is detected
and the reconstructed image at the receiver is substantially the same video
signal captured by the camera (id. at 7—8).
7
Appeal 2016-004292
Application 14/037,492
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments. Initially, we note, as
a matter of claim construction, Appellant has not explicitly defined the term
“transformed” nor proffered sufficient evidence or argument to persuade us
the Examiner’s interpretation is in error. Further, we agree with the
Examiner that Cooper describes the received video signal is transformed by
inserting the changed image into the selected background image (Ans. 3;
Final Act. 3; Cooper 124). The background image is displayed and may be
displayed in a deemphasized or dimmed manner (Cooper 124). The change
information may then be displayed (inserted) into the selected background
image {id. 125). Accordingly, Appellant has not persuaded us Cooper fails
to disclose
transform the received video signal by inserting the first video
component into a plurality of the selected at least one image to
create a temporally repeating sequence of the at least one image
including the first video component,
as recited in claim 1. 2
Commensurately recited independent claims 15 and 16 were not
separately argued, but instead, Appellant relies on arguments set forth for
2 Furthermore, although not relied upon in affirming the rejection, even if the
background is static, a plurality of images exists because the background is
“reused in a loop by a receiver device which superimposes foreground
elements received over time onto said static background image” (Ans. 2;
Cooper 112). Moreover, Cooper describes the background image (which
Cooper calls the “setup image”) “may be updated from time to time during
operation. For example, the setup image . . . may change . . . according to
the time of day” (Cooper 120). Similarly, if a chair is brought into a room,
“the camera may retake its background frame, and the chair will be added to
the new background” {id. 126). Thus, contrary to Appellant’s argument,
Cooper does teach a plurality of background images.
8
Appeal 2016-004292
Application 14/037,492
claim 1 (App. Br. 13). Thus, these claims fall with independent claim 1.
Dependent claims 2—14 also were not separately argued; therefore, these
claims fall with independent claim 1. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection
of claims 1—16 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) for anticipation by Cooper.
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—16 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as
being anticipated by Cooper 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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
9