Ex Parte Obrador

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jul 8, 2008

09879168 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 8, 2008)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte PERE OBRADOR
____________

Appeal 2008-0776
Application 09/879,168
Technology Center 2600
____________

Decided: July 8, 2008
____________

Before KENNETH W. HAIRSTON, ANITA PELLMAN GROSS, and
KARL D. EASTHOM, Administrative Patent Judges.

EASTHOM, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Final Rejection of
claims 1-20, the only claims pending (see Br. 4, Final Office Action, mailed
July 11, 2006). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Appeal 2008-0776
Application 09/879,168

Appellant’s claimed invention relates to a method and computer
product for processing still images involving multi-resolution encoding,
which includes sending image and boundary coefficients of different
resolutions which correspond to different frequencies (see generally Spec. 8-
9).
Claim 1 is illustrative of the invention and reads as follows:
1. A method for applying multi-resolution boundary encoding to
region based still image and video encoding, comprising:
dividing an original image into a plurality of regions, wherein a plurality of
boundaries associated with the plurality of the regions is detected;
encoding each of the plurality of the boundaries, whereby each of the
plurality of the boundaries contains different resolution coefficients;
decomposing each of the plurality of the regions in the original image into
one or more subbands using a plurality of the boundaries with the highest
resolution coefficients selected from among the plurality of boundaries that
are detected;
successively decomposing each of the plurality of the regions in a subband
with lower resolution coefficients into one or more subbands using the
plurality of the boundaries with lower resolution coefficients;
transmitting boundary information associated with regions of the original
image and image information with the lowest resolution coefficients; and
successively transmitting boundary information associated with regions of
the original image and image information with higher resolution
coefficients.

2
Appeal 2008-0776
Application 09/879,168

The Examiner relies on the following prior art reference to show
unpatentability:
Talluri US 6,026,183 Feb. 15, 2000

Claims 1-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Talluri.
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellant and the Examiner,
reference is made to the Brief and Answer for the respective details. Only
those arguments actually made by Appellant have been considered in this
decision. Appellant’s arguments are directed toward independent claim 1
Therefore, we select claim 1 representative of the group of claims 1-20 (Br.
9). Arguments which Appellant could have made but chose not to make in
the Brief have not been considered and are deemed to be waived. 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c) (1) (vii).
FINDINGS OF FACT (FF)
1. Talluri discloses creating waveform transformations of different
regions of interest such as, for example, face images, or motion failure
regions; by filtering the regions into different subbands (col. 11, ll. 4-44, col.
12, ll. 44-60 ).
2. Talluri discloses dividing an image into regions of interest and
regions outside the regions of interest. By zeroing the regions outside the
region of interest, and employing traditional multi-level wavelet
decomposition to the whole image, filtering the whole image or just the
region of interest renders the same results, with filtering on the entire image
being simpler. (Col. 13, ll. 29-46).

3
Appeal 2008-0776
Application 09/879,168

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
Appellant has the burden on appeal to the Board to demonstrate
error in the Examiner's position. See In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 985-86
(Fed. Cir. 2006) ("On appeal to the Board, an applicant can overcome a
rejection [under § 103] by showing insufficient evidence of prima facie
obviousness or by rebutting the prima facie case with evidence of secondary
indicia of nonobviousness.") (quoting In re Rouffet, 149 F.3d 1350, 1355
(Fed. Cir. 1998)). Appellants may sustain this burden by showing that the
prior art reference relied upon by the Examiner fails to disclose an element
of the claim. It is axiomatic that anticipation of a claim under § 102 can be
found only if the prior art reference discloses every element of the claim.
See In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 1986); Lindemann
Maschinenfabrik GMBH v. American Hoist & Derrick Co., 730 F.2d 1452,
1458 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
ANALYSIS
Appellant disputes the Examiner’s finding that Talluri teaches
dividing an original image into a plurality of regions. In particular,
Appellant asserts that Talluri discloses “applying the transform method to
regions of interest, not just homogeneous regions which fill up the entire
frame.” (Br. 9). In other words, according to Appellant, “[t]he present
features do not limit the image encoding to 'a region of interest' but instead
focus on homogeneous regions which fill up the entire frame.” (Br. 10).
The Examiner responds by correctly noting, in our view, that “features
upon which applicant relies (i.e., homogenous regions which fill up the
entire frame) are not recited in the rejected claim(s).” (Ans. 4). Claim 1
4
Appeal 2008-0776
Application 09/879,168

does not recite dividing an entire frame, rather it recites dividing an original
image into a plurality of regions. Talluri discloses dividing an image frame
having regions of interest such as facial images into a plurality of regions
(FF 1), thereby meeting the method as set forth in claim 1. In sum,
Appellant’s argument is not commensurate in scope with the claim.
Alternatively, Talluri discloses dividing the whole image frame into regions
of interest and those outside the regions of interest (FF 2).
We also are not persuaded by Appellant’s statement that “Talluri is
silent with respect to transmitting boundary information associated with
regions of the original image and image information with the lowest
resolution coefficients; and successively transmitting boundary information
associated with regions of the original image and image information with
higher resolution coefficients.” (Br. 11). We concur with the Examiner’s
finding that Talluri’s Figure 11 teaches the recited features (Ans. 3, 5). We
find that Figure 11 reasonably discloses successive transmission, as
indicated by the arrows depicted, of the lowest resolution coefficients
associated with LL3, HH2, etc, and the highest resolution coefficients
associated with HH1, as a typical and common wavelet compression
technique,1 thereby meeting the claim. Appellant does not explain why the
Examiner’s position is in error. Mere recitation and underlining of the
elements of a claim does not constitute an argument for patentability.2 See

1 We also note that Talluri reasonably discloses as prior art, or as an
experiment, the same or similar wavelet technique employed on the whole
frame, alternatively meeting the claim. (See col. 11, ll. 53-56, col. 12, ll. 18-
21).
2 Similarly, Appellant’s mere recitation that “the present features clearly
state ‘dividing an original image into a plurality of images . . . .’” (Br. 10)
5
Appeal 2008-0776
Application 09/879,168

37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c) (1) (vii). Accordingly, Appellant’s statement without
supporting argument or evidence fails to convince us of error.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1. We also
sustain the rejection of claims 2-20 not separately argued.

DECISION
Applying the preceding legal principles to the factual findings in the
record of this appeal, we determine that the Examiner has properly identified
factual findings and reasoning for establishing a prima facie case of
anticipation based on Talluri which Appellant has not adequately rebutted.
In view of the above discussion, since Appellant has not convinced us of
error in the Examiner’s determination, we sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) rejection of claims 1-20.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-20 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) (1) (iv) (2006).

does not explain why the Examiner’s position is in error. We concur with
the Examiner’s finding that Talluri discloses dividing in the manner as set
forth in the claim (see Ans. 3-4). We also note that creating different
subregions of interest, for example, different face images and/or motion
failure regions, in the same frame, (see FF 1), or dividing the whole image
(see FF 2), constitutes dividing in the manner claimed, as explained supra.
6
Appeal 2008-0776
Application 09/879,168

AFFIRMED

eld

HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY
Intellectual Property Administration
P.O. Box 272400
Fort Collins CO 80527-2400
7