Ex Parte Petrides

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 30, 2016

12715062 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 30, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
121715,062 03/01/2010
30423 7590 10/04/2016
Seed IP Law Group LLP/ST US Originating
701 FIFTH A VE
SUITE 5400
SEATTLE, WA 98104
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Gordon Petrides
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.
09-SCL-119 (816063.408) 7993
EXAMINER
HUANG, FRANK F
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2485
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/04/2016 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):
Patentinfo@SeedIP.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte GORDON PETRIDES 1
Appeal2014-009491
Application 12/715,062
Technology Center 2400
Before DEBRA K. STEPHENS, JASON V. MORGAN, and
DAVID J. CUTITTA II, Administrative Patent Judges.
MORGAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Introduction
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's final
rejection of claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
Invention
Appellant discloses a method for performing motion compensated
interpolation using a previous frame and a current frame of a displayable
output. Abstract.
1 Appellant identifies STMicroelectronics, Inc., as the real party in interest.
App. Br. 2.
Appeal2014-009491
Application 12/715,062
A'xemplary Claims
Claims l and 8, reproduced belmv with key limitations emphasized~
are exemplary:
1. A method for performing motion compensated interpolation
using a previous frame and a current frame of a displayable
output, the method comprising:
determining a speed of a background in the displayable
output;
determining a speed of an object in the displayable
output;
determining a relative speed of the object, where the
relative speed is detected based upon the speed of the
background and the speed of the object;
receiving results from a halo reducing interpolator and
weighting the results from the halo reducing interpolator based
upon the relative speed of the object;
receiving results from a median interpolator and
weighting the results from the median interpolator based upon
the relative speed of the object; and
blending the weighted results from the halo reducing
interpolator and the weighted results from the median
interpolator to arrive at an interpolated frame.
8. A method for performing motion compensated interpolation
using a previous frame and a current frame of a displayable
output, the method comprising:
determining a speed of a background in the displayable
output;
determining a speed of an object in the displayable
output;
determining a relative speed of the object, where the
relative speed is detected based upon the speed of the
background and the speed of the object;
2
Appeal2014-009491
Application 12/715,062
performing pre-emphasis filtering on the displayable
output prior to interpolation, wherein the pre-emphasis filtering
boots higher frequencies within the displayable output,
wherein the degree of pre-emphasis filtering is weighted
based on the relative speed of the object; and
performing de-emphasis filtering after interpolation m
order to restore a flat frequency response.
Rejections
The Examiner rejects claims 1-6 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Burl (WO 93/17520 Al; published Sept. 2, 1993)
and Bergmann et al. (US 4,651,207; issued Mar. 17, 1987). Final Act. 3-7.
The Examiner rejects claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Burl, Bergmann, and Winder et al. (US 7,558,320 B2;
July 7, 2009). Final Act. 7-9.
The Examiner rejects claims 8, 9, and 11-19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Burl, Bergmann, Miyazaki et al. (WO 2008/
102826; published Aug. 28, 2008), and Ueno et al. (US 8,319,898 B2; Nov.
27, 2012). Final Act. 9-12, 14--17.
The Examiner rejects claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Burl, Bergmann, Miyazaki, Ueno, and Winder2. Final
Act. 12-14.
2 The Examiner cites to US 2004/0252759 Al (Dec. 16, 2004) for this
citation to "Winder." Final Act. 12. However, Winder '759 is the published
application for the Winder '320 patent. Moreover, the Examiner's citations
are to the columns and lines of Winder '320, not the paragraph numbers of
Winder '759. Final Act. 13. Therefore, the Examiner's citation to Winder
'759, rather than Winder ['320], is incorrect. We hold this minor citation
discrepancy harmless.
3
Appeal2014-009491
Application 12/715,062
ISSUES
1. Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Burl and
Bergmann teaches or suggests "blending the weighted results from the halo
reducing interpolator and the weighted results from the median interpolator
to arrive at an interpolated frame," as recited in claim 1?
2. Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Burl,
Bergmann, Miyazaki, and Ueno teaches or suggests: (1) "determining a
speed of a background in the displayable output"; (2) "determining a speed
of an object in the displayable output"; (3) "determining a relative speed of
the object, where the relative speed is detected based upon the speed of the
background and the speed of the object"; (4) "performing pre-emphasis
filtering on the displayable output prior to interpolation"; and (5)
"performing de-emphasis filtering after interpolation," as recited in claim 8?
ANALYSIS
Claims 1-7 and 11-20
In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner finds that Burl's creation of an
output picture made from the weighted sum of two input pictures, where the
contribution from each of the two pictures varies in different situations when
a foreground object is moving upwards and the background is moving
downwards, teaches or suggests blending the weighted results from the halo
reducing interpolator and the weighted results from the median interpolator
to arrive at an interpolated frame. Final Act. 3 (citing Burl 3, 4, and 6);
Ans. 18-19 (citing Burl 2, 3, Fig. 1 ).
Appellant contends the Examiner erred because Burl merely
"describes a method of detecting sections of an interpolated image that may
contain discontinuities (or 'fractures') and applying a smoothing filter to
4
Appeal2014-009491
Application 12/715,062
reduce the visual effects of the discontinuities." App. Br. 14. Appellant
argues that Burl's use of "a linear interpolator to generate an intermediate
image" (id.) falls short of "teaching or suggesting blending weighted results
of two different interpolators" (id. at 15 (emphasis added)). Appellant
emphasizes that the use of Burl to teach the claimed blending relies on the
assumption that the "portion of output in [Burl's] Fig. 1 showing
background from Fl only, is the action of the halo reducing interpolator as
claimed." Reply Br. 4.
We agree with Appellant that the Examiner erred. The process Burl
teaches or suggests is itself an interpolation between two pictures F 1 and F2.
See Burl 3, Fig. 1. However, the Examiner's findings do not show that
either F 1 or F2 represent the weighted results of a halo reducing
interpolation and a median interpolation. Rather, F 1 and F2 are merely
pictures having a foreground object and a background with the position of
the foreground object and background differing between the two pictures.
See id. at 3. The Examiner does not show that Bergmann cures this
deficiency in Burl. Therefore, we agree with Appellant that the Examiner's
findings do not show the combination of Burl and Bergmann teaches or
suggests "blending the weighted results from the halo reducing interpolator
and the weighted results from the median interpolator to arrive at an
interpolated frame," as recited in claim 1.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
rejection of claim 1, and claims 2---6 and 20, which contain similar
recitations and are similarly rejected. The Examiner's findings do not show
that Winder, Miyazaki, or Ueno cure the noted deficiency of Burl and
5
Appeal2014-009491
Application 12/715,062
Bergmann. Therefore, we also do not sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) rejections of claims 7 and 11-19.
Claims 8-10
In rejecting claim 8, the Examiner finds that Bergmann's assignment
of a measured displacement vector, in the case of pixels depicting a moving
object, along with the Bergmann's disclosure of a stationary background,
teaches or suggests: (1) determining a speed of a background in the
displayable output; (2) determining a speed of an object in the displayable
output; and (3) determining a relative speed of the object, where the relative
speed is detected based upon the speed of the background and the speed of
the object. Final Act. 9-10 (citing Bergmann col. 5, 11. 11---65). In
particular, the Examiner finds that Bergman "discloses the usage of relative
speed[] [by setting the] background speed to be zero, which is [a] well
known assumption." Ans. 19. The Examiner finds that it is well known that
a camera's background speed is usually zero, such that determining the
speed of the object also determines the speed of the object relative to the
speed of the (stationary) background. Id.
Appellant contends the Examiner erred because "[ w ]hether or not the
assumption that the speed of a background is zero is 'well known,' it is
improper to interpret Bergmann as teaching or suggesting determining a
background speed and determining a relative speed of a foreground object
based upon the background speed so determined." App. Br. 15; see also
Reply Br. 5. However, we agree with the Examiner that setting the
background speed to zero, thus determining the background's speed to be
zero and determining the speed of foreground objects relative to the
background to be their speed, would have been obvious to an artisan of
6
Appeal2014-009491
Application 12/715,062
ordinary skill. We take notice that still shots with cameras are frequently
used, with entire industries of tripod, wall mount, crane manufacturers, and
more dedicated to making products that allow for ease in establishing
determining camera shots to have fixed, zero-speed background. See, e.g.,
Brian Schaller, The 9 Classic Camera Moves, Videomaker Magazine,
available at https://www.videomaker.com/article/c 10/10775-the-9-classic-
camera-moves (Apr. 2005) ("when it comes to camera movement, it must be
motivated'' (emphasis added)). Appellants have not proffered sufficient
evidence or argument to show persuade us the Examiner erred. Therefore,
we agree with the Examiner that the combination of Burl, Bergmann,
Miyazaki, and Ueno teaches or suggests (1) "determining a speed of a
background in the displayable output"; (2) "determining a speed of an object
in the displayable output"; (3) "determining a relative speed of the object,
where the relative speed is detected based upon the speed of the background
and the speed of the object," as recited in claim 8.
In rejecting claim 8, the Examiner finds Miyazaki's use of inverse
function inv (H) of transfer function H, as a high-pass filter, teaches or
suggests performing pre-emphasis filtering on the displayable output prior
to interpolation. In particular, the Examiner finds that Miyazaki' s filter
achieves the same result, image de-blurring, whether applied before or after
interpolation, and thus teaches or suggests the claimed pre-emphasis filtering
taking place prior to interpolation. See Ans. 22-23.
Appellant argues that the Examiner erred because "Miyazaki actually
teaches compensating for image blur production in the interpolation by post-
processing the interpolate[d] image using a high-pass filter." App. Br. 24
((emphasis added) citing Miyazaki i-f 161, Fig. 13). Appellant contends
7
Appeal2014-009491
Application 12/715,062
"Miyazaki performs post-processing on interpolated images, and no other
teaching is expressly or inherently found." Reply Br. 5. However,
Appellant does not provide arguments or evidence persuasively rebutting the
Examiner's finding that Miyazaki' s filter achieves the same result when
applied before interpolation. Therefore, we agree with the Examiner that the
combination of Burl, Bergmann, Miyazaki, and Ueno teaches or suggests
"performing pre-emphasis filtering on the displayable output prior to
interpolation," as recited in claim 8.
In rejecting claim 8, the Examiner also relies on Ueno's low-pass
filtering of a motion vector to teach or suggest performing de-emphasis
filtering after interpolation. Final Act. 11 (citing Ueno col. 22, 11. 32--43,
Fig. 6). Appellant contends the Examiner erred because Ueno merely
"describes de-emphasis filter of a motion vector, not de-emphasis filter of an
intermediate image after interpolation." App. Br. 25. However, as the
Examiner correctly points out, the claimed invention does not require the
application of the de-emphasis filter to an image. Ans. 23. Appellant's
argument is, thus, incommensurate with the scope of the claimed invention
and therefore unpersuasive. Therefore, we agree with the Examiner that the
combination of Burl, Bergmann, Miyazaki, and Ueno teaches or suggests
"performing de-emphasis filtering after interpolation," as recited in claim 8.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection
of claim 8, and claim 9, which Appellant does not argue separately. App.
Br. 25. Appellant does not raise additional issues with respect to dependent
claim 10, but merely makes conclusory allegations that the claimed method
is not taught or suggested by the combination of Burl, Bergmann, Miyazaki,
8
Appeal2014-009491
Application 12/715,062
Ueno, and Winder. Id. at 26. Accordingly, we also sustain the Examiner's
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claim 10.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-7 and 11-20.
We affirm the Examiner's decision rejection claims 8-10.
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-IN-PART
9