Ex Parte SAIDDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 20, 201613109814 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 20, 2016) Copy Citation 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. 13/109,814 05/17/2011 Amir SAID 82663116 2190 22879 HP Tnr 7590 12/22/2016 EXAMINER 3390 E. Harmony Road Mail Stop 35 MAHMUD, FARHAN FORT COLLINS, CO 80528-9544 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2483 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): ipa.mail@hp.com barbl@hp.com y vonne.bailey @ hp. com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte AMIR SAID Appeal 2016-002385 Application 13/109,8141 Technology Center 2400 Before DEBRA K. STEPHENS, KEVIN C. TROCK, and JESSICA C. KAISER, Administrative Patent Judges. STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Introduction Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 1—18 and 20. Claim 19 has been cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Hewlett-Packard Development Company, LP (App. Br. 1). Appeal 2016-002385 Application 13/109,814 STATEMENT OF THE INVENTION The claims are directed to decoding a multi-dimension image compressed in a plurality of blocks storing light field data and a displacement range. Abstract. CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A decoding architecture for decoding a multi-dimensional image for display in a light field display, the multi-dimensional image compressed in a plurality of blocks, each block storing compressed light field data and a displacement range, the decoding architecture comprising: a processor; and a storage device storing computer-executable code executable by the processor to implement: a spatial thresholding module to compare the displacement range in each block of the image to a difference between a current decoding position and a previous decoding position; and a decoder module to decode a block if the difference is larger than the displacement range, the decoder module not decoding the block if the difference is smaller than the displacement range. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Cai US 2006/0023782 A1 Feb. 2,2006 Valliath US 2006/0210045 A1 Sept. 21,2006 2 Appeal 2016-002385 Application 13/109,814 Le Leannec US 2008/0253666 A1 Oct. 16,2008 Gaude US 2009/0310681 A1 Dec. 17,2009 REJECTIONS The Examiner made the following rejections: Claims 1, 3, 5—10, 13—18, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Le Leannec, Valliath, and Gaude (Final Act. 4—17). Claims 2, 4, 11, and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Le Leannec, Valliath, Gaude, and Cai {id. at 17— 20). ISSUES 35 U.S.C. § 103(a): Claims 1, 10, and 18 Issue la: Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Le Leannec, Valliath, and Gaude teaches a “multi-dimensional image compressed in a plurality of blocks, each block storing compressed light field data and a displacement range,” as recited in claim 1 and similarly recited in claims 10 and 18? Issue lb: Did the Examiner err in finding Le Leannec teaches: [C]ompar[ing] the displacement range in each block of the image to a difference between a current decoding position and a previous decoding position; and. . . decoding] a block if the difference is larger than the displacement range, the decoder module not decoding the block if the difference is smaller than the displacement range, as recited in claim 1 and similarly recited in claims 10 and 18? 3 Appeal 2016-002385 Application 13/109,814 Issue lc: Did the Examiner err in finding Le Leannec teaches an “image compressed in a plurality of blocks ... a displacement range in each block . . . representing a spatial range that is permitted to occur before a change in successive image blocks warrants decoding,” as recited in claim 18? ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellant’s conclusions. We adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Final Action from which the appeal is taken (Final Act. 2— 20) and the reasons set forth in the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellant’s Appeal Brief (Ans. 2—11). We highlight and address specific findings and arguments for emphasis as follows. Issue la Appellant contends the Examiner erred in finding Le Leannec teaches a “multi-dimensional image compressed in a plurality of blocks, each block storing compressed light field data and a displacement range,” as recited in claim 1 and similarly recited in claims 10 and 18 (App. Br. 5—7, 9). Specifically, Appellant argues the data stored by Le Leannec’s compressed blocks do not include compressed light field data and displacement range data (App. Br. 5—6). We are not persuaded. The Examiner finds, and we agree, Le Leannec teaches images sectioned into image blocks for encoding and compression (Ans. 3 (citing Le Leannec | 6); Final Act. 4 (citing 4 Appeal 2016-002385 Application 13/109,814 Le Leannec 131—140, Fig. 8)). The Examiner further finds, and we agree, Valliath teaches a stereoscope image, i.e., a multi-dimensional image, storing light field data in image blocks (Final Act. 7—8 (citing Valliath 49—50); Ans. 3—6 (citing Valliath H 57—58)). The Examiner modifies Le Leannec’s image encoding and decoding system to process the multi dimensional images storing light field data in image blocks taught by Valliath (Ans. 5—6; Final Act. 8). The Examiner further finds, and we agree, Gaude teaches image blocks storing displacement ranges (Ans. 6 (citing Gaude 124); Final Act. 8). Applying Gaude’s teaching that image blocks store displacement ranges, the Examiner modifies the multi-dimensional image blocks, taught by the Le Leannec and Valliath combination, to store displacement ranges (Final Act. 9). Appellant’s arguments, that Le Leannec does not teach a multi dimensional image and image blocks storing light field data and displacement ranges (App. Br. 5—6), improperly attack Le Leannec individually and do not address the Examiner’s combination of Le Leannec, Valliath, and Gaude. In particular, the Examiner applies Valliath’s multi dimensional image blocks storing light field data to Le Leannec’s image block processing system (Ans. 5—6; Final Act. 8), but Appellant does not present any persuasive argument or evidence addressing that combination and instead only addresses Le Leannec (see App. Br. 5—6). Further, the Examiner modifies the blocks of the Le Leannec and Valliath combination to store displacement ranges as taught by Gaude (Final Act. 9), but Appellant does not present any persuasive argument or evidence addressing that combination and instead only addresses Le Leannec (see App. Br. 5—6). Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding the 5 Appeal 2016-002385 Application 13/109,814 combination of Le Leannec, Valliath, and Gaude teaches a “multi dimensional image compressed in a plurality of blocks, each block storing compressed light field data and a displacement range,” within the meaning of claims 1,10, and 18. Issue lb Appellant contends the Examiner erred in finding Le Leannec teaches [C]ompar[ing] the displacement range in each block of the image to a difference between a current decoding position and a previous decoding position; and. . . decoding] a block if the difference is larger than the displacement range, the decoder module not decoding the block if the difference is smaller than the displacement range, as recited in claim 1 and similarly recited in claims 10 and 18 (App. Br. 6— 10; Reply Br. 1—3). Specifically, Appellant argues the Examiner “conflate[s] [Le Leannec’s] encoding/compression process with the claimed decoding” features, improperly “rel[ying] on [Le Leannec’s] encoding as teaching the various decoding-related claim” features (App. Br. 6 (emphasis omitted); Reply Br. 1—3). That is, Appellant argues the Examiner asserts Le Leannec’s encoding of blocks teaches decoding of blocks. We are not persuaded. As discussed supra, the Examiner finds, and we agree, Le Leannec teaches a process for encoding image blocks (Ans. 3 (citing Le Leannec 1 6); final Act. 4 (citing Le Leannec H 131—140, Lig. 8)). The Examiner (Ans. 9 (emphasis omitted); final Act. 5) further finds, and we agree, Le Leannec’s encoding process “detect[s] motion block by block in the spatial domain” by comparing “a predetermined threshold,” i.e., a displacement range, to the “difference in the signal between two blocks” (Le Leannec 1 93). The Examiner further finds, and we agree, based on the 6 Appeal 2016-002385 Application 13/109,814 comparison of the threshold and the difference between blocks, Le Leannec “determine[s] which motion blocks are encoded and sent to the decoder” (Ans. 9—10 (citing Le Leannec 119—120); Final Act. 5—6). The Examiner further finds, and we agree, the encoded blocks that were sent are subsequently decoded by a client (Ans. 8 (citing Le Leannec Fig. 8), 10; Final Act. 5—7; see Le Leannec 1131). Contrary to Appellant’s argument (App. Br. 6; Reply Br. 1—3), the Examiner does not assert that Le Leannec’s block encoding process itself decodes blocks. Instead, the Examiner broadly, but reasonably, finds Le Leannec’s block encoding process is an integral part of Le Leannec’s block decoding process and, accordingly, Le Leannec’s block decoding process includes the intervening steps of Le Leannec’s block encoding features; i.e., block encoding is part of the block decoding process because encoding must occur so that decoding can occur (Ans. 8 (“the encoding process and decoding process simply cannot be considered as independent and separate entities as the decoding process depends entirely on the decisions made by the [encoding process] algorithm”)). That is, while it is Le Leannec’s encoding process which compares a displacement range with a difference between blocks and encodes blocks based on that comparison, that encoding process is part of a “decoding architecture” because the encoding process selects and creates the blocks which the decoder then decodes. Indeed, the Examiner points out that Le Leannec’s decoding process either decodes blocks or “effectively skips” blocks from being decoded based on Le Leannec’s encoding process (Ans. 10) because Le Leannec’s encoding process “determine[s] which motion blocks are encoded and sent to the decoder” based on the comparison of a threshold 7 Appeal 2016-002385 Application 13/109,814 with a difference between blocks (Ans. 9). Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding Le Leannec teaches: [C]ompar[ing] the displacement range in each block of the image to a difference between a current decoding position and a previous decoding position; and. . . decoding] a block if the difference is larger than the displacement range, the decoder module not decoding the block if the difference is smaller than the displacement range, within the meaning of claims 1,10, and 18. Issue lc Appellant contends the Examiner erred in finding Le Leannec teaches an “image compressed in a plurality of blocks ... a displacement range in each block . . . representing a spatial range that is permitted to occur before a change in successive image blocks warrants decoding,” as recited in claim 18 (App. Br. 9). Specifically, Appellant argues the only block data Le Leannec’s compressed image include are “precincts/blocks of compressed image data” and “the set of indices of the precincts which have been detected as moving” {id. (citing Le Leannec 132—133)). We are not persuaded. As discussed supra, the Examiner finds, and we agree, Le Leannec teaches image blocks (Ans. 3 (citing Le Leannec 1 6)), Gaude teaches image blocks storing displacement ranges (Ans. 6 (citing Gaude 124); final Act. 8), and the combination of Le Leannec, Valliath, and Gaude teaches storing displacement ranges in Le Leannec’s image blocks (final Act. 9). further, as discussed supra, the Examiner finds, and we agree, Le Leannec compares the “difference in the signal between two blocks” with “a predetermined threshold,” i.e., a displacement range, in “the spatial domain” (Ans. 9 (emphasis omitted) (citing 8 Appeal 2016-002385 Application 13/109,814 Le Leannec 193), 11 (citing Le Leannec 1119); Final Act. 5). Appellant’s argument that Le Leannec’s blocks do not store a displacement range (see App. Br. 9) are not persuasive because the argument attacks Le Leannec individually when the Examiner relies on the combination of Le Leannec, Valliath, and Gaude to teach image blocks storing a displacement range. Furthermore, we agree with the Examiner’s finding that the threshold Le Leannec uses in its comparison is a spatial range because Le Leannec’s comparison occurs in the spatial domain (see Ans. 11). Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding Le Leannec teaches a “image compressed in a plurality of blocks ... a displacement range in each block . . . representing a spatial range that is permitted to occur before a change in successive image blocks warrants decoding,” within the meaning of claim 18. Summary Claims 1, 10, and 18 Appellant has not persuaded us the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Le Leannec, Valliath, and Gaude renders obvious the claims as recited in independent claims 1,10, and 18. Therefore, we sustain the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1,10, and 18 as being unpatentable over Le Leannec, Valliath, and Gaude. Remaining Claims 2—9, 11—17, and 20 Dependent claims 2—9, 11—17, and 20 are not separately argued by Appellant and thus these claims fall with their respective independent claims (see App. Br. 5—10). Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejections of dependent claims 3, 5—9, 13—17, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being 9 Appeal 2016-002385 Application 13/109,814 unpatentable over Le Leannec, Valliath, and Gaude, and dependent claims 2, 4, 11, and 12 as being unpatentable over Le Leannec, Valliath, Gaude, and Cai. DECISION The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 3, 5—10, 13—18, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Le Leannec, Valliath, and Gaude is affirmed. The Examiner’s rejection of claims 2, 4, 11, and 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Le Leannec, Valliath, Gaude, and Cai is affirmed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.L.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv). ALLIRMED 10 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation