Ex Parte SAID et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 14, 2016

13018241 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 14, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/018,241 0113112011
22879 7590 11/16/2016
HP Inc,
3390 E. Harmony Road
Mail Stop 35
FORT COLLINS, CO 80528-9544
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Amir SAID
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.
82603044 8187
EXAMINER
CATTUNGAL, ROWINA J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2486
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/16/2016 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
yvonne.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 and TON KALKER
Appeal2015-007145
Application 13/018,241
Technology Center 2400
Before BRUCE R. WINSOR, LINZY T. McCARTNEY, and
NATHAN A. ENGELS, Administrative Patent Judges.
PER CURIAM.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We reverse.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Hewlett-Packard
Development Company, LP. App. Br. 1.
Appeal2015-007145
Application 13/018,241
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Invention
Appellants' invention relates to "[a]n embedded light field display
architecture to process and display three-dimensional light field data in a
light field display." Abstract; see Spec. i-f 9. Claim 7 is independent and
illustrative of the subject matter on appeal:
7. A light field display for displaying a light field, the
light field display comprising:
a display screen having a plurality of tiles;
a plurality of hierarchical modules to process a portion of
compressed light field data for a subset of the plurality of tiles;
and
a plurality of tile modules embedded in at least one of the
plurality of tiles to receive both uncompressed and compressed
light field data from the plurality of hierarchical modules for
local processing and display at the display screen.
App. Br. (Claims App'x) ii.
Rejections on Appeal
Claims 1, 2, 5-7, 9-15, 18, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Vetro et al. (US 2008/0043095 Al; published
Feb. 21, 2008) ("Vetro") and Ohba et al. (US 2010/0040297 Al; published
Feb. 18, 2010) ("Ohba"). See Final Act. 4--9.
Claims 3, 4, 8, 16, 17, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Vetro, Ohba, and Kroll et al. (US 2010/0149311 Al;
published June 17, 2010) ("Kroll"). See Final Act. 9-12.
2
Appeal2015-007145
Application 13/018,241
ISSUE
The issue presented by Appellants' contentions is as follows: Does
the Examiner err in finding that Ohba's teaching of an image processing
device, including a format identifying unit that receives header information
indicating the compression format of the image data, would have taught or
suggested "a plurality of tile modules ... to receive ... uncompressed ...
light field data," as recited in claim 7?
ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds Ohba teaches claim 7's "a plurality of tile
modules ... to receive ... uncompressed ... light field data" by disclosing
an image processing device including a format identifying unit that receives
header information indicating the compression format of the image data.
See Ans. 12 (citing Ohba Fig. 7, i-fi-148, 54); Final Act. 6 (citing Ohba Figs.
3, 6; i132). The Examiner explains that this header information "will not be
compressed in the process of transmission of image data and auxiliary
information," and "[c]onsequently, the functionality of the image processing
device 10 receives ... uncompressed ... data." Ans. 12. The Examiner
further notes that Appellants' "specification defines 'uncompressed data' in
paragraph 0020 only" and that "uncompressed data may be raw data and
generally the data which is not compressed during encoding." Id. (citing
Spec. ,-r 20).
Appellants contend Ohba does not teach or suggest "receiv[ing] ...
uncompressed ... light field data" because Ohba's "image processing device
10 receives just compressed image data (and not uncompressed image data)
to decode for display." Reply Br. 4; see id. at 3-5; App. Br. 6. Further,
3
Appeal2015-007145
Application 13/018,241
Appellants argue that "[ e ]ven if the Examiner were correct in asserting that
the header information is not compressed, ... it would be improper for the
header information of Ohba to be equated with ... 'uncompressed ... light
field data.'" Reply Br. 5 (final ellipsis in original).
We agree with Appellants. Appellants' written description discloses
that "[l]ight field data ... represents the amount of light traveling in every
direction through every point in space," Spec. i-f 9, and "may ... include
both compressed light field data as well as uncompressed light field data,
e.g., view depth, projexel data, and so on," id. i-f 20. Accordingly, we
conclude the broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 7' s "uncompressed
... light field data" encompasses data other than compressed data that
represents the amount of light traveling in every direction through every
point in space, e.g., view depth or projexel data. However, we conclude a
claim construction that encompasses data other than data that represents the
amount of light traveling in a direction through a point in space is
unreasonably broad.
Applying this interpretation, we find the Examiner errs in relying on
header information to teach or suggest claim 7' s "uncompressed ... light
data" limitation. See Ans. 12; Final Act. 6; Ohba Fig. 7, i-fi-132, 48, 54. We
agree with the Examiner that Ohba' s header information indicates the
compression format of a tile image. See Ans. 12; Ohba i-fi-1 48, 51, 54. We
also agree with the Examiner that this header information is not compressed
in the process of transmitting image data and auxiliary information. See
Ans. 12; compare Ohba i-fi-148, 51, 54, with Ohba i-f 32. However, Ohba's
header information, even though uncompressed, is not encompassed within
the broadest reasonable interpretation of "light field data." See Ohba Fig. 7,
4
Appeal2015-007145
Application 13/018,241
iii! 32, 48, 54. For example, Ohba's header information, which identifies the
compression format of the image data, is neither view depth or projexel data.
See Spec. iii! 9, 20; Ohba Fig. 7, iii! 32, 48, 54. Furthermore, Ohba's header
information does not represent the amount of light traveling in every
direction through every point in space, in accordance with Appellants'
written description of "light field data." See id. Accordingly, Ohba's image
processing device 10, including a format identifying unit that receives
header information indicating the compression format of the image data,
does not teach or suggest "a plurality of tile modules ... to receive ...
uncompressed ... light field data," as recited in claim 7. See Ohba Fig. 7,
iii! 32, 48, 54; App. Br. 6; Reply Br. 3-6. Further, the Examiner does not
show that Vetro cures this deficiency of Ohba. See Final Act. 6; Ans. 11-
13. Nor does the Examiner provide an adequate rationale to fill the gaps in
the cited prior art.
In view of the foregoing, we conclude the Examiner errs in the
rejection of claim 7. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of
independent claim 7. For the same reason, we do not sustain the rejection of
independent claims 1 and 19, as well as dependent claims 2, 5, 6, 9-15, and
18, each of which include the same deficiency discussed above for the
rejection of claim 7. See App. Br. (Claims App'x) i-iv; Ans. 13-15; Final
Act. 3-9. Nor do we sustain the rejections of claims 3, 4, 8, 16, 17, and 20,
which include the same limitation discussed above for claim 7, the
deficiencies of which are not cured by Vetro or Kroll. See App. Br. (Claims
App'x) i-iv; Ans. 16; Final Act. 9-12.
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-20 is reversed.
5
Appeal2015-007145
Application 13/018,241
REVERSED
6