Ex Parte Su et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 14, 2016

12170427 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 14, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/170,427 07/09/2008
76003 7590 11/16/2016
Kristine Elizabeth Matthews
7501 Henson Forest Drive
Summerfield, NC 27358
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Yeping Su
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.
SLA2393 1058
EXAMINER
CHEN,XUEMEIG
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2668
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):
kmatthews@runbox.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte YEPING SU, XIAO-FAN FENG, HAO PAN, and
YASUOOZAWA
Appeal2014-009910
Application 12/170,427
Technology Center 2600
Before KRISTEN L. DROESCH, CATHERINE SHIANG, and
SCOTT B. HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOW ARD, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection
of claims 1--49, which constitute all of the claims pending in this application.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm-in-part.
1 Appellants identify Sharp Laboratories of America as the real party in
interest. Br. 1.
Appeal2014-009910
Application 12/170,427
THE INVENTION
The disclosed and claimed invention is directed to "methods and
systems for display correction, in particular, for compression of display non-
uniformity correction data and use of compressed display non-uniformity
correction data." Spec. i-f 2.
Claims 1 and 9, reproduced below with the disputed claim limitations
italicized, are illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method for storing corrective image data, said method
compnsmg:
receiving a first correction image associated with a first
display system, wherein said first correction image is
decomposed into a structural part comprising vertically and
horizontally aligned structures of said first correction image,
wherein said vertically and horizontally aligned structures are
represented by a column vector and a row vector, and a smoothly
varying part, wherein said smoothly varying part comprises a
smoothly varying component of said first correction image;
fitting a first model to said smoothly varying part of said
first correction image, thereby producing at least one model
parameter value associated with said first correction image;
encoding said at least one model parameter value
associated with said first correction image, thereby producing
encoded data associated with said first correction image; and
storing, in a storage location at said first display system,
said encoded data and said column vector and said row vector.
9. A method for storing corrective image data, said method
compnsmg:
receiving a plurality of correction images associated with
a first display system, wherein each correction image in said
plurality of correction images is associated with an image
captured at a different gray level;
generating a plurality of eigenvectors associated with said
plurality of correction images;
2
Appeal2014-009910
Application 12/170,427
projecting each of said correction images onto the
eigenspace defined by said plurality of eigenvectors, thereby
producing a plurality of coefficients associated with each
correction image in said plurality of correction images;
encoding said plurality of eigenvectors, thereby producing
encoded data; and
storing, in a storage location at said first display system,
said encoded data and said plurality of coefficients associated
with each correction image in said plurality of correction images.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner as evidence in rejecting the
claims on appeal is:
Keith
Tuceryan
Razdan
Mizukoshi
us 4,835,607
us 6,044,168
US 2005/0168460 Al
US 2007 /0273701 Al
May 30, 1989
Mar. 28, 2000
Aug. 4, 2005
Nov. 29, 2007
Jean-Frarn;ois Aujol et al., Structure-Texture Image Decomposition-
Af ode ling, Algorithms, and Parameter Selection, International Journal of
Computer Vision (Feb. 2006) (hereinafter "Aujol").2
REJECTIONS
Claims 1---6, 8, 28, 29, 31, 32, and 34--36 stand rejected under pre-AIA
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Mizukoshi in view of Aujol
and Keith. Final Act. 2-12.
2 The pages of Aujol are not numbered. The page numbers referred to in this
Decision are for reference purposes, which reference numbers can be easily
understood by assigning positive whole numbers consecutively to Aujol
pages, beginning with numbering the first page as page 1.
3
Appeal2014-009910
Application 12/170,427
Claims 7 and 33 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Mizukoshi in view of Aujol, Keith, and Razdan.
Final Act. 12-13.
Claims 9-13, 37, 38, and 47 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Mizukoshi in view of Tuceryan. Final
Act. 13-18.
Claims 14, 16-19, 21-25, 39, 41--43, 45, and 46 stand rejected under
pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Mizukoshi in view
of Tuceryan and Keith. Final Act. 18-21.
Claims 15, 27, 48, and 49 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Mizukoshi in view of Tuceryan, Keith,
and Aujol. Final Act. 22-23.
Claims 20, 26, 40, and 44 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Mizukoshi in view of Tuceryan, Keith,
and Razdan. Final Act. 23-24.
Claim 30 stands rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Mizukoshi in view of Aujol, Keith, and Tuceryan. Final
Act. 24--25.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants'
arguments that the Examiner erred. In reaching this decision, we have
considered all evidence presented and all arguments made by Appellants.
We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments regarding claims 1-8 and
28-3 6. However, we are persuaded by Appellants' arguments regarding
claims 9-27 and 37--49 that the Examiner erred.
4
Appeal2014-009910
Application 12/170,427
Claims 1--8 and 28-36
Appellants argue the Examiner erred in finding Aujol teaches a first
correction image that is "decomposed into a structural part ... and a
smoothly varying part," as recited in claim 1. Br. 8. Specifically,
Appellants state:
Id.
The Examiner argues, in the Office action dated 04/12/2013,
hereinafter "the Office action," Page 3, that Aujol discloses an
image decomposition method by splitting an original imagefinto
two components u and v, u containing the geometrical
information and v the textural information. This is distinctly
different from decomposing an image into: 1) a structural part
comprising vertically and horizontally aligned structures of the
image and 2) a smoothly varying part. Aujol specifically teaches
that the structural part corresponds "to the main large objects in
the image" and that textural part contains "fine scale-details"
(Aujol, page 2, left column, paragraph 1 ). Neither image
component of Aujol is analogous to either image component of
claim 1: firstly, the main large objects in an image are not
analogous to either vertically and horizontally aligned structures
or a smoothly vaf'Jing component and, secondly, the fine scale=
details are not analogous to either vertically and horizontally
aligned structures or a smoothly varying component. Aujol does
not teach image decomposition as claimed in claim 1.
The Examiner finds Aujol teaches the disputed limitation.
Specifically, the Examiner finds "Aujol discloses an image decomposition
method by splitting an original imagefinto two components u and v, u
containing the geometrical information and v the textural information."
Final Act. 3 (citing Aujol p. 2, left col., 3rd para., 11. 1-3). The Examiner
further finds Aujol Figure 11 "shows the decomposition of a simple image
by TV-Gabor, u in lower left panel with vertically (e.g. left/right side of the
square) and horizontally (upper/lower side of the square and horizontal
5
Appeal2014-009910
Application 12/170,427
stripes) aligned structures, and v in lower right panel with smooth texture."
Ans. 7. The Examiner's findings are based, in part, on applying the broadest
reasonable construction to the claim and concluding the "the 'vertically and
horizontally aligned structures' should be considered as a whole the
structures present in a 2D image" and that the claim does not limit "how to
decompose the image, nor defines the relative scales of the two parts with
respect to each other." Final Act. 5---6.
We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments that the Examiner
erred. First, Appellants do not provide persuasive argument or evidence to
support the assertion that Aujol does not teach the "first correction image"
limitation recited in claim 1. To the extent Appellants make an argument, it
consists of quoting the Final Office Action, providing a single sentence
generically describing Aujol and stating in a conclusory fashion without any
reasoning that Aujol does not teach the disputed claim limitation.
It is well settled that mere attorney arguments and conclusory
statements, which are unsupported by factual evidence, are entitled to little
probative value. In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997); see
also In re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1405 (CCPA 1974) (attorney argument is
not evidence). Additionally, merely quoting or summarizing the claim
language and making a naked assertion that the prior art does not teach the
limitation - which is what Appellants did in this case - is insufficient to
raise an argument that that Examiner erred. See In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349,
1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (Rule 41.37 requires "more substantive arguments in
an appeal brief than a mere recitation of the claim elements and a naked
assertion that the corresponding elements were not found in the prior art.");
see also 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) ("A statement which merely points out
6
Appeal2014-009910
Application 12/170,427
what a claim recites will not be considered an argument for separate
patentability of the claim."); cf In re Baxter Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d 388,
391 (Fed. Cir. 1991) ("It is not the function of this court to examine the
claims in greater detail than argued by an appellant, looking for [patentable]
distinctions over the prior art.").
Second, Appellants did not file a Reply Brief and, therefore, did not
address or challenge the additional findings and conclusions made by the
Examiner in the Answer. "If an appellant fails to present arguments on a
particular issue- or, more broadly, on a particular rejection-the Board
will not, as a general matter, unilaterally review those uncontested aspects of
the rejection." ExparteFrye, 94USPQ2d1072, 1075 (BPAI2010)
(precedential). Accordingly, we are not persuaded of error based on
Appellants' arguments. Instead, we agree with and adopt the Examiner's
findings that Aujol teaches the disputed first correction image limitation
recited in claim 1.
Therefore, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1, along with
the rejections of claims 28 and 31, which are argued on substantially the
same grounds (Br. 9-11), and claims 2---6, 8, 29, 32, and 34--36, which are
not argued separately (Br. 9, 10, 11). With regard to dependent claims 7, 30,
and 33, Appellants merely contend that because the additional references
used in the rejections of these claims (Razadan (claims 7 and 33) and
Tuceryan (claim 30)) do not cure the shortcomings of the other references
applied against the respective independent claims, the Examiner failed to
make a prima facie case of obviousness for these claims. Br. 12, 21.
Because we determine that the rejection of independent claims 1, 28, and 31
7
Appeal2014-009910
Application 12/170,427
is not erroneous for the reasons discussed above, we sustain the rejections of
these claims.
Claims 9-27 and 37-49
Appellants argue the Examiner erred in finding Mizukoshi teaches
that each of the "plurality of correction images is associated with an image
captured at a different gray level," as recited in claim 9. Br. 13-14.
Specifically, Appellants argue the cited sections "teach look-up-tables
storing gamma correction data for obtaining a desired relationship between
the light-emitting brightness and brightness data. A look-up-table is not the
same as an image." Id. (emphasis added). Appellants further argue that
"[t]he image values in Mizukoshi are generated corrected values, which are
not analogous to captured image values. Thus, this is not analogous to
receiving a plurality of correction images, wherein each correction image is
based on an image captured at a different gray level." Br. 14.
The Examiner notes that "Mizukoshi does not expressly disclose a
correction image as recited in claim 9." Ans. 8 (emphasis added). However,
the Examiner finds that because Mizukoshi teaches "a plurality of correction
images" and that "the brightness (gray level) of the correction images is not
fixed," Mizukoshi teaches the disputed claim limitation. Final Act. 13-14
(citing Mizukoshi i-fi-150-52). The Examiner further finds:
Mizukoshi discloses that a display panel includes R, G, and B
pixels and can input R, G and B brightness signals for the display
ofR, G and B colors (para[s]. [0051]-[0052]; Fig. 4). Therefore
Mizukoshi teaches at least a plurality of R, G and B correction
images. Actually the instant application also treats each color
component a separate image (see para[s]. [0020] & [0038]). It is
also noticed that Mizukoshi' s invention is for correction of a
8
Appeal2014-009910
Application 12/170,427
display that is supposed to deal with images captured under
various conditions. A display does not just stop after it receives
and displays a single image. Besides, nothing in the claim
requires that the correction images are related to each other in
any way. One can practice Mizukoshi's method iteratively to
meet the claim limitations regarding multiple correction images.
Ans. 9.
We have reviewed the cited sections of Mizukoshi. We determine
that the Examiner's finding is not supported by Mizukoshi for the reasons
set forth by Appellants. See Br. 13-14. A look-up table is not an image and
the cited sections of Mizukoshi do not teach a plurality of images "captured
at a different gray level," as recited in claim 9.
Accordingly, we are constrained on this record to reverse the
Examiner's rejection of claim 9, along with the rejections of claim 37, which
recites a limitation commensurate in scope to the disputed limitation
discussed above, and dependent claims 10-27 and 38--49.
DECISION
For the above reasons, we affirm the Examiner's decisions rejecting
claims 1-8 and 28-36.
For the above reasons, we reverse the Examiner's decisions rejecting
claims 9-27 and 37--49.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
9