Ex Parte Swaminathan et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 28, 2017

12956965 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 28, 2017)

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.
12/956,965 11/30/2010 Viswanathan Swaminathan B1287 1294
108982 7590
Wolfe-SBMC
116 W. Pacific Avenue
Suite 300
Spokane, WA 99201
EXAMINER
EDWARDS, TYLER B
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2486
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/02/2017 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):
docket@sbmc-law.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte VISWANATHAN SWAMINATHAN and HYOJIN KIM
Appeal 2016-004069
Application 12/956,9651
Technology Center 2400
Before JOHNNY A. KUMAR, SCOTT B. HOWARD, and
JOHN D. HAMANN, Administrative Patent Judges.
HAMANN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants file this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1—23. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.
THE CLAIMED INVENTION
Appellants’ claimed invention relates to a reduced video stream and
paired video stream being compressed for use in stereoscopic displays.
Abstract. Claim 17 is illustrative of subject matter of the appeal and is
reproduced below.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Adobe Systems
Incorporated. Br. 3.
Appeal 2016-004069
Application 12/956,965
17. A computer-implemented method, comprising:
generating a reduced video stream by removing from one
of a pair of video streams selected for preparation for
stereoscopic display a set of correlative data that is present in or
can be predicted from the other of the pair of video streams
selected for preparation for stereoscopic display; and
compressing as separate video streams the reduced video
stream and the other of the pair of video streams for use in
stereoscopic display of the reduced video stream and the other
of the pair of video streams, the other of the pair of video
streams being usable for two-dimensional or three-dimensional
display and the reduced video stream being usable to
complement the other of the pair of video streams in three-
dimensional display, the reduced video stream and the other of
the pair of video streams having different fee regimes for
viewing of the reduced video stream and the other of the pair of
video streams.
REJECTIONS2
(1) The Examiner rejected claims 1—16 under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and
distinctly claim the subject matter regarded as the invention. Appellants do
not provide arguments for this rejection, and thus, we summarily affirm this
rejection. See Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI2010)
(precedential).
(2) The Examiner rejected claims 12—16 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as
being directed to non-statutory subject matter. Appellants do not provide
arguments for this rejection, and thus, we summarily affirm this rejection.
2 Appellants state that only claims 17—20 are being appealed (Br. 5),
however, we are unaware of an entered amendment canceling claims 1—16
and 21—23. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.31(c) (“An appeal, when taken, is presumed
to be taken from the rejection of all claims under rejection unless cancelled
by an amendment filed by the applicant and entered by the Office.”).
2
Appeal 2016-004069
Application 12/956,965
(3) The Examiner rejected claims 1, 3—7, 9-12, 14—16, and 21—23
as being unpatentable over the combination of Damera-Venkata (US
7,463,778 B2; issued Dec. 9, 2008) (hereinafter “D-V”) and Lipton et al.
(US 5,416,510; issued May 16, 1995) (hereinafter “Lipton”). Appellants do
not provide arguments for this rejection, and thus, we summarily affirm this
rejection.
(4) The Examiner rejected claims 2, 8, and 13 as being
unpatentable over the combination D-V, Lipton, and Socek et al. (US
2007/0291941 Al; published Dec. 20, 2007) (hereinafter “Socek”).
Appellants do not provide arguments for this rejection, and thus, we
summarily affirm this rejection.
(5) The Examiner rejected claims 17—20 as being unpatentable over
the combination D-V, Lipton, and Weaver et al. (US 2007/0133603 Al;
published June 14, 2007) (hereinafter “Weaver”).
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection of claims 17—20 in light
of Appellants’ contentions that the Examiner erred. In reaching our
decision, we consider all evidence presented and all arguments made by
Appellants.
We disagree with Appellants’ arguments, and we incorporate herein
and adopt as our own for the reviewed rejection the findings, conclusions,
and reasons set forth by the Examiner in (1) the February 5, 2015 Final
Office Action (“Final Act.” 2—22) and (2) the November 19, 2015
Examiner’s Answer (Ans. 2—14). We highlight and address, however,
specific findings and arguments below for emphasis.
3
Appeal 2016-004069
Application 12/956,965
(1) Generating a reduced video stream
Appellants argue the combination of D-V, Lipton, and Weaver fails to
teach or suggest “generating a reduced video stream by removing from one
of a pair of video streams selected for preparation for stereoscopic display a
set of correlative data that is present in or can be predicted from the other of
the pair of video streams selected for preparation for stereoscopic display,”
as recited in claim 17. Br. 10—12.
Appellants argue D-V instead teaches estimating motion between
multiple view images and using the estimations to compress the images by
reducing redundancy between the pairs of images — multiple view images
are not equivalent to a pair of video streams. Br. 11 (citing D-V col. 4,11.
1—9). According to Appellants, “multiple view images, at best, represent a
single video stream.” Id.
Appellants further argue D-V “is entirely silent with regard to
stereoscopic display.” Id. Appellants also assert Lipton and Weaver fail to
cure D-V’s deficiencies. Br. 12 (citing Lipton col. 11,11. 17—24 (arguing
although Lipton discusses a stereoscopic application, it “is silent with regard
to generating a reduced video stream or removing correlative data from one
of a pair of video streams”)).
The Examiner finds, and we agree, the combination of D-V, Lipton,
and Weaver teaches, or at least suggests, the disputed limitation. See Ans.
8—9; Final Act. 19-21. The Examiner finds, and we agree, D-V teaches or
suggests the disputed limitation by teaching “epipolar geometry, which is the
geometry of stereo vision, in which when two cameras view a 30 scene from
two distinct positions, there are a number of geometric relations between the
30 points and their projections onto the 20 images that lead to constraints
4
Appeal 2016-004069
Application 12/956,965
between the image points,” which can be applied to video streams. Ans. 8
(citing D-V col. 5,11. 28—50); see also Final Act. 19-20 (citing D-V col. 4,
11. 1—9 (finding D-V teaches “encoder 32 includes a motion estimation
engine 40, which estimates motion between pairs of multiple view images.
Encoder 32 uses the motion estimates to compress the multiple view images
30 by reducing redundancy between the pairs of multiple view images 30”)).
We note that in further support of the Examiner’s findings that D-V teaches
its “multiple view images 30 may be video or still images,” and thus,
teaches, or at least suggests, a plurality of video streams, contrary to
Appellants’ arguments. See D-V col. 3,1. 65.
As to Appellants’ arguments about Lipton (i.e., failing to teach
“generating a reduced video stream or removing correlative data from one of
a pair of video streams”), the Examiner notes D-V is what is cited for such
teachings. Ans. 9 (citing D-V col. 4,11. 1—9). We agree with the Examiner
and find Appellants incorrectly focus on Lipton individually instead of
addressing the combined teachings of D-V, Lipton, and Weaver to one of
ordinary skill in the art. See In re Merck & Co. Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097
(Fed. Cir. 1986) (“Non-obviousness cannot be established by attacking
references individually where the rejection is based upon the teachings of a
combination of references.”); see also In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425
(CCPA 1981) (finding the relevant inquiry is whether the claimed subject
matter would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art in light
of the combined teachings of the references).
Our findings regarding D-V’s teachings and suggestions concerning
stereoscopic display and multiple video streams also apply to Appellants’
same arguments for other elements of claim 17, as well as claim 18.
5
Appeal 2016-004069
Application 12/956,965
(2) Compressing as separate video streams
Appellants argue the combination of D-V, Lipton, and Weaver fails to
teach or suggest “compressing as separate video streams the reduced video
stream and the other of the pair of video streams for use in stereoscopic
display,” as recited in claim 17. Br. 12—14. Specifically, Appellants argue
D-V fails to teach or suggest “using different compression techniques for
different video streams,” and instead merely teaches that “multiple view
images are compressed by reducing redundancy between the pairs of
multiple view images.” Br. 13—14 (citing D-V col. 4,11. 7—16).
The Examiner finds, and we agree, this disputed limitation “merely
requires that the video streams be compressed separately, and does not
include limitations regarding the use of different compressing techniques
upon the separately compressed video streams.” Ans. 10.
(3) The other of the pair of video streams
Appellants argue the combination of D-V, Lipton, and Weaver fails to
teach or suggest “the other of the pair of video streams being usable for two-
dimensional or three-dimensional display and the reduced video stream
being usable to complement the other of the pair of video streams in three-
dimensional display,” as recited in claim 17. Br. 14—16. Specifically,
Appellants argue Lipton “only generally describes that stereoscopic display
is possible.” Br. 15 (citing Lipton col. 5,11. 53—55 (“The inventive system
can also produce a two projector stereoscopic display, or two channels of
independent non-stereoscopic (planar) displays.”)).
The Examiner finds, and we agree, the combination of D-V, Lipton,
and Weaver teaches the disputed limitation. Ans. 11; final Act. 20. As to
Lipton, the Examiner finds, and we agree, it teaches or suggests “using
6
Appeal 2016-004069
Application 12/956,965
multiple streams that can be used either in combination in a stereoscopic
display, or separately as non-stereoscopic displays.” Ans. 11; Final Act. 20
(citing Lipton col. 5,11. 53—55; col. 6,11. 1—14). As to D-V, the Examiner
finds, and we agree, it teaches or suggests “compressing [stereoscopic video]
streams via the use of motion estimation for reducing redundancy between
the streams, as well as disclosure relating to the three-dimensional geometry
of the images.” Ans. 11; Final Act. 20 (citing D-V col. 4,11. 7—16); see also
supra. We agree with the Examiner’s conclusion that the combined
teachings of D-V, Lipton, and Weaver teach, or at least suggest, the disputed
limitation. See Keller, 642 F.2d at 425 (finding the relevant inquiry is
whether the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to those of
ordinary skill in the art in light of the combined teachings of the references).
(4) Combining D-V and Lipton
Appellants argue the Examiner fails to provide sufficient reasoning to
combine D-V and Lipton’s teachings, including “because there is no
suggestion by either reference to incorporate the alleged benefits of Lipton
into the teachings of D[-]V.” Br. 16—17. Appellants also argue the
Examiner improperly relies on hindsight. Br. 17.
The Examiner finds the teachings of D-V and Lipton are properly
combined. See Ans. 12—13; Final Act. 9 (providing rationale), 21 (citing to
same rationale as for claim 1). The Examiner reasons:
It would have been obvious, for a person having ordinary
skill in the art, to combine the teachings of D[-]V with the
teachings of Lipton because the controller systems and methods
of Lipton process signals from stereoscopic cameras similar to
those shown in Figure 1A of D[-]V, and performs encoding and
transformation, and compression on the video streams, similar
to the methods of D[-]V. Additionally, the teachings of Lipton
7
Appeal 2016-004069
Application 12/956,965
include display and playback aspects that will benefit the
teachings of D[-]V, as they are possible outcomes and uses of
the decoded image frames created via the methods of D[-]V.
Final Act. 9; see also Ans. 13 (finding “the control systems for use with
stereoscopic video systems as taught by Lipton would be relevant, and
beneficial to the teachings of D[-]V”).
We find Appellants’ arguments unpersuasive. The Examiner provides
“articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal
conclusion of obviousness.” In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006).
For example, the Examiner reasons a person of ordinary skill in the art
would have been motivated to combine D-V and Lipton to achieve the
common benefits for signal processing and stereoscopic display. Ans. 13;
Final Act. 9, 21; see also KSRInt’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418
(2007) (“[T]he [obviousness] analysis need not seek out precise teachings
directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court
can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of
ordinary skill in the art would employ.”). Further, Appellants’ argument —
which we also find to be conclusory — that the Examiner uses
impermissible hindsight largely is premised on a lack of articulated
reasoning to combine the references, and thus, we also find this argument
unpersuasive.
(5) Using different compression algorithms
Appellants argue the combination of D-V, Lipton, and Weaver fails to
teach or suggests “compressing the reduced video stream and the other of
the pair of video streams using different compression algorithms,” as recited
in claim 18. Br. 18—20. Appellants argue the Examiner cited portions of
D-V (col. 4,11. 7—16 and col. 8,11. 43—57) fail to teach the disputed
8
Appeal 2016-004069
Application 12/956,965
limitation. Br. 18—19. Appellants also argue Lipton and Weaver fail to cure
the alleged deficiencies in D-V. Br. 19-20.
The Examiner finds, and we agree, the combination, and D-V in
particular, teaches or suggests the disputed limitation. Ans. 13—14; Final
Act. 11,21. Specifically, the Examiner finds, and we agree, D-V teaches
compressing the reduced video stream and the other of the pair of video
streams using different compression algorithms. Final Act. 11 (citing D-V
col. 4,11. 7—16 (teaching or suggesting compressing multiple view images by
reducing redundancy between the pairs of images), col. 8,11. 43—57
(teaching or suggesting “encoder 32 may encode the target image in
accordance with a motion compensation prediction approach[,and]. . . also
may incorporate non-motion-vector-based image compression methods in
the process of encoding the target image, including spectral and spatial
redundancy reduction methods”)); Ans. 13—14.
Furthermore, Appellants’ arguments do not persuasively address why
the Examiner’s specific findings of what D-V teaches are incorrect, and
largely just recite the language of the claim and assert that D-V does not
disclose that limitation. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (“A statement
which merely points out what a claim recites will not be considered an
argument for separate patentability of the claim.”); see also In re Lovin, 652
F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (holding that “the Board reasonably
interpreted Rule 41.37 to require 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”).
9
Appeal 2016-004069
Application 12/956,965
CONCLUSION
Based on our above findings, we sustain the Examiner’s § 103
rejection of claims 17 and 18, as well as claims 19 and 20, as Appellants did
not provide separate arguments for their patentability. We also summarily
affirm the rejections of claims 1—16 and 21—23.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—23.
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
10