Ex Parte Takami

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 18, 2018

13577160 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 18, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/577, 160 08/03/2012
23373 7590 12/20/2018
SUGHRUE MION, PLLC
2100 PENNSYLVANIA A VENUE, N.W.
SUITE 800
WASHINGTON, DC 20037
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Shinya Takami
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.
Ql41648 6579
EXAMINER
BUTTRAM, ALAN T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2613
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/20/2018 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):
PPROCESSING@SUGHRUE.COM
sughrue@sughrue.com
USPTO@sughrue.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SHINY A TAKAMI
Appeal2017-004311
Application 13/577,160 1
Technology Center 2600
Before JENNIFER S. BISK, SCOTT E. BAIN, and
STEVEN M. AMUNDSON, Administrative Patent Judges.
BISK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL 2
Appellant seeks our review under U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner's
rejection of claims 14, 16-19, 21-24, 26-29, 31-34, and 36-43. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.
BACKGROUND
Appellant's invention relates to preventing content displayed on a
screen from being replicated. Spec. ,r 1.
1 Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Rakuten, Inc. App. Br. 2.
2 Throughout this Decision we have considered the Specification filed
August 3, 2012 ("Spec."); the Final Rejection mailed January 7, 2016
("Final Act."); the Appeal Brief filed July 1, 2016 ("App. Br."); the
Examiner's Answer mailed November 9, 2016 ("Ans."); and the Reply Brief
filed January 6, 2017 ("Reply Br.").
Appeal2017-004311
Application 13/577,160
Claim 41, reproduced below with indentation added, is illustrative of
the claimed subject matter:
41. A data-generating method comprising:
acquiring, by a processor, still image data;
generating a predetermined number of items of still image data
in which at least some pixels of the acquired still image
data are masked, and randomly varying positions of at
least some pixels in said pixels to be masked, between at
least two items of still image data of the predetermined
number of still image data; and
setting a rate of pixels to be masked at an outline portion of an
object within an image shown by the acquired still image
data to be greater than a rate of pixels to be masked at
other portions; and
generating movie data for which each of the generated still
image data is displayed at a predetermined frame rate.
App. Br. 22 (Claims Appendix).
THE REJECTIONS
1. Claims 14, 17, 19, 22, 24, 27, 29, 32, 34, 37, 40, and 41 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being obvious over Beaton (US
2005/0135789 A9, published June 23, 2005) and Wilensky (US
2011/0311134 Al, published Dec. 22, 2011). Final Act. 3-9.
2. Claims 16, 18, 21, 23, 26, 28, 31, 33, 36, 38, 42, and43 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being obvious over Beaton, Wilensky, and
Bendall (US 2008/0152210 Al, published June 26, 2008). Id. at 9-13,
15-20.
3. Claim 39 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being obvious over
Beaton, Wilensky, and Bell (US 2011/0317877 Al, published Dec. 29,
2011). Id. at 14--15.
2
Appeal2017-004311
Application 13/577,160
ANALYSIS
We have considered all of Appellant's arguments and any evidence
presented. We highlight and address specific findings and arguments for
emphasis in our analysis below.
Claim 41
The Examiner rejects claim 41 over a combination of Beaton and
Wilensky. Final Act. 3-9. The Examiner relies on Beaton as teaching all of
claim 41 's limitations except "setting a rate of pixels to be masked at an
outline portion of an object within an image shown by the acquired still
image data to be greater than a rate of pixels to be masked at other portions"
(the "setting limitation"). Final Act. 3---6, 9. According to the Examiner,
Wilensky teaches making an outline portion of an image at a higher rate by
improving opacity values of pixels in regions near the border. Id. at 5---6
( citing Wilensky Fig. 2B). The Examiner adds that one of ordinary skill in
the art would understand that this process could be repeated for any number
of images. Id. at 6. The Examiner concludes that "it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the invention, to
modify the invention of Beaton with the features of masking as taught by
Wilensky" to improve "the accuracy of image masks that do not fully
capture depicted objects in an image." Id. (citing Wilensky ,r 14).
Appellant argues that neither Beaton nor Wilensky discloses
"randomly varying positions of at least some pixels in said pixels to be
masked, between at least two items of still image data" (the "varying
position limitation") or the setting limitation. App. Br. 11-12. Appellant
also argues that "one of ordinary skill would not be motivated to modifying
[sic] Beaton with Wilensky." Id. at 12.
3
Appeal2017-004311
Application 13/577,160
First, Appellant argues that Beaton fails to teach the varying position
limitation because Beaton teaches "overlaying an impairment signal over a
video image signal" that is "not [] applicable to the protection of still image
data." Id. at 10-11. Beaton, however, explicitly states that "the present
invention is applicable to media having still image, and/or textual content."
Beaton ,r 21. We, therefore, are not persuaded that Beaton is not applicable
to still image data.
Second, Appellant argues that Wilensky does not teach the setting
limitation because "nothing in Wilensky suggests randomly masking pixels
in an outline of objects at a greater rate than pixels located at other portions
of the image." App. Br. 11. According to Appellant, Wilensky discloses a
binary mask having a "hard, discrete border," but that border "is not
necessarily representative of the object being masked or the boundaries of
the object as they are depicted in the image." Reply Br. 5 (citing Wilensky
Fig. 2A). Appellant contends that although Figure 2B of Wilensky shows a
second mask, which is "an opacity mask that more accurately masks the
edges of object boundaries in the image," because the initial image mask
(shown in Figure 2A) and the second image (shown in Figure 2B) "equally
apply to the entire image," the "rate of pixels to be masked at an outline
portion" is not changed. Reply Br. 5. According to Appellant, "[t]he
Examiner misinterprets updating the opacity value of pixels as disclosed by
Wilensky as a varying rate of pixels to be masked in claim 41," but
"[ c ]learly, the updating the opacity value of pixels is fundamentally and
completely different from setting different rates of pixels to be masked at an
outline portion and other portions." Id.
4
Appeal2017-004311
Application 13/577,160
We agree with the Examiner that Appellant's arguments attack the
references individually, while the Examiner relies on the combined
disclosures in the references to reject the independent claims. See Ans. 19.
Where a rejection rests on the combined disclosures in the references, an
appellant cannot establish nonobviousness by attacking the references
individually. See In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Here, the combined disclosures in Wilensky and Beaton teach the disputed
receiving parameters limitation. See Final Act. 16-18, 22-24; Ans. 11-17.
The Examiner relies on Wilensky for teaching masking outline portions of
an image at a higher rate than other portions of that image. Final Act. 5-6
(citing Wilensky ,r,r 38--43). We agree that Wilensky teaches this type of
masking. See Wilensky Fig. 2B, ,r,r 40--43. That Wilensky also teaches
making other parts of the image using another mask is irrelevant to the
Examiner's rejection.
Third, Appellant argues that one of ordinary skill would not modify
Beaton's invention with the masking process disclosed by Wilensky because
the references are directed to "opposing goals"-Wilensky to "improving the
quality of an image by masking the edge" and Beaton to "obscuring a video
image." App. Br. 12. We agree with the Examiner that a person of ordinary
skill would look at Wilensky for its teachings on image masks. Both Beaton
and Wilensky are directed to methods of image masking. Moreover, as
noted by the Examiner (Final Act. 6), Wilensky itself explains that its
invention improves the accuracy of image masks. Wilensky ,r 14.
For these reasons, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 41.
5
Appeal2017-004311
Application 13/577,160
Claims 14, 17, 19, 22, 24, 27, 29, 32, 34, 37, and 40
The Examiner rejects claims 14, 17, 19, 22, 24, 27, 29, 32, 34, 37, and
40 over a combination of Beaton and Wilensky. Final Act. 3-9. For each of
these claims, Appellant relies on the same arguments made with respect to
claim 41. App. Br. 12-13. These arguments, however, are not persuasive
for the reasons discussed above. Consequently, we find Appellant's
arguments do not show error in the Examiner's factual findings and the
finding of obviousness of claims 14, 17, 19, 22, 24, 27, 29, 32, 34, 37,
and 40.
Claims 16, 18, 21, 23, 26, 28, 31, 33, 36, 38, 42, and 43
The Examiner rejects claims 16, 18, 21, 23, 26, 28, 31, 33, 36, 38, 42,
and 43 over a combination of Beaton, Wilensky, and Bendall. Final Act. 9-
13, 15-20. For each of these claims, Appellant relies on the same arguments
made with respect to claim 41. App. Br. 13. These arguments, however, are
not persuasive for the reasons discussed above. Consequently, we find
Appellant's arguments do not show error in the Examiner's factual findings
and the finding of obviousness of claims 16, 18, 21, 23, 26, 28, 31, 33, 36,
38, 42, and 43.
Claim 39
The Examiner rejects claim 39 over a combination of Beaton,
Wilensky, and Bell. Final Act. 14--15. For this claim, Appellant relies on
the same arguments made with respect to claim 41. App. Br. 14. These
arguments, however, are not persuasive for the reasons discussed above.
Consequently, we find Appellant's arguments do not show error in the
Examiner's factual findings and the finding of obviousness of claim 39.
6
Appeal2017-004311
Application 13/577,160
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision to reject claims14, 16-19, 21-24,
26-29, 31-34, and 36-43.
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.
§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
7