Ex Parte Tan et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 26, 201612714514 (P.T.A.B. May. 26, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 121714,514 02/28/2010 22879 7590 05/31/2016 HP Inc, 3390 E. Harmony Road Mail Stop 35 FORT COLLINS, CO 80528-9544 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Kar Han Tan 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. 82260995 6903 EXAMINER PERLMAN, DAVIDS ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2666 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/31/2016 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 Exparte KAR HAN TAN and W. BRUCE CULBERTSON Appeal2014-005482 Application 12/714,514 Technology Center 2600 Before DEBRA K. STEPHENS, KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, and SHARON PENICK, Administrative Patent Judges. STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a Final Rejection of claims 1-7, 12, and 16-20. 1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 The Examiner objects to claims 8-11 and 13-15 as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but indicates the claims would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims (Final Act. 15). Appeal2014-005482 Application 12/714,514 STATEMENT OF THE INVENTION According to Appellants, the claims are directed to a system and method for processing video using depth sensor information (Abstract). Claim 1, reproduced below, is exemplary of the claimed subject matter: 1. A method executed on a computer, for processing a video using depth sensor information comprising: creating a registered depth map from depth pixels in a depth coordinate system and image pixels in an image coordinate system, wherein the creating comprises spatially binning the image pixels into bins having a spatial resolution lower than the image coordinate system, mapping the depth pixels to respective ones of the bins, and calculating a respective depth value for each bin from values of the depth pixels mapped to the bin; and applying a threshold to each bin of the registered depth map to produce a threshold image. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Berliner Yang Newton Leyvand Jain Lai US 2010/0034457 Al US 2010/0098157 Al US 2010/0310155 Al US 2011/0080336 Al US 2011/0085084 A 1 US 2011/0273529 Al REJECTIONS Feb. 11, 2010 Apr. 22, 2010 Dec. 9, 2010 Apr. 7, 2011 Apr. 14, 2011 Nov. 10, 2011 Claim 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, fourth paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends (Final Act. 3--4). 2 Appeal2014-005482 Application 12/714,514 Claims 1, 2, 4, and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over Newton and Berliner (Final Act. 5-8). Claims 3, 17, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Newton, Berliner, and Leyvand (Final Act. 8-10). Claims 5 and 6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over Newton, Berliner, and Lai (Final Act. 10-11). Claim 7 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Newton, Berliner, Lai, and Jain (Final Act. 11-12). Claim 12 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over Newton, Berliner, Lai, and Yang (Final Act. 12-13). Claim 19 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over Newton, Berliner, Leyvand, and Lai (Final Act. 13). Claim 20 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over Newton, Berliner, Leyvand, Lai, and Yang (Final Act. 13- 14). We have only considered those arguments that Appellants actually raised in the Briefs. Arguments Appellants could have made, but chose not to make, in the Briefs have not been considered and are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2012). ISSUE 1 35 U.S. C. § 112, fourth paragraph: Claim 6 Appellants present no arguments pertaining to the Examiner's limitations of the claimed subject matter rejection of claim 6 (Reply Br. 4 ). Instead, Appellants state this rejection will be addressed after the appeal has concluded (id.). Accordingly, we summarily sustain these rejections. See 3 Appeal2014-005482 Application 12/714,514 Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) § 1205.02, 8th ed., Rev. 9 (August 2012) ("If a ground of rejection stated by the examiner is not addressed in the [A]ppellant's brief, [A]ppellant has waived any challenge to that ground of rejection and the Board may summarily sustain it"). ISSUE 2 35 U.S.C. § 103(a): Claims 1, 2, 4, and 16 Appellants assert their invention is not obvious over Newton and Berliner (App. Br. 5-8). The issue presented by the arguments is: Issue 2: Has the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Newton and Berliner teaches or suggests: creating a registered depth map from depth pixels in a depth coordinate system and image pixels in an image coordinate system, wherein the creating comprises spatially binning the image pixels into bins having a spatial resolution lower than the image coordinate system, mapping the depth pixels to respective ones of the bins, and calculating a respective depth value for each bin from values of the depth pixels mapped to the bin, as recited in independent claim 1? ANALYSIS Appellants argue the combination of Newton and Berliner "does not disclose or suggest the 'creating' element of claim 1;" and Newton's sub- sampling a depth map "does not involve 'spatially binning the image pixels into bins' ... as recited in the 'creating' element of claim 1" (App. Br. 6-7). Specifically, Appellants argue Newton does not create a registered depth map, instead "Newton teaches that the depth map compressor CMP reduces the spatial resolution of a depth map DMS 1 . .. by subsampling the depth 4 Appeal2014-005482 Application 12/714,514 map by a factor of 8" (App. Br. 6). Additionally, Appellants argue the Examiner has misconstrued the plain meanings of the terms "binning" and "sub-sampling" (Reply Br. 3--4). We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments. Initially, as a matter of claim construction, we note Appellants have not defined explicitly the term "binning" in Appellants' Specification, nor is "binning" defined in the claim language. Appellants proffer a patent application to support their interpretation that "binning" and "sub-sampling" refer to two different image processing methods (Reply Br. 3--4); however, this reference is insufficient to persuade us the Examiner's interpretation is contrary to the plain and ordinary meaning of the term at the time of the invention. Indeed, use of these terms in one patent application, in and of itself, does not evidence the plain and ordinary meaning to an ordinarily skilled artisan given one may be their own lexicographer. Thus, taking a broad, but reasonable interpretation of the term "binning," we are unpersuaded of error in the Examiner's finding that Newton's subsampling teaches binning. It follows, we agree with the Examiner that the eight pixels utilized to sub-sample the depth map in Newton, discloses a bin (Ans. 5; Final Act. 2). Additionally, Appellants concede the depth map compressor reduces the spatial resolution of the depth map by a factor of 8 (App. Br. 6). We agree with the Examiner that reduction of one map, by a factor, creates a new map. (Ans. 5). Further, we agree with the Examiner that Newton's mapping of a sub-sampled depth map to the lower resolution image teaches or suggests mapping depth pixels to their respective bins; thus, we agree the combination of Newton and Berliner discloses creating a registered depth map from depth pixels, as recited in claim 1 (Ans. 5---6). Commensurately 5 Appeal2014-005482 Application 12/714,514 recited independent claim 16 is not separately argued instead, relying on arguments set forth for independent claim 1 (App. Br. 8). Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Newton and Berliner teaches or suggests the limitations as recited in independent claim 1 and commensurately recited in independent claim 16. Claims 2 and 4 were not separately argued and thus, these claims fall with their respective independent claims. Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for obviousness over Newton and Berliner. 35 U.S.C. § 103(a): Claims 5 and 6; Claim 7; Claim 12 Appellants assert their invention as recited in claims 5 and 6, claim 7, and claim 12, is not unpatentable over the combination of Newton, Berliner, and Lai; Newton, Berliner, Lai, and Jain; and Newton, Berliner, Lai, and Yang, respectively (App. Br. 11-12). However, these claims were not separately argued; rather, these claims were argued relying on the contentions set forth with respect to claim 1 (id.). Accordingly, claims 5, 6, 7, and 12 fall with claim 1, for the reasons set forth above. It follows, we sustain the rejection of claims 5, 6, 7, and 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for obviousness over Newton, Berliner, and Lai; Newton, Berliner, Lai, and Jain; and Newton, Berliner, Lai, and Yang, respectively. 6 Appeal2014-005482 Application 12/714,514 ISSUE 3 35 U.S.C. § 103(a): Claims 3, 17, and 18 Appellants assert their invention is not obvious over Newton, Berliner, and Leyvand (App. Br. 8-11). The issues presented by the arguments are: Issue 3 (a): Has the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Newton, Berliner, and Leyvand teaches or suggests "for each bin, computing the average depth measurement value," as recited in dependent claim 3? Issue 3 (b): Has the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Newton, Berliner, and Leyvand teaches or suggests "dividing the image area into a number of bins roughly equal to the depth sensor resolution, with each bin corresponding to a number of adjacent image pixels; ... averaging the value of the depth measurement for each bin to determine a single average value for each bin," as recited in independent claim 17? ANALYSIS Appellants argue Leyvand does not teach or suggest "for each bin, computing the average depth measurement value for that bin," as recited in claim 3; instead, Appellants argue, Leyvand discloses: a three-dimensional depth map may be down-sampled to a lower resolution by superimposing a three-dimensional grid over the three- dimensional depth image and averaging the depth map values within each grid location without regard to any division of the image area into bins of adjacent image pixels (App. Br. 9). We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments. Appellants concede Leyvand's depth map values are averaged for the grid location (App. Br. 9). 7 Appeal2014-005482 Application 12/714,514 The Examiner finds, and we agree, the reduction of the map, by averaging the depths of pixels, creates a registered depth map by average depth measurement of the pixels in a space, resulting in a grid of blocks called voxels (Final Act. 8-9). We find Leyvand's voxel teaches or suggests a bin, and Leyvand further teaches "each of the voxels in the grid may include an average depth value" (Leyvand i-f 75). Thus, we are not persuaded the combination of references fails to teach or suggest the invention as recited in claim 3. With respect to independent claim 1 7, Appellants argue the combination of Newton, Berliner, and Leyvand does not teach "dividing the image area into a number of bins roughly equal to the depth sensor resolution, with each bin corresponding to a number of adjacent image pixels; averaging the value of the depth measurement for each bin to determine a single average value for each bin" (App. Br. 9-11 ). Appellants argue the "dividing" step is not taught by Newton; however, Appellants concede Newton "reduces the spatial resolution ... by a factor of 8" (App. Br. 10). Similar to dependent claim 3, Appellants again argue Leyvand "does not disclose the 'averaging' element of claim 17" (App. Br. 10). We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments. Newton reduces the spatial resolution by a factor of 8 and we agree with the Examiner, the reduction by a factor is equivalent to the claimed dividing (Final Act. 5, 8-9; Ans. 5). Further, as set forth above in our discussion of claim 3, we are not persuaded Leyvand fails to teach or suggest "averaging the value of the depth measurement," as recited in independent claim 17. Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Newton, Berliner, and Leyvand teaches or suggests the 8 Appeal2014-005482 Application 12/714,514 limitations as recited in claims 3 and 17. Dependent claim 18 was not separately argued (App. Br. 11 ). Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claims 3, 17, and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for obviousness over Newton, Berliner, and Leyvand. 35 U.S.C. § 103(a): Claims 19 and 20 Appellants assert their invention as recited in claims 19 and 20 is not unpatentable over the combination of Newton, Berliner, Leyvand, and Lai; and Newton, Berliner, Leyvand, Lai, and Yang, respectively, instead relying on the arguments set forth for claim 17 (App. Br. 12-13). For the reasons set forth above, we are not persuaded of error in the Examiner's findings and conclusion. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claims 19 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for obviousness over Newton, Berliner, Leyvand, and Lai; and Newton, Berliner, Leyvand, Lai, and Yang, respectively. DECISION The Examiner's rejection of claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, fourth paragraph as being of improper form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends, is affirmed. The Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Newton and Berliner is affirmed. The Examiner's rejection of claims 3, 17, and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Newton, Berliner, and Leyvand is affirmed. 9 Appeal2014-005482 Application 12/714,514 The Examiner's rejection of claims 5 and 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Newton, Berliner, and Lai is affirmed. The Examiner's rejection of claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Newton, Berliner, Lai, and Jain is affirmed. The Examiner's rejection of claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Newton, Berliner, Lai, and Yang is affirmed. The Examiner's rejection of claim 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Newton, Berliner, Leyvand, and Lai is affirmed. The Examiner's rejection of claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Newton, Berliner, Leyvand, Lai, and Yang is affirmed. 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 10 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation