13879397 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 19, 2018)

Ex Parte Thiebaud et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 19, 2018

13879397 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 19, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/879,397 04/13/2013 24498 7590 09/21/2018 Brian J. Dorini THOMSON Licensing LLC 4 Research Way 3rd Floor Princeton, NJ 08543 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Sylvain Thiebaud 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. PF100091 5984 EXAMINER TSWEI, YU-JANG ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2619 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/21/2018 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): uspto@technicolor.com russell. smith@technicolor.com patricia.verlangieri@interdigital.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte SYLVAIN THIEBAUD, ALAIN VERDIER, and DIDIER DOYEN 1 Appeal 2018-001141 Application 13/879,397 Technology Center 2600 Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, ADAM J. PYONIN, and MICHAEL M. BARRY, Administrative Patent Judges. THOMAS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) of the Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1-9, all the pending claims in the present application. (See Claims Appendix). We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b ). We AFFIRM. 1 Appellants name THOMSON LICENSING DTV as the real party in interest (App. Br. 3). Appeal 2018-001141 Application 13/879,397 The present invention relates generally to the generation of 3 D image signals (see Spec., Abstract). Claim 1 is illustrative: 1. A method for processing at least one three-dimensional image compnsmg: - inserting a graphic object in the at least one three- dimensional image at a predetermined insertion depth; - determining a transition zone surrounding the inserted graphic object, said transition zone being delimited by an interior edge delimiting the graphic object and an exterior edge distant from the interior edge, wherein a width of the transition zone is adapted based on a difference between a depth value of a first pixel of the inserted graphic object situated on said interior edge and a depth value of a second pixel of the at least one three-dimensional image situated on said exterior edge; and - processing the depth of pixels of the at least one three- dimensional image situated in the transition zone so that the depth varies from the depth of the second pixel situated on the exterior edge to the depth of the first pixel of the inserted graphic object of the interior edge. Appellants appeal the following rejections: RI. Claims 1, 2, 4--7, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ I03(a) as being unpatentable over Newton '351 (US 2011/0128351 Al, June 2, 2011 ), Lee (US 2011/0037833 Al, Feb. 17, 2011), Newton '691 (US 2011/0304691 Al, Dec. 15, 2011), and Takayama (US 2008/0258996 Al, Oct. 23, 2008); and R2. Claims 3 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ I03(a) as being unpatentable over Newton '351, Lee, Newton '691, Takayama, and Kaye (US 6,686,926 Bl, Feb. 3, 2004). We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues identified by Appellants, and in light of the arguments and evidence 2 Appeal 2018-001141 Application 13/879,397 produced thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential). ANALYSIS Issue: Did the Examiner err in finding that the cited art collectively teaches or suggests that "a width of the transition zone is adapted based on a difference between a depth value of a first pixel ... and a depth value of a second pixel ... ," as set forth in claim 1? Here, the Examiner parses the teachings of four separate references in order to illustrate the argued limitations, wherein we find that some of the Examiner's findings are cumulative. For example, the Examiner makes at least the following findings: Examiner noted that prior art Newton, Lee and Takayama are analogous since both related to image processing. Newton provided a way of handling the image by adding subtitle (graphics object) to the image. Lee teaches that the width of the transition zone is adapted according to a depth difference as recited in claim 1. Takayama teaches in paragraph [0051 ], [O 105], Fig. 10 that in the image processing, pixel image depth is gradually changed in between internal region B and external region C. Since width of the transition zone is already dynamically setup by the combination of prior art Newton and Lee above, by adding the gradually changing the depth information between regions taught by Takayama, system will be able to smoothly transition in between the subtitle region and the image. (Ans. 6-7). In other words, the Examiner is relying on the combined teachings ofNewton (both '351 and '691), Lee, and Takayama to teach and/or suggest the claimed limitation "a width of the transition zone is adapted based on a difference between a depth value of a first pixel of the 3 Appeal 2018-001141 Application 13/879,397 inserted graphic object ... and a depth value of a second pixel of the at least one three-dimensional image" (see also Final Act. 3-8, 17-18). Furthermore, we find that the Examiner provided an articulated reason, with the requisite rational underpinning, as to why it would have been obvious to arrive at the claimed subject matter, e.g., "to adjust the subtitle area properly when [the] corresponding image area moved" (Final Act. 6, citing Lee ,r 286; see also Final Act. 7-8). In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006). Appellants do not persuasively challenge this reasoning. For starters, Appellants contend that Newton '3 51 "fails to suggest or provide any hints as to why one skilled in the art would be motivated to modify the arrangements of Newton [ '3 51] to arrive at the claimed invention" (App. Br. 7). Appellants make similar arguments regarding Lee (see App. Br. 10). Appellants appear to be arguing that each reference, itself, needs to provide the reasons to modify itself. We find these arguments unavailing given that "[t]he motivation need not be found in the references sought to be combined, but may be found in any number of sources, including common knowledge, the prior art as a whole, or the nature of the problem itself." Dystar Textilfarben GMBH & Co. DUETSCHLAND KG v. CH Patrick Co., and Bann Quimica LTDA, 464 F.3d 1356, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2006). Secondly, we find that Appellants' arguments against references separately, e.g., Lee separately from Newton ('351 and '691) and Takayama, do not persuasively rebut the combination made by the Examiner. One cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually, where the rejections are based on combinations of references. In re Merck & Co., 4 Appeal 2018-001141 Application 13/879,397 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425-26 (CCPA 1981). For example, Appellants contend that "Lee does not teach or suggest modifying the disparity values of the pixels from the video image, which correspond to the dialog region" (App. Br. 7). Appellants further contend that "Lee does not teach or suggest that the width of the transition zone is adapted based on a difference between a depth value of an element situated on the edge of the text box region and a depth value of an element situated on the edge of the dialog region" (id. at 9), and "the offset as described [in] Lee does not affect the depth of the video surrounding the diagonal region as alleged by the Examiner" (id. at 10). However, Appellants fail to present specific arguments regarding what Lee combined with Newton ('351 and '691) and Takayama would/would not have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art. In addition, Appellants contend that Newton '691 "fails to teach or suggest that the width of the transition zone is adapted according to a depth difference as recited in claim 1" (id. at 11 ); Appellants contend that "Takayama relates to a different problem than the claimed invention and is not concerned at all with inserting [a] graphic object in a 3D image .... [in that] the fade region of Takayama is a region in the vicinity of an outer periphery of the RSD display region B, and is not a region surrounding an inserted graphic object as recited in claim 1" (id. at 12-13); and "Takayama still fails to teach or suggest that the width of the transition zone is adapted according to a depth difference" (id. at 13). Although Appellants give their interpretation of the teachings in each ofNewton ('351 and '691), Lee, and Takayama, what we find critically 5 Appeal 2018-001141 Application 13/879,397 missing is that Appellants' arguments do not take into account what the collective teachings of the prior art would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art and is therefore, ineffective to rebut the Examiner's prima facie case of obviousness. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413,425 (CCPA 1981) ("The test for obviousness is not .... that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.") ( citations omitted). This reasoning is applicable here. Here, the Examiner has shown that Newton '3 51 discloses inserting a graphic object into a 3D image (Newton '351 Fig. 10); Lee discloses a transition zone surrounding the subtitle text "ABCDEFG" defining an interior/exterior edge of the zone and a region_offset (see Lee, Fig. 9, ,r 267); Newton '691 discloses depth values that are adapted (i1i135 and 55); and Takayama discloses that the depth varies (Fig. 10, ,r 105). Furthermore, the Examiner has made some cumulative findings regarding the "transition zone" and the width thereof (see Final act. 4--8). We find that Appellants' contentions fail to persuasively demonstrate that the combined teachings of the references would not have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art the argued limitations, because Appellants' general allegations, attacking the references individually, is insufficient. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1. Appellants' arguments regarding the Examiner's rejection of independent claims 5 and 6 rely on the same arguments as for claim 1, and Appellants do not argue separate patentability for the dependent claims. We, therefore, also sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 2-9. 6 Appeal 2018-001141 Application 13/879,397 DECISION We affirm the Examiner's Â§ 103(a) rejections RI and R2 of claims 1-9. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED 7