Ex Parte Ward et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 22, 2016

13480151 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 22, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/480, 151 05/24/2012
26171 7590 02/24/2016
FISH & RICHARDSON P,C (DC)
P.O. BOX 1022
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55440-1022
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Gregory John Ward
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.
23156-0015002 1592
EXAMINER
ITSKOVICH, MIKHAIL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2483
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/24/2016 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):
P ATDOCTC@fr.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte GREGORY J. WARD and MARYANN SIMMONS 1
Appeal2013-010659
Application 13/480,151
Technology Center 2400
Before DANIEL N. FISHMAN, ROBERT L. KINDER, and
JESSICA C. KAISER, Administrative Patent Judges.
KINDER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1--4, 6, 8-12, 14, 16-18, 20, 22, and
23. Claims 5, 7, 13, 15, 19, and 21 were cancelled. See App. Br. 1. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We REVERSE.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Dolby Laboratories
Licensing Corporation. App. Br. 1.
Appeal2013-010659
Application 13/480,151
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants' Invention
Appellants' invention relates to the field of high dynamic range digital
images and more specifically, "to methods and apparatus for encoding and
decoding high dynamic range images and to data structures containing
digital high dynamic range images." Spec. i-f 2.
Claims 1 and 9 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1 is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A decoding method comprising:
receiving a JPEG compressed file, the JPEG compressed file
includes a low dynamic range (LDR) image and a transformed
ratio image, the transformed ratio image separated as an
application extension from the LDR image; and
applying an inverse function to the transformed ratio image to
generate a decoded ratio image;
reconstructing a reconstructed HDR image, the reconstructed
HDR image determined by the LDR image and the decoded
ratio image,
wherein the LDR image has a lower dynamic range than the
reconstructed HDR image, and
wherein each pixel value of the decoded ratio image is from a
ratio of a luminance of a pixel of an HDR image and a
luminance of a corresponding pixel of the LDR image.
App. Br. 12 (Claims App'x).
Examiner's Rejection2
The Examiner rejected claims 1--4, 6, 8-12, 14, and 16-18, 20, 22,
and 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Spaulding (US 6,301,393
2 Claims 19 and 21 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph and
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). Appellants cancelled these claims through an
amendment. See Amendment (filed Jan. 18, 2013).
2
Appeal2013-010659
Application 13/480,151
Bl, Oct. 9, 2001). Final Act. 3 (mailed Oct. 18, 2012).
ANALYSIS
Claims 1 and 9
Claims 1 and 9 each require "applying an inverse function to the
transformed ratio image to generate a decoded ratio image." App. Br. 12,
13. The decoded ratio image is further limited by the requirement that "each
pixel value of the decoded ratio image is from a ratio of a luminance of a
pixel of an HDR image and a luminance of a corresponding pixel of the
LDR image." Id. at 12 (claim 1 ). Claim 9 recites a similar limitation. Id. at
13. Appellants challenge whether Spaulding discloses these limitations, and
in particular whether Spaulding discloses the claimed "decoded ratio
image." Id. at 4--5.
The Examiner finds Spaulding discloses compression of a residual
image using frequency transforms, fractals, and quantization and this
disclosure along with other elements of Spaulding meets "the decoded ratio
image" limitations required by claims 1 and 9. Final Act. 3. The Examiner
finds that "pixel values can be 'tone scaled' by clipping, scaling, and
mapping which correspond to add/subtract, multiply/divide, and look-up
operations respectfully." Ans. 5---6 (citing Spaulding, 5:50---67). The
Examiner further states "that the loss of information can be represented as a
difference, a ratio, and look-up table respectively." Id. at 6. According to
the Examiner, "a preferred embodiment that is directed to representing
residual image information by storing differences does not negate teachings
directed to representing pixels by scaling and mapping." Id. at 6. Further,
the Examiner makes a determination that the "tone scale function" of
3
Appeal2013-010659
Application 13/480,151
Spaulding derives its residual image from a ratio, which would, therefore,
read on the limitation "each pixel value of the decoded ratio image is from a
ratio of a luminance of a pixel of an HDR image and a luminance of a
corresponding pixel of the LDR image" as recited in claims 1 and 9. Id. at 7.
Appellants contend the residual image disclosed in Spaulding cannot
be the claimed "decoded ratio image." Appellants reason "[e]ach pixel of
the 'decoded ratio image' recited in claims 1 and 9 comprises 'a ratio of a
luminance of a pixel of an HDR image and a luminance of a corresponding
pixel of the LD R image,' whereas the pixels of the 'residual image' in
Spaulding represent 'the difference between the extended color gamut digital
image and the limited color gamut digital image."' App. Br. 6-7 (citing
Spaulding 4:29-32). Appellants assert that the "difference between an
extended color gamut digital image and a limited color gamut digital image
is not the same as a ratio image of pixel luminance values." Id. at 7.
Appellants contend that "the 'residual image' [of Spaulding] is added to the
limited color gamut digital image to generate an extended color gamut
digital image," whereas "the claimed 'decoded ratio image' [is
distinguishable because it] is multiplied by the LDR image to generate the
reconstructed HDR image." Id.
Appellants also note the Examiner has taken inconsistent positions as
to what feature in Spaulding maps to the claimed ratio image. Reply Br. 4.
Compare Adv. Act. 3 (mailed Feb. 8, 2013) ("[t]one scale function itself
corresponds to the claimed ratio image"), with Ans. 9 ("the two [i.e., the
tone scale function and ratio image] were related").
To the extent the Examiner maps Spaulding' s "tone scale function" to
the claimed decoded ratio image, Appellants also contend that "the 'tone
4
Appeal2013-010659
Application 13/480,151
scale function' of Spaulding does not constitute a 'ratio image.'" App. Br.
10. Appellants argue the "tone scale function disclosed in Spaulding is a
mathematical function that 'is used to transform original scene color values
into reproduced color values."' Id. (citing Spaulding 7 :49-51 ). Appellants
assert that the tone scale function of Spaulding "does not include 'pixels,'
and thus cannot be a 'ratio image' where 'each pixel value of the decoded
ratio image is from a ratio of a luminance of a pixel of an HDR image and a
luminance of a corresponding pixel of the LDR image,"' as recited in claims
1 and 9. Id.
Finally, Appellants contend that the Examiner conducted an improper
anticipation analysis by "improperly mix[ing] and match[ing] unrelated
features of Spaulding" as a basis for rejecting the claimed "decoded ratio
image." App. Br. 7. Specifically, Appellants argue the rejection imports
"the 'tone scale function' from the 'adjust color value step 21' of Spaulding
... into the 'compute residual image step 25' of Spaulding." Id. Appellants
assert that Spaulding does not "suggest that this 'tone scale function' should
be applied to compute a 'residual image."' Id. at 8. Instead, the "tone scale
function" of Spaulding "is applied 'in the implementation of the adjust color
values step 21' to generate the limited color gamut digital image." Id. at 8.
Appellants conclude that "Spaulding's disclosure of applying the 'tone scale
function ... to a luminance channel of the image' is therefore irrelevant to
the claimed 'decoded ratio image."' Id. at 8.
At the outset, the Examiner erred by improperly mixing and matching
distinct features of Spaulding in order to meet the limitations related to the
claimed "decoded ratio image." See App. Br. 7; Reply Br. 2-3 ("tone
scaling and residual image generation are two distinct processes in
5
Appeal2013-010659
Application 13/480,151
Spaulding"). The Examiner justifies this mixing and matching by citing
cases and legal propositions related to an obviousness determination. See,
e.g., Ans. 5 ("A reference may be relied upon for all that it would have
reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill the art, including
nonpreferred embodiments.") (citations and emphasis omitted). The
Examiner's reliance on legal theories applicable for obviousness suggests
the Examiner's anticipation rejection lacks adequate support.
In addition, the Examiner has not persuasively established Spaulding
discloses the limitations challenged by Appellants. We are not persuaded
that either the "residual image" or the "tone scale function" disclosed in
Spaulding reads on the "decoded ratio image" limitations of claims 1 and 9.
First, Spaulding uses a "color gamut of an imaging system," which is "the
range of colors that can be represented or produced." Spaulding 4:50-51.
The Examiner does not explain how the "range of colors" disclosed in
Spaulding relates to the claimed "each pixel value" comprising "a ratio of a
luminance of a pixel of an HDR image and a luminance of a corresponding
pixel of the LDR image." See Ans. 5.
Further, the compression of the extended color gamut digital image
into a limited color gamut is unpersuasively characterized by the Examiner
as being "'tone scaled' by clipping, scaling, and mapping." Ans. 4--5, 7-9.
The Examiner does not establish how the "clipping, scaling, and mapping"
disclosed in Spalding would meet the limitation of "a ratio of a luminance of
a pixel of an HDR image and a luminance of a corresponding pixel of the
LDR image." Id. Although not in itself dispositive, the portions of
Spaulding cited by the Examiner point to an encoding process whereas
claims 1 and 9 contrastingly recite a decoding process to "generate a
6
Appeal2013-010659
Application 13/480,151
decoded data image." Id.
Moreover, neither the "tone scaled" process nor the "residual image"
embodiment of Spaulding disclose the limitations of claims 1 and 9. The
"tone scaled" process of Spaulding is the transform function of "adjust color
value step 21 [,]" which is "used to adjust the color values of the extended
color gamut digital image to fit within the limited color gamut of the storage
space." Spaulding 5:47--49, 7:45-51. The Examiner has not persuasively
established that these processes disclose "a ratio of a luminance of a pixel of
an HDR image and a luminance of a corresponding pixel of the LDR image"
as recited in claims 1 and 9.
The Examiner has also not persuasively shown the decoding process
illustrated in Figure 9 of Spaulding discloses the challenged limitations of
claims 1and9. See App. Br. 5. Figure 9 of Spaulding depicts a decoding
process for "'reconstructing an extended color gamut digital image from the
limited color gamut digital image and the residual image.'" Id. (citing
Spaulding 9:64---66). The process "generates a 'clipped limited color gamut
digital image 96,' and uses ' [a] reconstruct extended color gamut digital
image step 97' to form 'a reconstructed extended color gamut digital image
98 by combining the clipped limited color gamut digital image 96 and the
residual image 93. "' Id. (citing Spaulding 10:4--10). Therefore, the
extended color gamut digital image is formed from adding the residual
image to the limited color gamut digital image. Such a process is
distinguishable from each pixel of the claimed "decoded ratio image" being
multiplied by the luminance of each pixel in reconstructed tone map data
(i.e., the LDR image) to generate the reconstructed HDR image. See App.
Br. 7 (citing Spec. i-f 48).
7
Appeal2013-010659
Application 13/480,151
Spaulding concentrates on performing adjustments to a range of
colors by using the residual image to represent "the difference between the
extended color gamut digital image and the limited color gamut digital
image." App. Br. 6 (citing Spaulding 4:29-32). The Examiner has not
persuasively established how the adjustments made in Spaulding to the
range of colors relate to the requirement that "each pixel of the decoded ratio
image [comprises] a ratio of a luminance of a pixel of an HDR image and a
luminance of a corresponding pixel of the LDR image" as recited in claims 1
and 9. Id. at 6-7.
For the reasons set forth above, we do not sustain the Examiner's
rejection of claims 1 and 9. Because the remaining dependent claims depend
either directly or indirectly from one of these claims, we likewise do not
sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 2--4, 6, 8, 10-12, 14, 16-18, 20,
22, and 23 based on Spaulding.
DECISION
We REVERSE the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1--4, 6, 8-12,
14, and 16-18, 20, 22, and 23 based on Spaulding.
REVERSE
8