Ex Parte Wilensky et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 31, 2017

14470785 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 31, 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.
14/470,785 08/27/2014 Gregg D. Wilensky 4304US01 4619
108982 7590
Wolfe-SBMC
116 W. Pacific Avenue
Suite 300
Spokane, WA 99201
EXAMINER
GE, JIN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2616
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/02/2017 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 GREGG D. WILENSKY, NATHAN A. CARR,
ALAN L. ERICKSON, YUYAN SONG, MANISH KUMAR,
BRADEE RAE EVANS, SARAH A. KONG, MICHAEL J. ORTS,
MEREDITH L. STOTZNER, HEATHER M. DOLAN, and
YURIE TAKAHASHI
Appeal 2017-006524
Application 14/470,7851
Technology Center 2600
Before MARC S. HOFF, THU A. DANG, and JOHN A. EVANS, DANG,
Administrative Patent Judges.
HOFF, 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—13, 15—19, and 21.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm-in-part.
1 The real party in interest is Adobe Systems, Inc. App. Br. 2.
2 Claim 20 has been cancelled. Claim 14 stands objected to as being
dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in
independent form.
Appeal 2017-006524
Application 14/470,785
Appellants’ invention is a dynamic path motion blur interface. A user
may specify a path to constrain a motion blur effect to be applied to a single
image. A flash effect may be included to simulate strobe flashes along with
ambient light continuous exposures. See Spec. H3,4.
Claims 1 and 8 are exemplary of the claims on appeal:
1. A method comprising:
displaying a path in a user interface of a computing device, the path
input by a user through interaction with the user interface, in which:
the path is formed from a plurality of points, each of the points being
selectable by the user through the interaction with the user interface to
modify the path; and
the path is configured to constrain a motion blur to be applied as a
motion blur effect to an image;
responsive to receipt of one or more inputs via the user interface
involving movement of at least one point of the path from a first location to
a second location in the user interface:
calculating the motion blur as part of the motion blur effect to
transform the image by the computing device independently of a size of the
image using the path in a mesh domain separate from an image domain of
the image; and
modifying a display of the image in the image domain in the user
interface by the computing device to include the calculated motion blur from
the mesh domain as part of the motion blur effect as the movement of the at
least one point from the first location to the second location occurs.
8. A method comprising:
receiving inputs, detected by a computing device via a user interface,
that describe a path to constrain a motion blur to be applied as a motion blur
effect to an image;
applying the motion blur effect to the image, by the computing device,
to transform the image to include the motion blur effect as the inputs are
received; and
responsive to the receiving, outputting a result of the application of
the motion blur effect to the image in the user interface by the computing
device in real time as the inputs are received by the computing device.
2
Appeal 2017-006524
Application 14/470,785
The Examiner relies upon the following prior art in rejecting the
claims on appeal:
VirtualRigStudio, Creating curved motion blur,
https://www.voutube.com/watch7vHbo3BHdDmhw, Jan. 13, 2010
After Effects CS6-Advanced Rotoscoping and Strobe Masking Effect
Tutorial-for Music Videos,
https://www.YOutube.com/watch?v=coYxpBlkwA, Dec 10, 2012
(“Photoshop”).
Claims 8—13, 15, and 16 stand rejected under 35U.S.C. § 101 as
being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claims 1, 2, and 4—7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) as being
anticipated by VirtualRig.
Claim 3 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over VirtualRig and Wang.
Claims 8—10, 12, 15, and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)
as being anticipated by VirtualRig.
Claims 11 and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over VirtualRig and Berger.
Claims 17 and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) as being
anticipated by Sumner.
Berger et al. US 2011/0169829 A1 July 14, 2011
(“Berger”)
Sumner et al. US 2011/0181606 Al July 28, 2011
(“Sumner”)
Sept. 4, 2014
(Wang”)
Wang et al. US 2014/0250522 Al
3
Appeal 2017-006524
Application 14/470,785
Claim 18 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Sumner and Photoshop.
Claim 21 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) as being
unpatentable over Sumner and VirtualRig.
Throughout this decision, we make reference to the Appeal Brief
(“App. Br.,” filed November 30, 2016), the Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed
March 15, 2017), and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed February 8,
2017) for their respective details.
ISSUES
1. Does the invention recited in claim 8 constitute patent-eligible
subject matter?
2. Does VirtualRig disclose calculating the motion blur effect in a
mesh domain separate from an image domain of the image?
3. Has the Examiner provided evidence that a real-time render
preview function was disclosed in the cited prior art?
4. Does Sumner disclose calculating a motion blur using a path that
describes a motion blur trajectory to constrain application of the motion blur
effect to an image?
ANALYSIS
Section 101 Rejection of claims 8-13,15, and 16
Appellants argue that the Examiner has not identified the supposed
“abstract idea” in the claims, has failed to address the claims as a set of
“‘rules,’” and has unjustly simplified the claims. App. Br. 7. Appellants
further contend that the Examiner is incorrect in finding that the steps of the
4
Appeal 2017-006524
Application 14/470,785
claim can be performed mentally. App. Br. 8. Appellants assert that the
features recited in the claims enable “calculation of the motion blur ... in a
domain separate from [the] domain of the image, such as in a mesh domain.”
App. Br. 10, citing Spec. 142. Last, Appellants argue that the claimed
applying of a motion blur effect in real time as inputs are received is rooted
in computer technology to solve specific problems, and thus the claims
include features that amount to significantly more than an abstract idea.
App. Br. 11.
We are not persuaded by Appellants that the Examiner erred. We
agree with the Examiner’s finding that claim 8 recites an abstract idea, i.e.,
“applying a motion blur effect to an image,” including the related features of
receiving inputs that describe a path to constrain the motion blur, and
outputting a result of the application of the motion blur effect “in real time
as the inputs are received.” See Ans. 3. We are not persuaded by
Appellants’ allegation that the claimed motion blur “cannot be performed
mentally.” Reply Br. 2. A motion blur is an image processing technique
developed to give the appearance of movement of objects within the image.
Spec. 111, 2. Image processing consists of computation done on image data
to result in revised image data. We find that such computation, though
labor-intensive and tedious, could be performed mentally by human
operators.
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ analogy of these claims to the
claims at issue in McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d
1299 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The claimed invention in McRO was concerned with
an improvement allowing computers to produce accurate and realistic lip
synchronization and facial expressions in animated characters that
5
Appeal 2017-006524
Application 14/470,785
previously could only be produced by human animators. McRO, 837 F.3d at
1313. The claims in McRO recited several specific steps in this process,
resulting in the Federal Circuit’s finding that the specific rules claimed
prevented preemption of all processes for achieving automated lip-
synchronization of 3-D characters. See McRO, 837 F.3d at 1315; App. Br.
8—9. In contrast, Appellants’ claim 8 recites only a data gathering step, a
very broad “application of a motion blur effect” step, and an output step.
We are likewise unpersuaded that claim 8 recites “significantly more”
than an abstract idea such that the claim is transformed into patent-eligible
subject matter under the second prong of Alice? Appellants’ argument that
the claimed invention improves computer technology in the current art
through “‘calculation of the motion blur [that] may be performed in a
domain separate from a domain of the image, such as in a mesh domain’” is
inapplicable to the invention recited in claim 8, which contains no
limitations directed to calculating motion blur in a mesh domain. See App.
Br. 11.
We find that claim 8 recites an abstract idea, without reciting
significantly more such that the claim is directed to patent-eligible subject
matter. We sustain the Examiner’s § 101 rejection of claims 8—13, 15, and
16.
Prior Art Rejection of Claims 1,2, and 4—7
Appellants argue that VirtualRig does not disclose the domain in
which the motion blur is calculated and thus cannot disclose the [limitation]
in claim 1. App. Br. 12.
3 Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLSBankInt’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014).
6
Appeal 2017-006524
Application 14/470,785
The Examiner finds that “VirtualRigStudio discloses generating a
motion blur along the path and user could adjust the path along a plurality of
points in the different location based on user’s need (see Fig 1) and further
discloses a path is used to separate blur area and no blur area.” Ans. 6—7.
The Examiner further finds that VirtualRig discloses “generat[ing] a blur
effect in [mesh] domain,” citing to a screenshot from the VirtualRig Studio
video labelled “Figure 2.” Ans. 6—7. We do not agree with the Examiner’s
finding. We have reviewed the VirtualRig reference and the YouTube video
mentioned by the Examiner. We agree with Appellants that neither
VirtualRig nor the associated video discloses “calculating the motion blur . .
. using the path in a mesh domain separate from an image domain of the
image.” See App. Br. 12—13.
We find that VirtualRig does not teach all the limitations of claims 1,
2, and 4—7. We do not sustain the Examiner’s § 102 rejection.
Prior Art Rejection of Claim 3
Claim 3 depends from independent claim 1. We have reviewed
Wang, and we find that Wang does not remedy the deficiencies of
VirtualRig, discussed supra. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s
§103 rejection of claim 3 over VirtualRig and Wang, for the reasons given
supra with respect to the rejection of claim 1.
Prior Art Rejection of claims 8-13,15, and 16
Appellants contend, inter alia, that the Examiner relies on “realtime
render preview” functionality first disclosed in the “VirtualRig Studio 3.0
User Manual,” which was published after the filing date of the instant
application, and thus would not qualify as prior art. App. Br. 16. In
response, the Examiner reiterates reliance on the VirtualRig Studio video
7
Appeal 2017-006524
Application 14/470,785
published on Jan. 13, 2010. Ans. 12. The Examiner finds that the
VirtualRig video illustrates the claimed “outputting a result of the
application of the motion blur effect... in real time as the inputs are
received.” Id. The Examiner further states that the video teaches the
concept of a “real-time render preview function.” Id. We have reviewed the
video, however, and we find no teaching of such a real-time render preview
function.
We find that Appellants traversed a specific finding in the Examiner’s
rejection. In response, the Examiner has failed to support his position with
evidence. Consequently, we find that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims
8—13, 15, and 16, as the Examiner lacks evidence for the finding that
VirtualRig discloses outputting a result of the application of the motion blur
effect in real time as the input are received. We do not sustain the § 102
rejection of claims 8—10, 12, 15, and 16. We also do not sustain the § 103
rejection of claims 11 and 13, not separately argued.
Prior Art Rejection of Claims 17 and 19
Appellants argue that Sumner discloses motion blur in the context of
animation creation and allege that applying motion blur to frames of
animation is not analogous to a motion blur effect for an image. App. Br.
18. We are not persuaded by this argument, as Appellants provide no
evidence in support.
Appellants assert that Sumner does not disclose the claimed “path
that describes a motion blur trajectory to constrain application of the
motion blur effect to an image.” App. Br. 18. We are not persuaded by
Appellants’ assertion. We agree with the Examiner that Sumner discloses a
path that describes a motion blur trajectory. Ans. 14. Sumner describes a
8
Appeal 2017-006524
Application 14/470,785
trace segment that comprises two end points, ts.left and ts.right. Sumner
1116. This trace segment is used in a weighted motion blur. Sumner 1118.
Appellants contend that applying an effect in a “real-time proof
generator” cannot be considered as the image as it is a lower resolution
version of the image. App. Br. 19. This argument is not persuasive. The
section of Sumner relied upon by Appellants states only that real-time proof
generator “can be a lower resolution and/or quality renderer.” Sumner 161
(emphasis added).
We find that the Examiner did not err in rejecting claim 17 under
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Sumner. We sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 17, and of claim 19 not separately argued. We also
sustain the Examiner’s § 103(a) rejection of claim 18, not separately argued,
for the same reasons given with respect to claim 17.
Prior Art Rejection of Claim 21
Appellants argue that VirtualRig does not teach that the motion blur
effect comprises a motion field that is calculated independent of the image.
According to Appellants, there is “nothing in the VirtualRig reference about
how the motion blur is calculated.” App. Br. 20.
We agree with Appellants. The Examiner finds that VirtualRig Studio
discloses such a motion field, and cites to the VirtualRig YouTube video
(mentioned supra) as evidence. Ans. 16. We have reviewed the Examiner’s
reasoning and the video presentation, and we do not find support for the
Examiner’s position that the video shows a motion field calculated
“independent of the image.” Id.
9
Appeal 2017-006524
Application 14/470,785
We find that the combination of Sumner and VirtualRig does not
teach all the limitations of claim 21. We do not sustain the Examiner’s
§ 103(a) rejection.
CONCLUSIONS
1. The invention recited in claim 8 does not constitute patent-eligible
subject matter.
2. VirtualRig does not disclose calculating the motion blur effect in a
mesh domain separate from an image domain of the image.
3. The Examiner has not provided evidence that a real-time render
preview function was disclosed in the cited prior art.
4. Sumner discloses calculating a motion blur using a path that
describes a motion blur trajectory to constrain application of the motion blur
effect to an image.
ORDER
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 8—13 and 15—19 is affirmed.
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1—7 and 21 is reversed.
TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
10