Ex Parte WuDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 10, 201712112440 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 10, 2017) Copy Citation 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. 12/112,440 04/30/2008 Siu-Wai Wu BCS04861 9222 43471 7590 02/14/2017 ARRTS2 F.ntp.mrisp.s T ! C EXAMINER Legal Dept - Docketing 101 Tournament Drive LEWIS, JONATHAN V HORSHAM, PA 19044 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2425 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/14/2017 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): arris. docketing @ arris .com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte SIU-WAI WU1 Appeal 2016-001796 Application 12/112,440 Technology Center 2400 Before MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, AMBER L. HAGY, and DAVID J. CUTITTAII, Administrative Patent Judges. STRAUSS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL 1 Appellant identifies ARRIS Technology, Inc., as the real party in interest. App. Br. 3. Appeal 2016-001796 Application 12/112,440 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims 1—21. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. THE INVENTION The claims are directed to reducing contour artifacts in a digital video images using recursive temporal filters. Abstract. Claim 1, reproduced below with a disputed limitation emphasize in italics, is representative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A method for reducing artifacts in a digital video sequence of image frames, comprising: acquiring a current frame of the digital video sequence; retrieving a previous frame of the digital video sequence from a frame delay; applying a recursive temporal filter to the current frame and the previous frame to generate a filtered frame; applying a mixer to the current frame and the filtered frame to generate an output frame', and storing the output frame in the frame delay. REFERENCE The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Cheung US 6,178,205 B1 Jan. 23,2001 REJECTION The Examiner rejected claims 1—21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Appellant’s admitted prior art, hereafter AAPA, in view of Cheung. 2 Appeal 2016-001796 Application 12/112,440 APPELLANT’S CONTENTIONS 1. “Cheung’s reference frame is not analogous to Applicant’s ‘filtered frame,’ [as per claim 1] at least because Cheung’s reference frame is generated from a motion vector list for the current frame (and not from the current frame) and from Cheung’s prior frame.” App. Br. 10 (emphasis added). 2. Neither AAPA nor Cheung teach or suggest computing a pixel difference between each pixel of the current frame the previous frame as required by claim 19. App. Br. 10. 3. The combination of AAPA and Cheung is improper because “application of a mixer to the current frame and the filtered frame to generate an output frame is absent from Cheung and appears to have been drawn solely from Applicant’s disclosure.” App. Br. 12. ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s arguments the Examiner has erred. App. Br. 6—13; Reply Br. 2-4. We disagree with Appellant’s conclusions. We adopt as our own: (1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken (Final Act. 2—8), and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Answer in response to arguments made in Appellant’s Appeal Brief (Ans. 2—9). We highlight and address specific findings and arguments below. In connection with contention 1, Appellant argues (i) “Applicant’s ‘mixer’ cannot reasonably be equated to Cheung’s dynamic noise reduction filter”; and (ii) Cheung’s reference value generator is not equivalent to the 3 Appeal 2016-001796 Application 12/112,440 claimed recursive temporal filter because, rather than using a current frame, it uses motion vectors for the current frame and pixel values for a prior frame. The Examiner responds by finding (i) Cheung’s dynamic noise reduction filter 132 is the functional equivalent of the claimed mixer (Ans. 7); and (ii) rather than Cheung, “AAPA is relied upon for the explicit teaching of the recursive temporal filter” (Ans. 8). Appellant’s contention is unpersuasive of Examiner error. Concerning (i) the mixer of claim 1, Cheung discloses “dynamic noise reduction filter 132 .. . combines pixel values for the current frame with the reference values derived from pixel values for a prior frame 138.” Cheung col. 5,11. 33—36. Appellant’s Specification discloses “[t]he mixer computes a pixel difference between each filtered pixel and each input pixel at a corresponding location.” Spec. 1 7. Similarly, Cheung discloses combining pixel values (Cheung col. 5,11. 33—36) and a filter function which computes pixel differences: F(Pij-Rij) (Cheung col. 7,1. 24). In contrast, Appellant fails to provide sufficient evidence or technical argument distinguishing any functionality required of the claimed mixer from the combining function performed by Cheung’s dynamic noise reduction filter 132. In connection with Appellant’s argument (ii), that Cheung’s reference value generator fails to teach the claimed recursive temporal filter, such argument is unpersuasive because it fails to address the Examiner’s findings. As explained by the Examiner (Ans. 8), Appellant’s AAPA, not Cheung, is relied upon for teaching the disputed recursive temporal filter (Final Act. 4: “Fig. 1; [0017] of applicant’s specification describes the recursive temporal filter 100”). One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Therefore, 4 Appeal 2016-001796 Application 12/112,440 Appellant’s contention “Cheung’s reference frame is generated from a motion vector list for the current frame {and not from the current frame) and from Cheung’s prior frame” (App. Br. 10 (emphasis added)) is inapposite because the Examiner does not rely on Cheung for the disputed teaching. Although Appellant further argues the Examiner has “improperly equated Applicant’s ‘current frame’ to Cheung’s current pixels, and Applicant’s ‘filtered frame’ to Cheung’s reference frame/pixels” (Reply Br. 3), such naked allegations unsupported by sufficient evidence or technical reasoning are unpersuasive. Our rules requires more substantive arguments in an appeal brief than a mere recitation of the claim elements and a naked assertion that the corresponding elements were not found in the prior art. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv); see also In reLovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011). In connection with contention 2, Appellant argues “Cheung’s reference value generator (which the Examiner equates to Applicant’s ‘recursive temporal filter’) does not compute any difference between current frame pixels and previous output pixels [as required by independent claim 19].” App. Br. 11. The Examiner responds by finding, inter alia, “the calculated pixel difference is explicitly shown in the relied upon portion of Cheung, which shows exemplary calculated differences in the cited Table 2 of col. 7.” We agree with the Examiner. See, e.g., Cheung col. 7,1. 24 (F(Pij-Rij)). We also disagree the Examiner improperly relied on hindsight in combining the teachings of AAPA with Cheung to arrive at the invention of the disputed claims (contention 3). See App. Br. 12—13. Any judgment on obviousness is . . . necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning, but so long as it takes into 5 Appeal 2016-001796 Application 12/112,440 account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made and does not include knowledge gleaned only from applicant’s disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 1395 (CCPA 1971). See also Radix Corp. v. Samuels, 13 USPQ2d 1689, 1693 (D.D.C. 1989) (“[A]ny obviousness inquiry necessarily involves some hindsight.”) Cheung, like Appellant’s claims, is directed to “[a] postfiltering process for improving the appearance of a video image.” Cheung, Abstract. The Examiner finds the reason for including Cheung’s mixer in AAPA is “to provide an aesthetically pleasing video that successfully removes artifacts while preserving image features.” Final Act. 4—5, Ans. 9. Thus, the Examiner has articulated a reason for the proposed combination based on rational underpinnings. See KSR Int 7 Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). The Court in KSR further held, “the analysis need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” Id. Appellant has not persuasively shown the Examiner’s reasoning to be in error. For the reasons discussed supra, we are unpersuaded of Examiner error. Accordingly, we sustain the rejections of independent claim 1 and, for the same reasons, independent claims 10 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over AAPA and Cheung together with the rejections of dependent claims 2— 9, 11—18, 20, and 21 which were not separately argued. DECISION We affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1—21. 6 Appeal 2016-001796 Application 12/112,440 No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv). AFFIRMED 7 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation