Ex Parte Yamazaki et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 28, 2016

12906367 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 28, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/906,367 10/18/2010
60803 7590
Paratus Law Group, PLLC
620 Herndon Parkway
Suite 320
Herndon, VA 20170
09/29/2016
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Toshia YAMAZAKI
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.
1946-0767 9958
EXAMINER
BAILEY, FREDERICK D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2483
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
09/29/2016 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte TOSHIO YAMAZAKI and SEIJI KOBAYASHI
Appeal2015-006162
Application 12/906,367
Technology Center 2400
Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, JUSTIN BUSCH, and TERRENCE W.
McMILLIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
JEFFERY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
decision to reject claims 1-19. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants' invention is an image processing apparatus that converts
two-dimensional images to generate a binocular disparity image
corresponding to stereopsis. See generally Abstract; Spec. 1. Claim 1 is
illustrative:
1. An image processing apparatus comprising:
an image input section through which a two-dimensional
image signal is input;
Appeal2015-006162
Application 12/906,367
an image converting section which receives the image
signal output from the image input section and generates and
outputs a left eye image and a right eye image for realizing
stereopsis; and
an image output section which outputs the left eye image
and the right eye image output from the image converting
section,
wherein the image converting section is configured to
extract a spatial characteristic amount of the input
image signal and to generate at least one of the left eye image
and the right eye image through an image
conversion process in which the characteristic amount is
applied, and
perform the image conversion process for
generating the at least one of the left eye image and right eye
image by switching to a process of a different type according to
a comparison result of distance information of a preset region
unit in the input image signal and a predetermined threshold
distance,
wherein the distance information corresponds to a
distance between a photographing position and an object in the
preset region unit.
THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 13, 18, and 19 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Yamashita (US 6,584,219 Bl; June 24, 2003)
("Yamashita '219"), Kusaka (US 2005/0052557 Al; Mar. 10, 2005), and
Costales (US 2003/0063383 Al; Apr. 3, 2003). Final Act. 5-8. 1
The Examiner rejected claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Yamashita, Kusaka, Costales, Iue (US 5,717,415; Feb. 10,
1 Throughout this opinion, we refer to (1) the Final Rejection mailed
September 30, 2014 ("Final Act."); (2) the Appeal Brief filed February 2,
2015 ("App. Br."); (3) the Examiner's Answer mailed April 6, 2015
("Ans."); and (4) the Reply Brief filed June 8, 2015 ("Reply Br.").
2
Appeal2015-006162
Application 12/906,367
1998), Aoyama (US 2004/0190023 Al; Sept. 30, 2004), and Yamashita (US
5,808,664; Sept. 15, 1998) ("Yamashita '664"). Final Act. 8-10.
The Examiner rejected claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Yamashita '219, Kusaka, Costales, and Kasahara (US
2002/0005857 Al; Jan. 17, 2002). Final Act. 10-11.
The Examiner rejected claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Yamashita '219, Kusaka, Costales, Iue, Abe (US
2006/0082646 Al; Apr. 20, 2006), and Aoyama. Final Act. 11-13.
The Examiner rejected claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Yamashita '219, Kusaka, Costales, Son (US
2010/0171697 Al; July 8, 2010), and Kasahara. Final Act. 13-15.
The Examiner rejected claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Yamashita '219, Kusaka, Costales, and Yasuda (US
2010/0026787 Al; Feb. 4, 2010). Final Act. 15-17.
The Examiner rejected claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Yamashita '219, Kusaka, Costales, Son, and Sugamura
(US 2009/0027224 Al; Jan. 29, 2009). Final Act. 17-19.
The Examiner rejected claims 8 and 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Yamashita '219, Kusaka, Costales, and Lu (US
2010/0123839 Al; May 20, 2010). Final Act. 19-20.
The Examiner rejected claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Yamashita '219, Kusaka, Costales, Lu, and Smith (US
2004/0252756 Al; Dec. 16, 2004). Final Act. 20-21.
The Examiner rejected claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Yamashita '219, Kusaka, Costales, Lu, and Shen (US
2005/0012814 Al; Jan. 20, 2005). Final Act. 21-23.
3
Appeal2015-006162
Application 12/906,367
The Examiner rejected claims 12 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Yamashita '219, Kusaka, Costales, and Itoi (US
2004/0008893 Al; Jan. 15, 2004). Final Act. 23-24.
The Examiner rejected claims 14 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Yamashita '219, Kusaka, Costales, and Iue. Final Act.
24--25.
The Examiner rejected claim 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Yamashita '219, Kusaka, Costales, Sato (US
2003/0107686 Al; June 12, 2003), and Shen. Final Act. 26-28.
THE REJECTION OVER YAMASHITA '219, KUSAKA, AND
COSTALES
The Examiner finds that Yamashita '219 discloses an image
processing apparatus with every recited element of claim 1 except for the
image converting section performing the recited image conversion process
by switching to a different type of process according to a comparison result
of distance information of a preset region unit and a predetermined threshold
distance, where the distance information corresponds to a distance between a
photographing position and an object in the preset region unit. Final Act. 5-
7. The Examiner, however, cites Kusaka for teaching (1) switching to a
different-type process according to a comparison result, and (2) distance
information corresponding to a distance between a photographing position
and an object in a preset region unit. Final Act. 6. The Examiner also finds
that Costales teaches a comparison result of distance information of a preset
region unit in the input image signal and a predetermined threshold distance.
4
Appeal2015-006162
Application 12/906,367
Final Act. 7. Based on these collective teachings, the Examiner concludes
that claim 1 would have been obvious. Final Act. 5-7.
Appellants argue that the Examiner's reliance on Kusaka and Costales
for teaching performing the recited image conversion process is misplaced.
App. Br. 10-15; Reply Br. 5---6. According to Appellants, Costales does not
teach or suggest a comparison between an object and photographing position
because Costales' focus-based calculations apply regardless of distances
from the viewer's point of view-a fact that is said to teach away from using
distance between the object and the photographing position. App. Br. 10-
13. Appellants add that because Kusaka is unrelated to generating three-
dimensional images, there is no reason to combine its purely two-
dimensional teachings with the three-dimensional technologies of Yamashita
or Costales. App. Br. 13-14.
ISSUES
(1) Under§ 103, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 by
finding that Yamashita '219, Kusaka, and Costales collectively would have
taught or suggested an image processing apparatus with an image converting
section performing the recited image conversion process by switching to a
different type of process according to a comparison result of distance
information of a preset region unit and a predetermined threshold distance,
where the distance information corresponds to a distance between a
photographing position and an object in the preset region unit?
(2) Is the Examiner's proposed combination of these references
supported by articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to
justify the Examiner's obviousness conclusion?
5
Appeal2015-006162
Application 12/906,367
ANALYSIS
We begin by noting that the Examiner's findings that Yamashita
'219' s image processing apparatus discloses the three recited sections, where
the image converting section can extract a spatial characteristic and generate
left and right eye images as claimed (Final Act. 5---6), are undisputed.
Rather, as noted above, this dispute centers on the Examiner's reliance on
Kusaka and Costales for teaching the recited image conversion process, and
whether Kusaka's two-dimensional image teachings are combinable with the
three-dimensional image teachings of Yamashita '219 and Costales as the
Examiner proposes. See App. Br. 10-15.
In the rejection, the Examiner cites Kusaka's paragraph 157 for
teaching the recited image conversion by switching to a different-type
process according to a comparison result. Final Act. 6. That paragraph
pertains to Kusaka's embodiment in Figure 20 where CPU 67 calculates a
"shooting area" based on (1) a focus signal indicating the distance to a
subject detected by distance-measurement section 51, and (2) a zoom signal
output when zoom key 54 is operated. Kusaka i-f 157. The calculated
shooting area is then compared with a reference area to determine the
particular type of conversion to perform, namely (1) logarithmic conversion
if the shooting area is larger than the reference area, or (2) linear conversion
ifthe shooting area is smaller than the reference area. Id. i-fi-1157-59; Figs.
21A--C.
Given this functionality, we see no error in the Examiner's findings
(Final Act. 6) that Kusaka at least suggests switching to a different type of
image conversion process according to a comparison result of "distance
information" of ( 1) a preset region unit, namely Kusaka' s zoom signal
6
Appeal2015-006162
Application 12/906,367
output that is used to calculate the shooting area, and (2) a predetermined
threshold distance, namely that associated with the reference area. This
distance information at least corresponds to a distance between a
photographing position and an object in the preset region unit not only in
light of Kusaka' s distance-measuring section as the Examiner indicates
(Final Act. 6), but also due to the relative distances associated with the
respective areas as shown, for example, in Kusaka's Figures 21A to 21C that
are compared to the reference area whose associated distances are
predetermined (e.g., 3m high x 4m wide). See Kusaka i-fi-f 157-59.
Although Kusaka does not state explicitly that this comparison result
is that of "distance information," but rather areas that correspond to
associated distances, Kusaka nonetheless at least suggests comparing the
recited "distance information" given the scope and breadth of the term in the
context of claim 1. That Appellants acknowledge that information
associated with Kusaka' s reference area comparison may indicate a distance
(App. Br. 14) only further bolsters the notion that Kusaka's area-based
comparison involves "distance information." Nevertheless, we see no error
in the Examiner's additional reliance on Costales merely to show that
comparing image-based distances to determine a particular image processing
technique is known in the art, and that providing such "distance
information" in the Yamashita '219/Kusaka system that uses area-based
"distance information" to determine a particular image conversion technique
would have been obvious. See Final Act. 7; Ans. 2-3 (citing Costales i-f 10;
claim 4).
That Costales defocuses image information depending on whether a
first offset distance is greater than a threshold distance as Appellants contend
7
Appeal2015-006162
Application 12/906,367
(App. Br. 11-12) is of no consequence here given the limited purpose for
which Costales was cited, namely to show that comparing image-based
distances to determine a particular image processing technique is known in
the art as noted previously. In view of this fundamental teaching, and given
the breadth of the term "distance information," we see no reason why
distances could not be compared as well as distance-based areas in the
Yamashita '219/Kusaka system to determine the appropriate image
conversion technique based on this comparison-a predictable result. See
KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007).
Appellants' contention, then, that skilled artisans would not have
substituted Costales' offset distance with Kusaka' s measured distance
(Reply Br. 6) is unavailing, for the Examiner's proposed combination
requires no such substitution. It is well settled that "a determination of
obviousness based on teachings from multiple references does not require an
actual, physical substitution of elements." In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322,
1332 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (citations omitted). Nor is the test for obviousness
whether a secondary reference's features can be bodily incorporated into the
structure of the primary reference. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA
1981 ). Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references
would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. Id. Here, nothing
on this record precludes using a distance-based comparison, such as that in
Costales, at least as an adjunct to an area-based comparison in the
Yamashita '219/Kusaka system to determine the appropriate image
conversion process, particularly since both comparisons involve "distance
information" as noted previously.
8
Appeal2015-006162
Application 12/906,367
Appellants' arguments regarding Costales' individual shortcomings in
this regard (App. Br. 10-15; Reply Br. 6), then, are inapposite to the limited
purpose for which Costales was cited, and, therefore, do not show
nonobviousness where, as here, the rejection is based on the cited
references' collective teachings. See In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091,
1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). We also find unavailing Appellants' contention that
because Costales' focus-based calculations apply regardless of distances
from the viewer's point of view, this fact allegedly teaches away from using
distance between the object and the photographing position. App. Br. 10-
13. In short, this contention is inapposite to the limited purpose for which
Costales was cited, namely to show that comparing image-based distances to
determine a particular image processing technique is known in the art as
noted previously, and that it would have been obvious to use such a
comparison at least as an adjunct to the area-based comparisons in the
Yamashita '219/Kusaka system. Nor do the cited references criticize,
discredit, or otherwise discourage investigation into the invention claimed as
required for teaching away. See Norgren Inc. v. Int 'l Trade Comm 'n, 699
F.3d 1317, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2012); see also In re Kahn, 441F.3d977, 990
(Fed. Cir. 2006).
We likewise find unavailing Appellants' contention that because
Kusaka is unrelated to generating three-dimensional images, there is
ostensibly no reason to combine its purely two-dimensional teachings with
the three-dimensional technologies of Yamashita '219 or Costales. App. Br.
13-14. First, Appellants' conclusion that skilled artisans would not have
combined teachings regarding two-dimensional and three-dimensional
images is unsubstantiated and, therefore, has little probative value. In re
9
Appeal2015-006162
Application 12/906,367
Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Second, as the Examiner
explains, Kusaka pertains to image processing which involves either two-
dimensional or three-dimensional images. Ans. 7. Notably, the Examiner
finds that Kusaka's image conversion process could be used to generate at
least one of the left eye image and right eye image, such as those in
Yamashita '219. See Ans. 6-7. We, therefore, find the Examiner's
proposed combination of Yamashita '219, Kusaka, and Costales is supported
by articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to justify the
Examiner's obviousness conclusion.
Therefore, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 1, and claims 13, 18, and 19 not argued separately with particularity.
THE OTHER OBVIOUSNESS REJECTIONS
We also sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejections of claims 2-12
and 14--17. Final Act. 8-28. Despite nominally arguing these claims
separately, Appellants reiterate similar arguments made in connection with
claim 1, and allege that the additional cited references fail to cure those
purported deficiencies. See App. Br. 15-27. We are not persuaded by these
arguments for the reasons previously discussed.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1-19 under§ 103.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-19 is affirmed.
10
Appeal2015-006162
Application 12/906,367
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
11