Ex Parte Yang et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 20, 201612702464 (P.T.A.B. May. 20, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. 121702,464 33942 7590 Cha & Reiter, LLC 17 Arcadian A venue Suite 208 Paramus, NJ 07652 FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 02/09/2010 Hui Chui Yang 05/23/2016 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. P3622USOO 2138 EXAMINER ZHAI,KYLE ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2612 MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE 05/23/2016 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 HUI CHUL YANG, IN WON JONG, and JIN YOUNG JEON Appeal2014-004956 Application 12/702,464 Technology Center 2600 Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, DAVID M. KOHUT, 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 1-14. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). We affirm. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants' invention enhances visual comprehensibility of overlapping images by determining whether a background image's brightness should be adjusted based on, among other things, the complexity of an overlapping foreground image. See generally Abstract; Spec. i-fi-13, 45--48; Figs. 6-7c. Claim 1 is illustrative: Appeal2014-004956 Application 12/702,464 1. An image display method, comprising: displaying a background image and a foreground image in an overlapping manner; determining whether to adjust a brightness of the background image; adjusting the brightness of the background image in response to a determination to adjust the brightness of the background image; and displaying the brightness-adjusted background image, wherein determining whether to adjust the brightness of the background image comprises: determining whether the brightness of the background image is to be adjusted based on a complexity of the foreground image, the complexity of the foreground image being determined based on a number of visual items in the foreground image. THE REJECTIONS The Examiner rejected claims 1 and 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Abanami (US 2008/0189656 Al; Aug. 7, 2008), Nishikawa (US 5,129,011; July 7, 1992), and Minami (US 2007/0101286 Al; May 3, 2007). Final Act. 2-5. 1 The Examiner rejected claims 2, 3, 6, 7, 9, 10, 13, and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Abanami, Nishikawa, Minami, Choe (US 20071017 6916 A 1; Aug. 2, 2007), and Sakatani (US 6,5 87 ,225 B 1; July 1, 2003 ). Final Act. 6-11. 1 Throughout this opinion, we refer to (1) the Final Rejection mailed May 16, 2013 ("Final Act."); (2) the Appeal Brief filed December 16, 2013 ("App. Br."); (3) the Examiner's Answer mailed January 24, 2014 ("Ans."); and (4) the Reply Brief filed March 18, 2014 ("Reply Br."). 2 Appeal2014-004956 Application 12/702,464 The Examiner rejected claims 4 and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Abanami, Nishikawa, Minami, Choe, Sakatani, and Dolgoff (US2002/0126396 Al; Sept. 12, 2002). Final Act. 11-13. The Examiner rejected claims 5 and 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Abanami, Nishikawa, Minami, Choe, Sakatani, and Wang (US 2008/0088572 Al; Apr. 17, 2008). Final Act. 13-16. THE REJECTION OVER ABANAMI, NISHIKAWA, AND MIN AMI The Examiner finds that Abanami (1) displays a background image 305 (shown as the letters "ABC" in Figure 3b) and an overlapping foreground image associated with a series of menus, and (2) adjusts the background image's brightness based on the foreground image. Final Act. 2-3; Ans. 4. Although the Examiner acknowledges that Abanami does not adjust brightness based on the foreground image's complexity, the Examiner cites Nishikawa to show that using an image complexity value to process images is known in the art, and that using such a value to adjust background image brightness would have been obvious. Final Act. 3--4; Ans. 5. The Examiner also cites Minami to show that determinations based on the number of visual items in an image were known in the art, and that using such a concept in Nishikawa's complexity determination would have been obvious. Final Act. 4--5; Ans. 5-6, 8. Appellants argue that the cited prior art does not teach or suggest determining whether the background image's brightness is adjusted based on foreground image complexity that is determined based on a number of visual items in the foreground image, as claimed. App. Br. 7-12; Reply Br. 2-5. According to Appellants, Abanami adjusts the background image based on 3 Appeal2014-004956 Application 12/702,464 similarity of shade, and Nishikawa sets the highest-complexity image as the most featured image, but the proposed combination does not adjust the background image based on the foreground image's complexity. App. Br. 7-8; Reply Br. 2-3. Appellants further contend that Minami does not involve relationships between background and foreground images, but rather determines the width of icons to determine how many icons can be displayed laterally. App. Br. 8-11; Reply Br. 3-5. Appellants add that the Examiner's rejection lacks articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the Examiner's obviousness conclusion. App. Br. 11-12. ISSUES (1) Under§ 103, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 by finding that Abanami, Nishikawa, and Minami collectively would have taught or suggested determining whether a background image's brightness is adjusted based on complexity of an overlapping foreground image, where the complexity is determined based on a number of visual items in the foreground image? (2) Is the Examiner's combining the teachings of these references supported by articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to justify the Examiner's obviousness conclusion? ANALYSIS We begin by noting that the Examiner's reliance on Nishikawa in rejecting claim 1 was clarified in the Answer, namely regarding determining complexity based on a number of visual items in an image. Ans. 5. In the rejection, the Examiner finds that Nishikawa determines image complexity 4 Appeal2014-004956 Application 12/702,464 based on a binary change of an image pattern, namely an alternation pattern from white to black, or black to white. Final Act. 4 (citing Nishikawa, col. 3, 1. 63 - col. 4, 1. 1 ). In the Answer, however, the Examiner clarifies that this functionality in Nishikawa not only determines image complexity, but does so based on a number of the image's "visual items," namely black and white. Ans. 5 (acknowledging that the rejection "may not have indicated as clearly as desired" that Nishikawa determines complexity based on a number of visual items in the image). Accord Ans. 8 (same). Notably, the Examiner's clarification effectively renders Minami cumulative, for the collective teachings of Abanami and Nishikawa would teach or suggest every limitation of claim 1 under the position articulated in the Answer. Nevertheless, the Examiner's Answer also reiterates the rejection's reliance on Minami in connection with determinations based on the number of visual items in an image, and that modifying Nishikawa's complexity determination in light of Minami's icon-based determination would have been obvious to simplify calculation by using icon-based pixel blocks instead of the entire image. Compare Ans. 5---6 with Final Act. 4--5. On this record, we see no error in the Examiner's position as clarified in the Answer. First, Appellants do not squarely address-let alone persuasively rebut-the Examiner's finding on pages 5 and 8 of the Answer that an image's black and white elements in Nishikawa are "visual items" in that image. See Reply Br. 2-5. Under this position, then, Nishikawa determines image complexity based at least partly on a number of visual items in the image, namely the number corresponding to the image's white and black elements. 5 Appeal2014-004956 Application 12/702,464 Although Nishikawa does not determine complexity to adjust brightness, but rather to store and retrieve partial images consistent with a particular order based on their complexity (see Nishikawa, col. 3, 1. 63 - col. 4, 1. 10; col. 7, 11. 16-27), we nonetheless see no reason why such a complexity determination could not be used to adjust brightness in Abanami as the Examiner proposes. That Abanami can adjust background image brightness based on certain displayed characteristics of a foreground image, such as how deep the user proceeds into an associated series of displayed menus as noted in paragraph 20, only bolsters the Examiner's position that basing such a brightness adjustment at least partly on foreground image complexity would have been obvious. The Examiner's proposed combination, then, merely applies a known image-complexity determination technique, such as that in Nishikawa, to a piece of prior art ready for the improvement, namely Abanami, to yield a predictable result-an obvious enhancement. See KSR Int 'l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007). Moreover, the Examiner's articulated rationale to combine the teachings of these references, namely to improve processing efficiency (Final Act. 4; Ans. 5), is supported by articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to justify the Examiner's obviousness conclusion. Because Minami is technically cumulative to the collective teachings of Abanami and Nishikawa under the Examiner's clarified position articulated in the Answer, we see no harmful error in the Examiner's rejection given the Examiner's clarification in the Answer. Therefore, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1, and claim 8 not argued separately with particularity. 6 Appeal2014-004956 Application 12/702,464 THE REMAINING OBVIOUSNESS REJECTIONS We also sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejections of claims 2-7 and 9-14. Final Act. 6-16. Appellants reiterate similar arguments made in connection with claim 1, and allege that the additional cited references fail to cure those purported deficiencies. App. Br. 13. We are not persuaded by these arguments for the reasons previously discussed. CONCLUSION The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1-14 under§ 103. DECISION The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-14 is affirmed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 3 7 C.F .R. § 1.13 6( a )(1 )(iv). AFFIRMED 7 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation