Ex Parte Zhang et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 30, 2016

12531906 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 30, 2016)

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.
12/531,906 09/18/2009 Dong-Qing Zhang PU070040 3842
24498 7590 01/04/2017
Robert D. Shedd, Patent Operations
THOMSON Licensing LLC
4 Research Way
3rd Floor
Princeton, NJ 08543
EXAMINER
MEROUAN, ABDERRAHIM
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2619
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/04/2017 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):
uspto@technicolor.com
pat. verlangieri @ technicolor.com
russell. smith @ technicolor.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DONG-QING ZHANG,
ANA BELEN BENITEZ, and
JAMES ARTHUR FANCHER1
Appeal 2015-007117
Application 12/531,906
Technology Center 2600
Before JASON V. MORGAN, JEREMY J. CURCURI, and
ADAM J. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
MORGAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Introduction
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1—6, 8—15, and 17—20. Claims 7 and 16 are canceled.
Br. 2. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 Appellants identify THOMSON Licensing S.A. as the real party in interest.
Br. 2.
Appeal 2015-007117
Application 12/531,906
Invention
Appellants disclose the use of region classification of two-
dimensional (2D) images for 2D-to-3D conversion of images to create
stereoscopic images. Abstract.
Exemplary Claim
Claim 1, reproduced below with key limitations emphasized, is
representative:
1. A three-dimensional conversion method for creating a
pair of stereoscopic three-dimensional images comprising:
acquiring, by a post-processing device, a two-
dimensional image;
identifying, by a post-processing device, regions within
the two-dimensional image',
classifying, by a post-processing device, each of the
identified regions;
among a plurality of two-dimensional to three-
dimensional conversion methods including at least one of a
fuzzy object conversion method and a solid object conversion
method, selecting, by a post-processing device, a two-
dimensional to three-dimensional conversion method for each
identified region based on the classification of the respective
identified region;
converting, by a post-processing device, each region into
a three-dimensional model based on the selected conversion
method; and
creating, by a post-processing device, a complementary
image by projecting the three-dimensional models from each
region onto an image plane different than an image plane of the
acquired two-dimensional image.
2
Appeal 2015-007117
Application 12/531,906
Rejection
The Examiner rejects claims 1—6, 8—15, and 17—20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Wang (US 2008/0150945 Al; June 26,
2008), Udupa (US 5,812,691; Sept. 22, 1998) and Ishiyama (US 2003/
0035098 Al; Feb. 20, 2003). Final Act. 2-8.
ISSUE
Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Wang, Udupa, and
Ishiyama teaches or suggests: (1) “identifying . . . regions within the two-
dimensional image”; (2) “classifying . . . each of the identified regions”; (3)
“among a plurality of two-dimensional to three-dimensional conversion
methods including at least one of a fuzzy object conversion method . . . ,
selecting ... a two-dimensional to three-dimensional conversion method for
each identified region based on the classification of the respective identified
region”; (4) “converting . . . each region into a three-dimensional model
based on the selected conversion method”; and (5) “creating ... a
complementary image by projecting the three-dimensional models from each
region onto an image plane different than an image plane of the acquired
two-dimensional image,” as recited in claim 1?
ANALYSIS
We agree with and adopt as our own the Examiner’s findings of facts
and conclusions as set forth in the Answer and in the Action from which this
appeal was taken. We have considered Appellants’ arguments, but do not
find them persuasive of error. We provide the following explanation for
emphasis.
In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner finds Wang’s process of identifying
segmentation regions—with a “complexity-adaptive and automatic 2D-to-
3
Appeal 2015-007117
Application 12/531,906
3D image and video conversion method” that includes connected component
labeling to divide an image into a number of small connected regions, where
pixels inside the same region have similar color intensity—teaches or
suggests identifying regions within the two-dimensional image, classifying
each of the identified regions, and among a plurality of two-dimensional to
three-dimensional conversion methods, selecting a two-dimensional to
three-dimensional conversion method for each identified region based on the
classification of the respective identified region. Final Act. 3 (citing Wang
34, 35, 55); Ans. 8—9 (citing Wang 1 60, Figs. 6, 8).
Appellants contend the Examiner erred because Wang classifies an
entire frame (or image), rather than regions within the frame, as either a flat
image class or a non-flat image class. Br. 6. Appellants argue that Wang
merely “places an image into one of two classes and processes the image
based on the class in which the image is placed.” Br. 7.
Appellants’ arguments do not persuasively challenge the Examiner’s
reliance on Wang’s complexity-adaptive segmentation region identification
as teaching or suggesting the disputed recitations. In particular, Appellants
do not persuasively challenge the Examiner’s finding that Wang’s
identification of regions having similar color intensity (for purposes of
merging into bigger regions) represents a classification of the regions
themselves. See Ans. 8—9; Wang | 60. Nor do Appellants persuasively
distinguish the claimed selecting among a plurality of two-dimensional to
three-dimensional conversion methods for each region based on the
classification of the respective identified region from Wang’s complexity-
adaptive two-dimensional to three-dimensional conversion, which uses
4
Appeal 2015-007117
Application 12/531,906
object segmentation to estimate depth information. Final Act. 3 (citing, e.g.,
Wang 1134—35).
Appellants further argue that the teachings in Wang relate to “how the
segmentation regions are selected after the frame has been classified,” and
thus cannot be properly relied upon. Br. 7. However, claim 1 recites the
open-ended term “comprising,” and the claimed invention does not preclude
analysis that produces an additional classification of the image as a whole.
Therefore, Appellants’ arguments are unpersuasive.
The Examiner relies on Udupa’s fuzzy object extraction and labeling,
in combination with the teachings and suggestions of Wang, to teach or
suggest the plurality of two-dimensional to three-dimensional conversion
methods including a fuzzy object conversion method. Final Act. 4 (citing
Updupa col. 21,1. 63—col. 22,1. 18); Ans. 9. In particular, the Examiner
finds that Udupa uses a method of “‘hanging togetherness’ to extract fuzzy
data to be segmented.” Ans. 9; see also Udupa Abstract, col. 1,11. 14—20.
The Examiner further finds that using Wang’s two-dimensional to three-
dimensional method “to convert a fuzzy object using the extracted fuzzy
data” of Updupa would represent “a fuzzy conversion method.” Ans. 9.
Appellants contend the Examiner erred because while Udupa
“mentions fuzzy object extraction, this is in no way related to a fuzzy object
conversion method.” Br. 8. However, Appellants do not persuasively
address the Examiner’s reliance on the combined teachings and suggestions
of Updupa (for fuzzy data extraction) and Wang (for two-dimensional to
three-dimensional conversion). Thus, we do not find Appellants’ arguments
persuasive.
5
Appeal 2015-007117
Application 12/531,906
The Examiner also finds that Ishiyama’s projection of three-
dimensional model coordinates to a two-dimensional plane, combined with
Wang’s generation of a second or missing right view in a stereo image pair
generator, teaches or suggests creating a complementary image by
projecting the three-dimensional models from each region onto an image
plane different than an image plane of the acquired two-dimensional image.
Final Act. 5 (citing Ishiyama H 24, 33, Fig. 10); Ans. 11—12 (citing Wang
129).
Appellants contend the Examiner erred because Ishiyama merely
“describes a texture creation step in which a processor uses a 3D model[’s]
data to define texture coordinates in terms of latitude and longitude at every
point on the surface of a sphere by projecting on to a corresponding point
from on the surface of the reference object.” Br. 9—10. However,
Appellants do not persuasively challenge the Examiner’s reliance on
Ishiyama’s teachings and suggestions in combination with Wang’s use of a
captured image as a left view with a two-dimensional to three-dimensional
converter used to generate a second or missing right view from the left view
and an image map. See Ans. 11—12. Generating a right view creates a
complementary image in an image plane different than the image plane of
the acquired image (i.e., the image plane of the originally captured left
view). Therefore, Appellants’ arguments are unpersuasive.
For these reasons, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding
the combination of Wang, Udupa, and Ishiyama teaches or suggests the
disputed recitations. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) rejection of claim 1, and claims 2—6, 8—15, and 17—20, which
Appellants do not argue separately. Br. 10—11.
6
Appeal 2015-007117
Application 12/531,906
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—6, 8—15, and
17-20.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.50(f).
AFFIRMED
7