Ex Parte Alvarez

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Sep 22, 2004

09439920 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 22, 2004)

-1-
The opinion in support of the decision being entered
today was not written for publication and is not
binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 20
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES

Ex parte JOSE ROBERTO ALVAREZ

Appeal No. 2004-0252
Application No. 09/439,920

ON BRIEF

Before KRASS, JERRY SMITH and BLANKENSHIP, Administrative Patent
Judges.
KRASS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal from the final rejection of
claims 1-5 and 7-41.
The invention is directed to converting interlace video
signals into a down-conversion de-interlaced form suitable for
use as higher-quality input for progressive input video encoding.
Representative independent claim 24 is reproduced as
follows:
Appeal No. 2004-0252
Application No. 09/439,920
-2-
24. A method for determining intra-frame motion, comprising:
receiving interlaced video data including a current
image-portion within a current-field of a current-frame of said
interlaced video data;
forming an interpolation of said image-portion in
accordance with data within a remaining field of said current-
frame; and
comparing said image-portion with said interpolation.
The examiner relies on the following references:
Westerman 6,262,773 Jul. 17, 2001
(filed Sep. 15, 1997)
Igarashi et al. (Igarashi) 6,324,216 Nov. 27, 2001
(filed May 30, 1995)
Claims 24 and 27-30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)
as anticipated by Westerman.
Claims 1-5, 7-23, 25, 26 and 31-41 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Igarashi.
Reference is made to the briefs and answer for the
respective positions of appellant and the examiner.
OPINION
Turning, first, to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e),
anticipation is established only when a single prior art
reference discloses, expressly or under principles of inherency,
each and every element of a claimed invention. RCA Corp. v.
Appeal No. 2004-0252
Application No. 09/439,920
-3-
Applied Digital Data Sys., Inc., 730 F.2d 1440, 1444, 221 USPQ
385, 388 (Fed. Cir.), cert. dismissed, 468 U.S. 1228 (1984),
citing Kalman v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 713 F.2d 760, 772,
218 USPQ 781, 789 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1026
(1984).
With regard to claim 24, appellant argues that since the
examiner omitted claim 24 from a rejection of claims under
35 U.S.C. § 102(e), in the final rejection, there is no such
rejection of claim 24. We disagree. The examiner may have
inadvertently omitted this claim in the final rejection, but it
is clear from the answer that claim 24 does, indeed, stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) and appellant certainly had an
opportunity to respond to this rejection in the reply brief if,
in fact, appellant had no inkling that this claim stood rejected
on that ground.
Since it is clear that appellant knew that claim 24 stood
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) and, indeed, responded to that
rejection in the principal brief, we find that there is an
outstanding rejection of claim 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) and we
will treat the rejection of the claim on its merits.
It is the examiner’s position that Westerman teaches
receiving interlaced video data and converting it to progressive
Appeal No. 2004-0252
Application No. 09/439,920
-4-
video data at column 1, lines 6-10, while the reference teaches
an interpolator at column 6, lines 26-39.
We will not sustain the rejection of claim 24 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(e) because, in our view, the examiner simply has
not established a prima facie case of anticipation by merely
pointing to 19 lines within the disclosure of Westerman and
alleging that all of the claimed subject matter is disclosed
therein.
Appellant does not argue much, but appellant does argue that
Westerman is devoid of the step of, or means for, “comparing said
image portion with said interpolation” and the examiner has not
convincingly shown that Westerman does, indeed, disclose this
subject matter. While Westerman mentions “interpolation” and an
“interpolator” in the cited portions of the reference, we find no
suggestion, at either column 1, lines 1-5, or column 6, lines 26-
39, the only portions of Westerman cited by the examiner, of
“comparing said image-portion with said interpolation,” as
required by the claim.
The only response by the examiner, at page 10 of the answer,
is to assert that a subtraction step is a comparative step. Not
only has the examiner not pointed to the specific portion of
Westerman relied on for the “subtraction step,” but, more
Appeal No. 2004-0252
Application No. 09/439,920
-5-
importantly, while a subtraction may also be a comparison, the
examiner’s explanation fails to explain how any subtraction step
relied upon would entail a comparison of “said image-portion with
said interpolation,” as claimed. That is, the claim not only
calls for a comparison, it calls for a comparison between two
specific things, an “image-portion” and “said interpolation.”
The examiner has failed to explain how this is considered to be
taught by Westerman.
Accordingly, the rejection of claim 24 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) is reversed. Moreover, since claims 27-30 also contain
limitations directed to a specific comparison, and the examiner
has not addressed how Westerman is seen to disclose the specifics
of the comparisons claimed, we also will not sustain the
rejection of claims 27-30 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e). The
examiner’s reference to Westerman’s column 6, lines 40-68, with
regard to claims 28 and 30, and to column 6, lines 25-40, with
regard to claim 29, is not seen to disclose the claimed
comparisons.
We now turn to the rejection of claims 1-5, 7-23, 25, 26 and
31-41 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the examiner
bears the initial burden of presenting a prima facie case of
Appeal No. 2004-0252
Application No. 09/439,920
-6-
obviousness. See In re Rijckaert, 9 F.3d 1531, 1532, 28 USPQ2d
1955, 1956 (Fed. Cir. 1993). To reach a conclusion of
obviousness under § 103, the examiner must produce a factual
basis supported by a teaching in a prior art reference or shown
to be common knowledge of unquestionable demonstration. Our
reviewing court requires this evidence in order to establish a
prima facie case. In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1471-72,
223 USPQ 785, 787-88 (Fed. Cir. 1984). The examiner must
identify the elements in the prior art or that knowledge
generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art that
would have led the individual to combine the relevant teachings
of the references. In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1074, 5 USPQ2d
1596, 1598 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
As to independent claims 1 and 23, the examiner applies
Igarashi as follows:
Column 3, lines 38-41, is said to “clearly” show the
reception of interlaced video data.
Figure 3 is said to “clearly” show the detection of motion
in blocks 21 and 22.
Appeal No. 2004-0252
Application No. 09/439,920
-7-
The output of Figure 3 is said to be “progressive video,”
which the examiner alleges meets the claim language, “forming de-
interlaced video data corresponding with said interlaced video
data in accordance with said determined motion.”
The examiner explains that the forming of de-interlaced
video is accomplished by combining frame data and field data of
the interlaced video data (pointing to Igarashi, Figure 3 and
column 16, lines 14-57). The examiner further explains that
after selecting the most efficient means, i.e., frame or field
motion detection, for processing the macro block, the macro block
is processed and combined with previously encoded macro blocks to
form the picture frame which is by definition de-interlaced video
(pointing to Figure 10 of Igarashi, as well as column 10, lines
32-39).
The examiner appears to recognize that Igarashi does not
teach the use of frame and field data together because the
examiner states that:
While Igarashi is clearly concerned with selecting
which is the most efficient means, the motivation to
combine the data is clearly taught. . . . it was well
known that digital pictures were . . . made up of macro
blocks [sic], Igarashi teaches that by processing each
individual macro block in the most efficient manner,
the picture that these macro blocks make up when
combined, will be efficiently coded. Therefore[,] it
would have been obvious . . . to modify the encoder as
Appeal No. 2004-0252
Application No. 09/439,920
-8-
taught by Igarashi, to make the current invention
[answer, page 3].
It is appellant’s position, with regard to claims 1, 8-11,
16, 17, 23, 31, 36, 37 and 41, that while Igarashi teaches using
field and frame data, Igarashi teaches that the field and frame
data are used separately, while the instant claims require the
combination of both field and frame data.
We understand the difference between the instant disclosed
invention and that shown by Igarashi. However, taking instant
claim 1 as exemplary of the Group I claims (grouped together by
appellant with claims 8-11, 16, 17, 23, 31, 36, 37 and 41), as
claimed, all that is called for is forming de-interlaced video
data corresponding with said interlaced video data (which
Igarashi clearly discloses) in accordance with said determined
motion “by combining frame data and field data of said interlaced
video data.” Igarashi clearly discloses both frame data and
field data of the interlaced video data, as shown in Figure 3 of
the patent. Thus, the issue is whether Igarashi taught, or
suggested, the combination of the frame data and field data, as
presently claimed.
Since claim 1 is rather broad in scope, requiring, in our
view, only that the de-interlaced video data be formed “by
combining frame data and field data . . .,” we agree with the
Appeal No. 2004-0252
Application No. 09/439,920
-9-
examiner that this is clearly suggested by Igarashi. This is so
because, while it is true that Igarashi employs either field data
or frame data, but not both, in determining the various macro
blocks comprising a video, it is the combination of the macro
blocks, which also entails a combination of field data and frame
data (because some macro blocks will employ field data while
other macro blocks will employ frame data, depending on which is
more efficient in reducing temporal/spatial redundancy), which
forms the de-interlaced video data, as reasonably explained by
the examiner (answer, pages 10-11).
Thus, it appears that a broad, yet reasonable, reading of
Igarashi does suggest a combination of field data and frame data
in performing down-conversion de-interlacing.
Accordingly, we will sustain the rejection of claims 1, 8-
11, 16, 17, 23, 31, 36, 37 and 41 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Turning to claim 2, this claim specifies that the image-
portion “is a pixel.” The examiner points to column 11, lines
22-39, of Igarashi for a teaching that the macro block data is
comprised of pixel data.
Appellant argues that a pixel is not the same as a macro
block and that Igarashi operates on a macro block, and not on an
individual pixel (principal brief, page 14).
Appeal No. 2004-0252
Application No. 09/439,920
-10-
While it is true that a macro block is not a pixel, a macro
block is certainly made up of pixels. Thus, it would have been
clear to artisans that as macro blocks get smaller and smaller,
they approach the size of a pixel and, ultimately, a macro block
may comprise a pixel. Thus, the issue here is really what size
macro block we are talking about. Artisans would have understood
that the macro blocks of Igarashi may be as small as one pixel
each, or larger. Accordingly, we find that it would have been
obvious to the artisan that the macro blocks of Igarashi may be
one pixel each in size. Appellant argues that Igarashi operates
on macro blocks, not on pixels, but never explains why the macro
blocks of Igarashi may not be one pixel in size, if desired.
Thus, we will also sustain the rejection of claim 2 under
35 U.S.C. § 103.
With regard to claim 4, this claim calls for the determining
step to comprise “forming an intra-frame motion determination
indicating intra-frame motion of said image portion."
The examiner contends that this is taught by Igarashi at
column 15, lines 46-65, where both inter-frame and intra-frame
motion detection are taught.
Appellant’s view is that the cited portion of Igarashi
teaches that previously encoded frames are used as a basis for
Appeal No. 2004-0252
Application No. 09/439,920
-11-
determining motion, so that this portion of Igarashi teaches that
motion determination is an inter-frame process, especially since
Igarashi teaches that for I-pictures, which are related to intra-
frame coding, “the detector is inoperative” (principal brief,
page 18). Thus, concludes appellant, Igarashi does not teach “an
intra-frame determination indicative of intra-frame motion,” as
required by claim 4.
We will sustain the rejection of claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. §
103 because while appellant argues that Igarashi teaches motion
determination being an “inter-frame process,” column 11, lines
10-11, of Igarashi clearly mentions that “[i]ntra-frame motion
prediction is possible in the encoder of FIG. 4 . . .”
Thus, while the examiner has indicated what, in Igarashi, is
relied on for the teaching of the claim 4 recitation, appellant
has not convincingly pointed out the error in the examiner’s
rationale. Accordingly, we will sustain the examiner’s rejection
of claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Appeal No. 2004-0252
Application No. 09/439,920
-12-
With regard to claim 12, this claim calls for a step of
correlating including “smoothing said combined motion indicator.”
The examiner points to column 30, lines 24-51, of Igarashi for a
teaching of calculating an overall motion by averaging the motion
of all the macro blocks, and contends that such averaging of
motion vectors “is considered smoothing since the vectors are
averaged thus eliminating any anomalous vectors and therefore
smoothing out the overall motion” (answer, paragraph bridging
pages 11-12).
While appellant argues in the principal brief that Igarashi
does not disclose the claimed “smoothing” at column 7, lines 33+,
as well as in Tables 1 and 2, as previously argued by the
examiner, appellant does not argue or dispute the examiner’s
reasoning in the answer, based on column 30, lines 24-51, even
though appellant filed a reply brief and had an opportunity to
respond.
Accordingly, since there is no response from appellant to
the examiner’s rationale for rejecting claim 12, as that
rationale is stated in the answer, we will also sustain the
rejection of claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Next, with regard to claim 15, reciting “amounts include a
generally increasing relative amount of field data with
Appeal No. 2004-0252
Application No. 09/439,920
-13-
increasing motion,” the examiner points to column 7, lines 44-49,
of Igarashi for a teaching of field-based transformations being
best for an area of a picture as a function of the amount of
motion in the area. Therefore, concludes the examiner, “the more
motion present the more data required to encode the picture”
(answer, page 5).
Appellant argues that Igarashi merely uses an amount of
motion “as a selection criteria for deciding whether to select
field-based transformation or whether to select frame-based
transformation” (principal brief, page 22).
We agree with the examiner that the artisan would have been
well aware that the amount of field data required to represent
motion is directly proportional to the amount of motion present,
so that as the amount of motion increases, the amount of field
data necessary will also increase.
Accordingly, we will sustain the rejection of claim 15 under
35 U.S.C. § 103.
Claim 26 requires processing a frame of video data such that
vertical detail that might exist within an overlapping region of
two fields of said frame, if present, is removed.
The examiner cites column 7, lines 33-45, of Igarashi and
finds that “it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill
Appeal No. 2004-0252
Application No. 09/439,920
-14-
in th art, to remove the overlapping regions so that no abrupt
transitions are represented thereby reducing the amount of high
frequency coefficient data” (answer, paragraph bridging pages 8-
9). Further, the examiner mentions that while Igarashi does not
teach removing the overlapping regions, Igarashi “does process
the even fields separate from the odd fields in order to avoid
the overlap” (answer, page 8).
By the examiner’s own admission, Igarashi does not remove
overlap regions, and, in fact, avoids the overlap. Yet, instant
claim 26 indicates that an overlap region might exist and, if
there is an overlapping region of two fields of the frame, any
vertical detail, if present, is removed. Thus, the claim does
not remove the overlap, but rather the vertical detail that might
exist withing an overlapping region. Accordingly, the examiner’s
reliance on column 7, lines 33-45, of Igarashi is not persuasive.
However, at page 12 of the answer, the examiner further
points to columns 29 and 30 of Igarashi where the reference does
indicate that pairs of vertically adjacent rows are expected to
be devoid of comb distortion (column 29, lines 31-33) and the
examiner argues that comb distortion removal is shown in
Igarashi’s Figure 2. The examiner also points out (answer, page
12) that Igarashi reduces vertical detail by eliminating high
Appeal No. 2004-0252
Application No. 09/439,920
-15-
frequency coefficients, that this is known to mean the use of a
low pass filter, and that this is just the way appellant performs
the process. Accordingly, the examiner has set forth a
reasonable basis for finding the claimed subject matter obvious
and the burden shifted to appellant to rebut the examiner’s case.
Yet, appellant never responds to this reasoning in the reply
brief. Accordingly, since, for whatever reason, we have no
response from appellant, we will sustain the rejection of claim
26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
With regard to claim 32, appellant argues that the step of
receiving comprises receiving activity metrics and the step of
converting comprises processing the motion data in accordance
with the activity metrics, but that the header of Igarashi, which
the examiner relies on for a teaching of “activity metrics,” is
not applicable. Specifically, appellant argues that, in
accordance with page 19 of the specification, activity metrics
include, for example, “entropy, noise, frequency content, etc.”
In our view, the examiner correctly points out that one
cannot read limitations into the claims and that claim 32 does
not require “entropy, noise, frequency content, etc.” It merely
requires “activity metrics.” As the examiner reasonably
explains, at pages 12-13 of the answer, activity metrics
Appeal No. 2004-0252
Application No. 09/439,920
-16-
are simply instructions for the processor so that the
processor knows how to deal with the data that follows.
Therefore headers are synonymous to activity metrics
because a header contains instructions and information
necessary for dealing with subsequent data.
Furthermore, Igarashi is replete with teachings of
placing relevant information for the subsequent
processing of received data in his header. See figure
21 as well as column 21 lines 1-24, and column 24 lines
23-47.
Since the examiner’s rationale appears reasonable to us, and
appellant has not responded to this rationale, e.g., the reply
brief is silent on this matter, we will sustain the rejection of
claim 32 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
CONCLUSION
We have not sustained the rejection of claims 24 and 27-30
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) but we have sustained the rejection of
claims 1, 2, 4, 12, 15, 26, and 32, along with the claims
included in the groups into which appellant grouped these claims,
under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Accordingly, the examiner’s decision rejecting claims 24 and
27-30 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) and rejecting claims 1-5, 7-23,
25, 26 and 31-41 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is affirmed in part.
Appeal No. 2004-0252
Application No. 09/439,920
-17-
No time period for taking any subsequent action in
connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR
§ 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
ERROL A. KRASS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
)
JERRY SMITH ) BOARD OF PATENT
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
HOWARD B. BLANKENSHIP )
Administrative Patent Judge )
EAK:clm
Appeal No. 2004-0252
Application No. 09/439,920
-18-
Scott A. Horstemeyer
Thomas, Hayden, Horstemeyer
& Risley LLP
100 Galleria Parkway
Suite 1750
Atlanta, GA 30339