09966038 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 16, 2012)

Ex Parte Bellers

Board of Patent Appeals and InterferencesAug 16, 2012

09966038 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 16, 2012)

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. 09/966,038 09/28/2001 Erwin B. Bellers E5982-00082 4573 77561 7590 08/17/2012 Duane Morris LLP (Entropic) IP Department 30 South 17th Street Philadelphia, PA 19103-4196 EXAMINER TRAN, TRANG U ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2422 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/17/2012 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 BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES ____________________ Ex parte ERWIN B. BELLERS ____________________ Appeal 2010-006621 Application 09/966,038 Technology Center 2400 ____________________ Before: JOSEPH L. DIXON, JEAN R. HOMERE, and JAMES R. HUGHES, Administrative Patent Judges. DIXON, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2010-006621 Application 09/966,038 2 STATEMENT OF CASE Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 6-9, 11, 13-16, 18, and 20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. The claims are directed to dynamic sampling. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A system for dynamic sampling comprising: an input receiving an analog video signal; and a sampling mechanism coupled to the input and sampling the analog video signal utilizing a variable sampling rate modulated for segments of the analog video signal based upon spatial frequencies within the image content contained within the analog video signal; an output of said sampling mechanism being coupled to a signal analysis unit to determine a highest spatial frequency within the image content; and said variable sampling rate being adjustable both upward and downward over a continuous range as a function of the highest spatial frequency within the image content. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Page Kelly US 4,755,795 US 6,473,008 B2 Jul. 5, 1988 Oct. 29, 2002 Appeal 2010-006621 Application 09/966,038 3 REJECTIONS Claims 1, 2, 4, 7-9, 11, 14-16, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C §102(b) as being anticipated by Page. Claims 6, 13, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C §103(a) as being unpatentable over Page. ANALYSIS With respect to independent claim 1, 8, and 15, Appellant's Summary of the Claimed Subject Matter identifies both figures 2A and 2B as the corresponding embodiments (App. Br. 2-3) and the corresponding disclosure in the Specification. From our review of the claimed subject matter, we conclude that the claimed subject matter corresponds more closely to the embodiment disclosed in figure 2C which explicitly teaches a first fixed-rate A to D converter 207 at the highest sampling rate providing data to signal analysis unit 208 which then controls the sampling rate of A to D converter 209 to provide a modulated sampling of the analog video signal input. Therefore, we have interpreted the claimed invention in light of this determination. Appellant's main contentions are that “the claims are directed to sampling an analog signal utilizing a variable sampling rate with modulation based upon spatial frequencies of an image in the analog signal.” (App. Br. 4). Appellant contends that the cited portions of the '795 reference (Page) involves “digital signal sampling and related processing, which is fundamentally different than the claimed analog signal sampling approach.” Appeal 2010-006621 Application 09/966,038 4 (App. Br. 5). Appellant contends that the teachings of Page concerning converter 13 fail to sample an analog signal at a variable sampling rate and that the sampling rate adjustment occurs after the converter 13 and is carried out upon a digital signal rather than an analog signal. (App. Br. 5). Appellant further contends that the Page reference sampling rate adjustment is thus not only carried out on a digital signal, it further does not disclose modulating a variable sampling rate “based upon spatial frequencies with in the image content.” (App. Br. 5). Appellant repeats similar arguments in the Reply Brief. The Examiner attempts to respond to Appellant's arguments in the Answer by interpreting the sampling mechanism as a combination of multiple circuits or elements. (Ans. 8-11). While we agree with the Examiner concerning general claim interpretation, the Examiner's interpretation does not address the specific language of independent claim 1 While we agree with the Examiner that Page’s disclosure teaches a sampling mechanism that provides a similar outcome of data reduction for lower frequency signals, the disclosed sampling does not utilize a variable sampling rate modulated for segments of the analog video signal based upon spatial frequencies within the image content contained within the analog video signal, as required by the claim. Therefore, we cannot sustain the anticipation rejection of independent claim 1 and its respective dependent claims. Additionally, independent claims 8 and 15 contain similar limitations which we found lacking in the express teachings of the Page reference, as discussed above with respect to independent claim 1. Therefore, we cannot Appeal 2010-006621 Application 09/966,038 5 sustain the rejection of independent claims 8 and 15 and their respective dependent claims. 35 U.S.C. §103 With respect to dependent claims 6, 13, and 20, the Examiner has not relied upon the teachings of the Kelly reference to remedy the above-noted deficiency. Therefore, we sustain the rejection of these claims for the same reason discussed above. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1, 8, and 15 under 35 U.S.C. §102 based upon anticipation. DECISION For the above reasons, the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 7-9, 11, 14-16, and 18 under 35 U.S.C. §102 is reversed, and the Examiner’s rejection of claims 6, 13, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. §103 is reversed. REVERSED pgc