Ex Parte Brasnett

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 15, 2017

14702072 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 15, 2017)

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.
14/702,072 05/01/2015 Paul Brasnett 070852.000175 1320
125968 7590 12/19/2017
Vorys, Sater, Seymour and Pease LLP
(ImgTec)
1909 K St., N.W.
Ninth Floor
Washington, DC 20006
EXAMINER
YENKE, BRIAN P
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2422
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/19/2017 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):
patlaw @ vorys. com
vmdeluc a @ vorys. com
rntisdale@vorys.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte PAUL BRASNETT
(Applicant: Imagination Technologies Limited)
Appeal 2017-002507
Application 14/702,0721
Technology Center 2400
Before JEFFREY S. SMITH, ADAM J. PYONIN, and
JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, Administrative Patent Judges.
LENTIVECH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1—8, 10—19, and 21—23. Claims 9 and
20 have been objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but
would be allowable if re-written in independent form including all of the
limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. See Final Act. 17.
We have jurisdiction over the pending claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is the Applicant,
Imagination Technologies Limited. App. Br. 1.
Appeal 2017-002507
Application 14/702,072
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant’s Invention
Appellant’s invention generally relates to using motion information
(e.g., motion vectors) to perform cadence analysis to identify the cadence of
an interlaced video signal and/or to determine field pairings when the video
signal includes progressive content. See Abstract. Claims 1 and 18, which
are illustrative, read as follows:
1. A method of processing a video signal in a video
processing unit, the video signal having an interlaced format and
comprising a sequence of fields, the method comprising:
obtaining motion indicators for blocks of a predetermined
number of fields of the video signal; and
using the obtained motion indicators to determine cadence
signatures for the blocks of said predetermined number of fields,
wherein the cadence signatures are indicative of one or more
cadences of the video signal;
creating a histogram of determined cadence signatures of
said blocks; and
determining the position of one or more peaks in the
histogram to thereby determine one or more significant cadence
signatures in the video signal;
whereby the fields of the video signal are processed in
accordance with the determined one or more significant cadence
signatures to thereby determine frames of the video signal.
18. A method of processing a video signal in a video
processing unit, the video signal having an interlaced format and
comprising a sequence of fields, the method comprising:
obtaining motion indicators for blocks of a predetermined
number of fields of the video signal;
2
Appeal 2017-002507
Application 14/702,072
using the obtained motion indicators to determine cadence
signatures which are indicative of one or more cadences of the
video signal; and
using the determined cadence signatures to identify one or
more cadences of the video signal by: (i) identifying one or more
prevalent cadence signatures from the determined cadence
signatures, and (ii) mapping each of the one or more prevalent
cadence signatures to a known cadence from a set of known
cadences which have known cadence signatures by determining
which of the known cadence signatures of the known cadences
has a smallest distance to the prevalent cadence signature;
wherein the fields of the video signal are to be processed
in accordance with the identified one or more cadences to thereby
determine frames of the video signal.
Rejections
Claims 1—8, 10-19, and 21—23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Garg et al. (US 2010/0253838 Al;
published October 7, 2010; hereinafter “Garg”). Final Act. 8—17.
Dispositive Issues on Appeal2
Did the Examiner err by finding that Garg teaches or suggests
“creating a histogram of determined cadence signatures of said blocks,” as
recited in claim 1?
Did the Examiner err by finding that Garg teaches or suggests
using the determined cadence signatures to identify one or
more cadences of the video signal by: (i) identifying one or more
prevalent cadence signatures from the determined cadence
signatures, and (ii) mapping each of the one or more prevalent
2 We do not reach Appellant’s further allegations of error because we find
the issues discussed herein to be dispositive as to the rejection of all claims.
3
Appeal 2017-002507
Application 14/702,072
cadence signatures to a known cadence from a set of known
cadences which have known cadence signatures by determining
which of the known cadence signatures of the known cadences
has a smallest distance to the prevalent cadence signature,
as recited in claim 18?
ANALYSIS
Claim 1
Appellant contends Garg fails to teach or suggest “creating a
histogram of determined cadence signatures of said blocks,” as recited in
claim 1. App. Br. 8—11; Reply Br. 1^4. Appellant argues Garg does not
teach creating a histogram of cadence signatures, as required by claim 1, but,
instead, teaches generating a histogram of motion values from motion
vectors between pixel slices from consecutive progress frames of video
content. App. Br. 9 (citing Garg, Figs. 2B, 2D; || 30, 33). Appellant further
argues “as evidenced both by the disclosure of Garg and the present
specification, there is a difference between a ‘motion indicator’ and a
‘cadence signature’ as would be understood and recognized by those having
skill in the art.” Id.
Regarding the disputed limitation, the Examiner finds
[A]s disclosed by Fig 2d [of Garg,] a histogram of the motion
map is generated. The examiner notes the histogram illustrates
the motion between frames, which may also be field frames,
including the blocks as claimed. When determining motion
between frames (progressive or interlace) the use of motion
vectors may be used, where a group of pixels can be separated
into blocks (i.e. 16x16, 4x4 etc .. [sic] as known in the art).
Final Act. 12; see also Ans. 21 (citing Garg, Figs. 2B, 2D; || 32, 33, 35).
The Examiner finds Garg teaches the generated histogram represents motion
4
Appeal 2017-002507
Application 14/702,072
information (e.g., motion vectors) and is generated to detect the different
types of content. Ans. 21. The Examiner finds Garg teaches or suggests
creating the claimed “histogram of determined cadence signatures” because
“a cadence signature is representative/fimction of motion” and “the content,
film or video (cadence signature) of the input stream can be determined
based upon the motion to determine the cadence.” Ans. 21 (citing Garg
135). We disagree.
Garg teaches analyzing a progressive video stream to generate motion
values that represent motion between or across progressive frames. Garg
123. Garg teaches detecting motion by comparing a first frame (e.g., frame
Ai) with its neighboring right frame (e.g., frame A2). Garg 126. Garg
teaches when no motion is detected between/across the frames, the frames
are determined to be the same, and a motion value of “0” is generated for the
first frame and that a motion value of “1” indicates that the frames are
different. Garg 123; Table 1. Garg teaches a cadence pattern is determined
based on the motion values. Garg 123. Garg explains for a 3:2 pattern the
motion values are a repeated pattern of “00101.” Garg 128. Garg teaches
the motion values are determined by creating histograms representing
magnitudes of motion vectors for groups of pixels of the compared frames
and using the histograms to determine an amount of motion across each
group of pixels. Garg 132. Thus, Garg teaches or suggests using motion
indicators to determine cadence signatures indicative of one or more
cadences of the video signal. However, we agree with Appellant that Garg
fails to teach or suggest creating a histogram of determined cadence
signatures (e.g., Garg’s cadence patterns), as required by claim 1. Instead,
Garg teaches creating a histogram representing magnitudes of motion
5
Appeal 2017-002507
Application 14/702,072
vectors to determine amounts of motion across a group of pixels of the
compared frames. Garg || 32—33. While Garg teaches using the generated
histogram to determine a motion value which is subsequently used to
determine the cadence pattern and to detect different types of content within
a frame which can be indicative of a cadence of the video signal (Garg
Tflf32—34; Figs. 2A—D), Garg fails to teach or suggest creating a histogram
of the determined cadence signatures (e.g., Garg’s cadence patterns), as
expressly required by claim 1.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1;
independent claims 6, 22, and 23, which recite similar limitations; and
claims 2—5 and 7—17, which depend from claims 1 and 6.
Claim 18
Appellant contends Garg fails to teach or suggest
using the determined cadence signatures to identify one or
more cadences of the video signal by: (i) identifying one or more
prevalent cadence signatures from the determined cadence
signatures, and (ii) mapping each of the one or more prevalent
cadence signatures to a known cadence from a set of known
cadences which have known cadence signatures by determining
which of the known cadence signatures of the known cadences
has a smallest distance to the prevalent cadence signature,
as recited in claim 18. App. Br. 14. Appellant contends the Examiner finds
limitations missing from the teachings of Garg are well known “without
proposing any particular modification of Garg.” Id.
In rejecting claim 18, the Examiner relies on the findings made in the
rejection of claims 1, 12, and 13. Final Act. 17; Ans. 11. In rejecting claim
13, the Examiner relies on the findings made in the rejection of claim 12.
6
Appeal 2017-002507
Application 14/702,072
Final Act. 16; Ans. 10. In rejecting claim 12, the Examiner relies on the
findings made in the rejection of claim 11 and additionally finds
“[rjegarding the smallest distance the examiner notes it is well known to
compare/measuring a distance by features of a video signal by using the
smallest distance (includes Hamming as disclosed).” Final Act. 15—16
(additionally referring to 1 63 of Yoon et al. (US 2010/0182401 Al;
published July 22, 2010; hereinafter “Yoon”); see also Ans. 9-10, 25. In
rejecting claim 11, the Examiner finds “it is well known to determine a
cadence by matching a detected pattern to a known pattem[] (or greatest
similarity as claimed, where the closest match has the greatest similarity).
Final Act. 15 (additionally referring to Fig. 21 of Wredenhagen et al. (US
7,129,990 B2; issued Oct. 31, 2006; hereinafter “Wredenhagen”); see also
Ans. 9, 24—25. We note the Examiner appears to refer to the additional
references solely to support the claim rejection in view of Garg.
On the record before us, we find the Examiner’s findings are
insufficient for sustaining the rejection of claim 18. While there is no
requirement that the cited art itself necessarily must provide a teaching or
suggestion for the combination, “a patent composed of several elements is
not proved obvious merely by demonstrating that each of its elements was,
independently, known in the prior art.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550
U.S. 398, 418 (2007). In other words, the mere fact that elements can be
combined is not, in itself, a reason to combine them. Rather, an obviousness
rejection must adequately explain the reasoning by which those findings
support the Examiner’s conclusion of obviousness. Perfect Web Techs., Inc.
v. InfoUSA, Inc., 587 F.3d 1324, 1328-30 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Here, the
Examiner has not provided any explanation as to how the teachings of Garg
7
Appeal 2017-002507
Application 14/702,072
should be combined with what is well-known in the art to perform the
recited limitations, or why such a combination would have been obvious to
an ordinarily skilled artisan. See Final Act. 9—13, 15—17; Ans. 3—7, 24—25.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 18; independent
claim 21, which includes a substantially similar limitation and was rejected
on substantially the same basis (see Final Act. 17 (“In considering claim 21,
Refer to claim 18”)); and claim 19, which depends from claim 18.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—8, 10—19, and 21—23.
REVERSED
8