Ex Parte Butterworth

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 27, 2013

11796076 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 27, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte MARK BUTTERWORTH
____________________

Appeal 2012-008603
Application 11/796,076
Technology Center 2400
____________________

Before THU A. DANG, JAMES R. HUGHES,
and GREGORY J. GONSALVES, Administrative Patent Judges.

DANG, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2012-008603
Application 11/796,076

2
I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1-18. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

A. INVENTION
Appellant’s invention is directed to a multiple format video system
that performs color correction on a video signal based upon a video format
identifier, the identity of an input connector, or metadata tag information
included within the video signal (Abstract).

B. ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
Claim 1 is exemplary:
1. A method to process content in a video display system,
comprising:

receiving a first video signal in the video display system;

selecting a color correction routine for the first video
signal based on at least one of:

a video format identifier;

an input connector; and

a metadata tag associated with a data file
containing the first video signal;

applying the color correction routine to the first video
signal; and

presenting the first video signal on a display.
Appeal 2012-008603
Application 11/796,076

3
C. REJECTION
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Choi US 2004/0218094 Al Nov. 04, 2004
Lacy US 2006/0164561 Al Jul. 27, 2006
Jong US 2007/0153132 Al Jul. 05, 2007

Claims 1-3 and 7-9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Choi.
Claims 4-6 and 10-18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Choi in view of Lacy and Jong.

II. ISSUES
The dispositive issues before us are whether the Examiner has erred in
determining that:
1. Choi teaches “selecting a color correction routine for the first
video signal based on at least one of: a video format identifier; an input
connector; and a metadata tag associated with a data file containing the first
video signal” (claim 1, emphasis added); and
2. the combination of Choi, Lacy and Jong teaches or would have
suggested “obtaining an identity of a connector on which the video signal
was received and obtaining meta data associated with the video signal if the
first video signal lacks an identifier that identifies a format of the first video
signal” (claim 4, emphasis added).

Appeal 2012-008603
Application 11/796,076

4
III. FINDINGS OF FACT
The following Findings of Fact (FF) are shown by a preponderance of
the evidence.
Choi
1. Choi discloses a format converting apparatus including a video
signal input unit 601 for storing inputted video signals of a variety of
standards into a memory 608 and outputting these signals into a video signal
format detecting unit 602 which detects the format of an input video (Fig. 6;
¶ [0062]).
2. A format converting unit 604 reads the input video signal,
including the input video format detected from the controlling unit 607, and
performs chroma format conversion and color space conversion according to
the input and output video format information (¶¶ [0062] and [0078]).
3. A display characteristic correcting unit 606 reads the video
stored in the memory 608 according to the input and output video format
information; performs gamma correction and geometric correction; and
outputs the corrected video to the display (id.).
4. The method for processing the video signal requires a step of
extracting video format information from the input synchronized signal (Fig.
7, steps 706 and 710).
Lacy
5. Lacy discloses a variety of connectors, including COMP
VIDEO, CMPNT VIDEO, S-VIDEO, and VGA connectors (Fig. 2).
Appeal 2012-008603
Application 11/796,076

5

IV. ANALYSIS
Claim 1-3 and 7-9
Appellant contends that Choi is “silent regarding selecting a color
correction routine” (App. Br. 12) and “metadata” (App. Br. 14). Appellant
argues that “Choi teaches that selection of a processing option of the video is
based on the output video format;” “[i]n contrast, the selection of the color
correction routine in claim 1 is based on the parameters of a video input
signal” (App. Br. 12).
However, the Examiner finds that “the claimed selecting a color
correction routine … is met where the video signal format detecting unit,
identifies the format of the signal from the user or from the decoding unit
603” (Ans. 5). The Examiner finds further that, since “Choi can receive
various types of inputs and perform color conversion (including format
and/or color space conversion,” Choi must “know the format of the input”
(Ans. 28). The Examiner notes that “the claim s[t]ates ‘at least one of’
however the [A]ppellant appears to be arguing that a video format identifier,
input connector and metadata tag are all required in selecting the color
correction” (Ans. 30). The Examiner finds further that Choi discloses
“data/metadata is included in an encoded/transmitted signal” (Ans. 28)
because Choi “discloses the transmitted signal included encoded information
pertaining to the color information of the signal” (Ans. 29).
We give the claim its broadest reasonable interpretation consistent
with the Specification. See In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir.
1997). Claim 1 does not define what a “color correction routine” means,
includes, or represents other than the routine is to be selected. Further, what
Appeal 2012-008603
Application 11/796,076

6
type of routine is being selected does not change the functionality of or
provide an additional function to the “selecting” step of claim 1, i.e., does
not limit how the “routine” is “select[ed]” (claim 1). Rather, the term is
merely a description of the data type that is being selected. When
descriptive material is not functionally related to the claimed medium, the
descriptive material will not distinguish the invention from the prior art in
terms of patentability. See In re Ngai, 367 F.3d 1336, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2004)
and In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385 (Fed. Circ. 1983). We, therefore,
broadly interpret “color correction routine” as merely a type of data that is
being selected.
Similarly, claim 1 does not define “video format identifier,” or “input
connector,” other than the “color correction routine” is selected based
thereon. These terms are merely descriptions of the respective data that the
selection is based on. We, therefore, broadly interpret these terms as merely
labels describing data based upon which the routine is selected. Thus, we
conclude that claim 1 merely requires selecting data based upon data.
Choi discloses a format converting apparatus having a video signal
format detecting unit, which detects the format of an input video, and a
format converting unit that reads the input video along with the detected
input video format and performs chroma format conversion and color space
conversion according to input and output video format information (FF 1
and 2). The format converting apparatus also includes a display
characteristic correcting unit that performs gamma correction and geometric
correction according to the input and output video format information (FF
3). The method for processing the video signal requires a step of extracting
video format information from the input synchronized signal (FF 4). We
Appeal 2012-008603
Application 11/796,076

7
find that the format converting apparatus includes a method that comprises
selecting data based upon certain data, such as at least one of data relating to
the video format, input connector, or metadata, as required by claim 1.
Accordingly, we find no error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) over Choi. Further, independent claim 7 having
similar claim language and claims 2, 3, 8, and 9 (depending from claims 1
and 7), which have not been argued separately, fall with claim 1.
Claims 4-6 and 10-18
Appellant contends that “the cited references are silent regarding
obtaining an identity of a connector” (App. Br. 25). Appellant argues that
“Choi, Lacy, and Jong do not mention metadata” (App. Br. 27). “Appellant
asserts that the cited references fail to teach a conditional statement wherein
if a first video signal lacks an identifier, then obtaining an identity of a
connector on which the video signal was received and meta data associated
with the video signal” (id.).
However, the Examiner finds that “Choi does not recite when the
video signal lacks an identifier to obtain the identity of the signal from the
connector[;] however[,] the incorporated Lacy and Jong disclose these
conventional features” (Ans. 33). The Examiner notes that “the feature[] of
identifying a connector (whether connected or not, or even what type of
signal is connected to a connector) is conventional in the art” (Ans. 7).
“Regarding the metadata tag, the [E]xaminer notes Choi … discloses when
the input is a particular format and the output another format, conversion is
required” (Ans. 31).
Claim 4 does not define “identity of a connector” or “meta data [sic]
associated with the video signal” other than they are to be obtained. These
Appeal 2012-008603
Application 11/796,076

8
terms do not change the functionality of or provide an additional function to
the “obtaining” step of claim 4. We, therefore, broadly interpret these terms
as merely describing the type of data that is being obtained. Similarly, since
claim 4 does not define “identifier” other than it is a type of data that may be
lacking from the first video signal, we broadly interpret “an identifier” as
merely a data type that may or may not be included in a video signal.
Thus, we conclude that claim 4 merely requires obtaining data and
obtaining data relating to the data (metadata) if certain data is lacking from
the signal.
As noted supra, Choi discloses a video signal format detecting unit
which detects the format of an input video and a method that requires
extracting video format information from various information within the
input synchronized signal (FF 1 and 4). We find that Choi discloses
obtaining data, including data relating to the video format and other data
even if certain data is lacking from the signal, since the method requires
extracting the video format from various information (data) within the video
signal.
In addition, Lacy discloses a variety of connectors, including COMP
VIDEO, CMPNT VIDEO, S-VIDEO, and VGA connectors (FF 5). We find
that Lacy discloses obtaining data, including data relating the identification
of the input connector.
Accordingly, we find no error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 4
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Choi in view of Lacy and Jong. Further,
independent claim 13 having similar claim language and claims 5, 6, 10-12,
and 14-18 (depending from claims 1, 7, and 13), which have not been argued
separately, fall with claim 4.
Appeal 2012-008603
Application 11/796,076

9

V. CONCLUSION AND DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-3 and 7-9 under 35 U.S.C. §
102(b) and claims 4-6 and 10-18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

peb