Ex Parte CHOO

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 14, 2003

09167994 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 14, 2003)

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not binding precedent of the Board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. 15
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_______________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_______________
Ex parte CHANG Y. CHOO
______________
Appeal No. 2001-1929
Application 09/167,994
_______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before THOMAS, RUGGIERO, and GROSS Administrative Patent Judges.
THOMAS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant has appealed to the Board from the examiner’s
final rejection of claims 1-5, 8, 9, 13, 17 and 19-24.
Representative claim 1 is reproduced below:
1. A process for real-time decoding and displaying a
moving image, comprising:
Appeal No. 2001-1929
Application 09/167,994
2
decoding a first frame from a signal representing the moving
image;
decoding a second frame from the signal representing the
moving image, wherein the second frame immediately follows the
first frame in a first series of frames encoded in the signal
representing the moving image;
generating an interpolated frame that is not encoded in the
signal representing the moving image, wherein generating the
interpolated frame comprises:
determining a set of motion vectors that corresponds to
a set of base areas in the second frame, each motion vector
identifying an area that is in the first frame and is
similar to the base area corresponding to the motion vector,
determining interpolated motion vectors from the motion
vectors; and
for each interpolated motion vector, generating a block
of pixel values representing an area of the interpolated
frame having a position that the interpolated motion vector
identifies; and
displaying a second series of frames that includes the
first frame followed by the interpolated frame followed by the
second frame, whereby displaying the second series of frames
provides a higher frame rate than does the signal representing
the image.
The following reference is relied on by the examiner:
Boyce et al. (Boyce) 6,025,878 Feb. 15, 2000
(effective filing date Nov. 14, 1994)
Claims 1-5, 8, 9, 13, 17 and 19-24 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Boyce. It is noted
that the examiner’s apparent reliance upon the final rejection
Appeal No. 2001-1929
Application 09/167,994
3
as well as the Advisory Action at pages 4 and 5 of the answer
to jointly explain the examiner’s reasoning for the art rejection
of the claims on appeal is highly disfavored since it makes
reference to more than one prior Office action. Note MPEP
§ 1208.
Rather than repeat the positions of the appellant and the
examiner, reference is made to the brief and reply brief as well
as the answer for the details thereof.
OPINION
We reverse.
As the title of Boyce reveals, his invention relates to
decoding both high and standard definition video signals
utilizing the same video decoder. As noted at the bottom of page
3 of the principal brief on appeal and throughout this brief,
Boyce discloses reducing the cost and complexity of such a
decoder by reducing the amount of data processed for a high
definition video signal, thus lowering the image quality of this
type of video signal to correlate substantially to that of a
standard video signal. This is consistent with the end of the
abstract and is mentioned several times in the summary of the
invention
Appeal No. 2001-1929
Application 09/167,994
4
at column 3. The remaining portions of Boyce’s specification
detail the particular methodologies to achieve this data
reduction.
On the other hand, appellant’s disclosed and claimed
invention relates to a decoder which in essence aims to expand
upon the data presented to it for decoding rather than to reduce
it, thus effectively increasing the frame rate.
We also find ourselves in agreement with appellant’s basic
position set forth at the bottom of page 3 of the brief as it
relates to each independent claims 1, 13 and 19 on appeal that
Boyce does not disclose the generation of an interpolated image
that is not encoded in a signal representing a moving image,
which feature is specifically recited in each of these
independent claims and argued in the principal brief on appeal
at pages 5 and 6 as well.
The operation of the MCP (Motion Compensated Prediction)
circuit 130 in Figures 1, 2A and 2B is discussed in detail
beginning at the bottom of column 11 through the end of column 14
as relied upon by the examiner in the answer. In any of these
figures frame memory 118 stores the received, down-sampled
decompressed frames before their respective submission to the MCP
Appeal No. 2001-1929
Application 09/167,994
5
130. The data there is selectively upsampled, interpolated and
compensated, then downsampled before resubmission to the summer
128.
As explained between columns 11-14 of Boyce, it appears to
us that the interpolation operation does not generate an
additional or interpolated frame from a first and second frame.
Indeed, the generation of a single anchor frame from two anchor
frames that are averaged together as discussed at column 14
yields only the generation of single picture output by the MCP
circuit rather than the ultimate ability to display the first
frame, the interpolated frame and lastly the second frame as
required by each of the independent claims 1, 13 and 19 on
appeal. As indicated earlier, the discussion between columns 11
and 14 of Boyce clearly is directed at reducing the amount of
data from a high definition TV signal to permit the decoding of
HD-TV pictures at approximately the resolution of a standard
definition television picture. The examiner's overfocused view
upon drift in these noted columns in the answer loses sight of
the basic requirements of each of the independent claims on
appeal as urged by the appellant. The examiner’s extensive
rationale from the final rejection through the answer does not
make up for the technical deficiencies present in Boyce itself.
Appeal No. 2001-1929
Application 09/167,994
6
In view of the foregoing, the decision of the examiner
rejecting independent claims 1, 13 and 19 on appeal is reversed.
As such, the rejection of their respective dependent claims is
also reversed. Accordingly, the decision of the examiner is
reversed.
REVERSED
James D. Thomas )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
Joseph F. Ruggiero ) BOARD OF PATENT
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
Anita Pellman Gross )
Administrative Patent Judge )

JDT/cam
Appeal No. 2001-1929
Application 09/167,994
7
David T. Millers
Skjerven, Morrill, MacPherson,
Franklin & Friel
25 Metro Drive, Suite 700
San Jose, CA 95110-1349