Ex Parte Chujoh et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 28, 2016

14028687 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 28, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
14/028,687 09/17/2013 Takeshi CHUJOH
22850 7590 09/30/2016
OBLON, MCCLELLAND, MAIER & NEUSTADT, LLP,
1940 DUKE STREET
ALEXANDRIA, VA 22314
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
422260US20RD 4645
EXAMINER
NATNAEL,PAULOS M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2422
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/30/2016 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):
patentdocket@oblon.com
oblonpat@oblon.com
ahudgens@oblon.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte TAKESHI CHUJOH and TOMOY A KODAMA
Appeal2015-003713
Application 14/028,687
Technology Center 2400
Before JON M. JURGOVAN, NABEEL U. KHAN, and
AMBER L. HAGY, Administrative Patent Judges.
JURGOVAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 seek review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner's Final rejection of claims 1--4, 7, 8, 19-22, and 25-28. 2 We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.3
1 Appellants identify Kabushiki Kaisha Toshiba as the real party in interest.
(App. Br. 1.)
2 Claims 17, 18, 23, 24, 29, and 30 are objected to but noted as allowable.
(Final Act. 1.)
3 Our Decision refers to the Specification filed Sept. 17, 2013 ("Spec."), the
Final Office Action mailed June 4, 2014 ("Final Act."), the Appeal Brief
filed Nov. 4, 2014 ("App. Br."), the Examiner's Answer mailed Dec. 10,
2014 ("Ans."), and the Reply Brief filed Feb.10, 2015 ("Reply Br.").
Appeal2015-003713
Application 14/028,687
CLAIMED INVENTION
The claims are directed to devices and methods for decoding data to
generate an image. (Spec. 1.) A converting unit converts a color-difference
format of a decoded image by using a filter identified by the filter
information. (Id.) Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed
subject matter:
1. A decoding device comprising:
a receiver to acquire transmission information including
first format information, encoded data, and filter information, the
first format information indicating a resolution of a color-
difference component of the encoded data, and the filter
information indicating a configuration of a filter;
a decoder to decode the encoded data to obtain a decoded
image; and
a converter to convert a color-difference format of the
decoded image represented by a first color-difference format by
using the filter which has been configured by the filter
information which has been acquired by the receiver.
(App. Br., Claims App'x. i)
REJECTIONS
Claims 3, 21, and 27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) for
indefiniteness. (Final Act. 2.)
Claims 19-24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(±) as non-
compliant means plus function limitations. (Final Act. 4.)
Claims 1--4, 7, 8, 19, 20, 22, and 25-28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112(b) based on Tahara (US 5,412,428, iss. May 2, 1995.) (Final Act. 5-
8.)
2
Appeal2015-003713
Application 14/028,687
ANALYSIS
§112(b)
Appellants state the Examiner agreed in an interview to withdraw the
§ 112(b) rejection against claims 3, 21, and 27. (App. Br. 3--4.) However,
we find no evidence in the record that the § 112(b) rejection was withdrawn
by the Examiner. The Answer indicates, unless specifically indicated as
withdrawn, the Examiner maintains the rejections noted in the Final Office
Action. (Ans. 2.)
Appellants present no substantive argument against the rejection
under§ 112(b ). Under these circumstances, we summarily sustain the
rejection. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) and M.P.E.P. § 1205.02 (If a
ground of rejection stated by the examiner is not addressed in the appellant's
brief, appellant has waived any challenge to that ground of rejection and the
Board may summarily sustain it, unless the examiner subsequently withdrew
the rejection in the examiner's answer.)
§ 112(!)
Claims 19-24
The Examiner indicates claim 19 includes means-plus-function
limitations and will be examined as such under§ 112(±). (Final Act. 4.)
Appellants state that interpreting claim 19 under§ 112(±) should not result in
a rejection under§ 112(±). We agree with Appellants and do not sustain the
rejection.
§ 102(b)
Claims 1, 19, 25
Claim 1 recites "a receiver to acquire ... filter information" to
perform a conversion "using the filter which has been configured by the
filter information which has been acquired." (App. Br., Claims App'x (i).)
3
Appeal2015-003713
Application 14/028,687
The Examiner cites to Tahara for this feature, where it is disclosed that a low
pass filter restricts color difference samples at 4:4:4 to produce 4:2:2
samples. (Final Act. 5; see also Ans. 8-9 (citing Tahara 6:65-7:7, Figs. 8,
9 A-9C).) Appellants argue Tahara does not disclose the claimed filter
configured with acquired filter information. (Id.) (App. Br. 4---6; see also
Reply Br. 2-3.)
Claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent
with the Specification. In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359,
1369 (Fed. Cir. 2004). At the same time, limitations from the Specification
are not read into the claims. In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, (Fed. Cir.
1993).
The Specification states that "filter information" is information to
specify a filter or is a filter coefficient. (Spec. 12.) A person of ordinary
skill in the art would understand that a "digital filter" includes filter
coefficients that must have been acquired from somewhere. (See, e.g.,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_filter last viewed 9/23/2006 regarding
filter coefficients stored in memory accessible to a microprocessor to
implement a digital filter.) The Specification states that "filter information"
is included in "transmission information." (See, e.g., Spec. 49, Fig. 28.)
Although the examples of "transmission information" given in the
Specification relate to the output of an encoder, the claims are not so limited
and we decline to read limitations from the Specification into the claims.
Thus, we agree with the Examiner, under broadest reasonable interpretation,
the transmission information may include filter coefficients read from a
4
Appeal2015-003713
Application 14/028,687
memory and transmitted to a microprocessor implementing a digital filter.
Thus, we are not persuaded of Examiner error. 4
Remaining Claims
No separate arguments are presented for the dependent claims and,
therefore, we sustain their rejection for the reasons previously stated. See 37
C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv); see also In re King, 801F.2d1324, 1325 (Fed. Cir.
1986); In re Sernaker, 702 F.2d 989, 991 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
DECISION
We affirm the rejections of claims 3, 21, and 27 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112(b) and claims 1--4, 7, 8, 19, 20, 22, and 25-28 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b ). We reverse the rejection of claims 19-24 under 35 U.S.C.
§ l 12(f).
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § l .136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
4 In the Answer, the Examiner cited several references as teaching the
transmission of filter information from encoder to decoder, in order to
demonstrate this feature was known in the art before the filing date of
claimed invention. (Ans. 9-10 citing US 2009/0274216 Al, pub. Sept. 22,
2011, i-f 334; US 2012/0051438 Al, pub. J\lfay 15, 2012, Abstract; US
2011/0228843 Al, pub. Sept. 22, 2011, i-f 82; US 2012/0207216, pub. Aug.
16, 2012, ,-r 97.)
5