Ex Parte Cole et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 26, 2013

11047937 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 26, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
_____________

Ex parte JAMES R. COLE, WILLIAM J. ALLEN,
ROBERT M. SCHNEIDER, and THOMAS J. GILG
_____________

Appeal 2010-009538
Application 11/047,937
Technology Center 2400
______________

Before DAVID M. KOHUT, BRYAN F. MOORE, and
MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, Administrative Patent Judges.

KOHUT, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-009538
Application 11/047,937

2

This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Final Rejection
of claims 1-11, 16-18, 22, 24-28, 30-31, 33, and 35.
1
We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of these claims.

INVENTION
The invention is directed to a method and system that retrieves a playback
settings file for a video file and plays back the video file in accordance with the
playback settings. Abstract. Claim 1 is representative of the invention and is
reproduced below:
1. A method comprising:
retrieving a playback settings file for a video file, the playback
settings file previously generated based at least on analysis of the
video file without alteration of the video file, the playback settings file
containing information for playback of the video file other than
information for decoding the video file; and,
playing back the video file in accordance with the playback
settings file, wherein retrieving the playback settings file comprises:
determining an identifier of the video file;
determining one or more parameters of a display device on
which the video file is to be displayed;
transmitting the identifier of the video file and the parameters of
the display device on which the video file is to be displayed to a
playback settings file device over the network; and,
receiving over the network from the playback settings file
device the playback settings file for the video file, such that the
playback settings file is particular to the parameters of the display
device on which the video file is to be displayed.

1
Claims 12-15, 19-21, 23, 29, 32, and 34 were previously cancelled.
Appeal 2010-009538
Application 11/047,937

3

REFERENCES
Oh US 2005/0041960 A1 Feb. 24, 2005
(Aug. 19, 2004)

Chung US 2006/0161964 A1 Jul. 20, 2006
(Dec. 30, 2004)

REJECTION AT ISSUE
Claims 1-11, 16-18, 22, 24-28, 30-31, 33, and 35 are rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Chung and Oh.
Ans. 3-10.

ISSUES
Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Chung and Oh teaches or
suggests the parameter-oriented limitations and transmitting at least the parameters
of the display device over a network, as required by claim 1?
Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Chung and Oh teaches or
suggests the video file being played back on a particular type of display device and
the playback settings file having been previously generated based on the particular
type of display device, as required by claim 2?
Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Chung and Oh teaches or
suggests initially processing the video file to generate the playback settings file,
such that the video file remains unaltered, as required by claim 3?
Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Chung and Oh teaches or
suggests the playback settings file provides playback settings for the video file on
at least substantially a frame-by-frame basis, such that the playing back the video
file in accordance with the playback settings file comprises using the playback
Appeal 2010-009538
Application 11/047,937

4

settings for the video file for playing back at least substantially each of a plurality
of frames of the video file, as required by claim 9?
Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Chung and Oh teaches or
suggests the playback settings file providing playback settings for the video file on
at least substantially a group of frames-by-group of frames basis, as required by
claim 11?
Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Chung and Oh teaches or
suggests wherein the playback mechanism is to play back the video file such that
no real-time analysis of the video file occurs during playback for determining
playback settings for the video file, as required by claim 22?
Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Chung and Oh teaches or
suggests the playback settings file providing playback settings for the video file on
at least substantially a frame-by-frame basis, as required by claim 24?

Appeal 2010-009538
Application 11/047,937

5

ANALYSIS
Claims 1, 4-8, 10, 16-18, 25-28, 30-31, 33, and 35
Appellants select claim 1 as representative of the group comprising claims 1,
4-8, 10, 16-18, 25-28, 30-31, 33, and 35. App. Br. 15. Appellants argue that the
combination of Chung and Oh fails to teach “the parameter-oriented aspects” of
claim 1 because the parameters described in Oh include a screen ratio and a
resolution of a digital TV, instead of describing parameters of a display device on
which the video file is to be displayed. App. Br. 15-16. We disagree because we
agree with the Examiner’s finding that Oh’s parameters are received by the DVD
player from the digital TV and are used to optimize the display. Ans. 10-11 (citing
Oh [0010] and [0028]).
Appellants further contend that Oh does not teach the claimed “playback
settings file” because Oh merely describes that the screen ratio and the resolution
are transmitted from the digital TV to the DVD player, without explicitly stating
that the parameters are contained in a file. App. Br. 16. However, the Examiner
finds that Chung teaches “a playback settings file for a video file.” Ans. 3-4.
Thus, the Examiner finds that it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to
combine the playback settings file of Chung and with the parameters of Oh in
order to have a playback settings file contain parameters such as a screen ratio and
a resolution of a display device. Ans. 3-4 (citing Chung [0021] and [0186]).
Appellants do not address the Examiner’s specific finding and admit that “Chung
may suggest a playback settings file in accordance with which a video file is
played back”. App. Br. 16. Thus, we agree with the Examiner’s finding.
Appellants further argue that neither Chung nor Oh teach “transmitting . . .
the parameters of the display device . . . over the network”, as required by claim 1,
because Oh describes transmitting the parameters from a digital TV to a DVD
Appeal 2010-009538
Application 11/047,937

6

player through a DVI interface. App. Br. 17-18 (citing Oh Fig. 3). In doing so,
Appellants introduce an article attempting to show that one of ordinary skill in the
art would not associate the DVI connectivity to be over a network. App. Br. 18.
However, Appellants do not provide a specific definition for the term “network.”
Instead, Appellants’ Specification provides examples of a network on page 7, lines
22-25 which states that “[t]he network 406 may include one or more of a local-area
network (LAN), a wide-area network (WAN), an intranet, an extranet, the Internet,
a wired network, a wireless network, a telephony network, and so on.” Thus, a
broad interpretation of the term “network” consistent with Appellants’
Specification includes one device connected to another device. As such, we agree
with the Examiner’s finding (Ans. 10) that Oh’s DVI interface, which connects a
TV to a DVD and transmits parameters comprises a network.
For the reasons stated supra, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims
1, 4-8, 10, 16-18, 25-28, 30-31, 33, and 35.

Claim 2
Appellants additionally argue that the combination of Chung and Oh fails to
teach generating parameters based on the display device, as required by claim 2.
App. Br. 18-19. We disagree. The Examiner finds that Chung describes analyzing
the video source and generating a parameter for optimizing the display of that
particular video source. Ans. 11 (citing Chung [0021]). The Examiner also finds
that Oh describes that the parameters relate to the particular display device that
plays the video file. Ans. 11. We agree with the Examiner’s findings and sustain
the Examiner’s rejection of claim 2.
.

Appeal 2010-009538
Application 11/047,937

7

Claim 3
Appellants further argue that the combination of Chung and Oh fails to teach
processing an unaltered video file, as required by claim 3. App. Br. 19. The
Examiner finds that Chung describes initial processing of a video file to generate
and store optimal image characteristics for different types of images. Ans. 11-12
(citing Chung [0186]). The Examiner further finds that the optimal image
characteristics are stored and used for various images to be played back and only
the output signal is altered in accordance with the playback settings gathered, as
opposed to the underlying image file. Ans. 11-12. We agree with the Examiner’s
finding and sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 3.

Claim 9
Appellants argue that the combination of Chung and Oh fails to teach
playback settings for a video file on at least substantially a frame-by-frame basis,
as required by claim 9. App. Br. 19-20. We disagree. The Examiner finds that
Chung describes the playback settings file providing playback settings to optimize
a long sequence of blue ocean scenery where the analysis and optimization is
applied to a video signal on a frame-by-frame basis. Ans. 12-13 (citing Chung
[0186]). We agree with the Examiner and sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
claim 9.

Claim 11
Appellants argue that the combination of Chung and Oh fails to teach the
playback settings for a video file on at least substantially a group of frames-by-
group of frames basis, as required by claim 11. App. Br. 20. We disagree. The
Appeal 2010-009538
Application 11/047,937

8

Examiner finds that Chung describes providing playback settings for groups of
images of the same type and further where the system of Chung can learn and
apply the optimization process for the different types of images. Ans. 13 (citing
Chung [0185]-[0186]). We agree with the Examiner and sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 11.

Claim 22
Appellants argue that although the analysis is being performed off-line, the
analysis does not include “determining playback settings for the video file”, as
required by claim 22. App. Br. 21. We disagree. The Examiner finds that Chung
describes analyzing the video file off-line, i.e. no real-time analysis, and further
that this process determines the optimal settings in which to playback the video
file. Ans. 13-14 (citing Chung [0186]). We are not persuaded by Appellants’
arguments and agree with the Examiner’s finding. Thus, we sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 22.

Claim 24
Appellants repeat the same arguments with respect to claim 24 as with claim
9. App. Br. 21. As such, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 24 for the
reasons indicated supra with respect to claim 9.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in finding the combination of Chung and Oh
teaches or suggests the parameter-oriented limitations and transmitting at least the
parameters of the display device over a network, as required by claim 1.
Appeal 2010-009538
Application 11/047,937

9

The Examiner did not err in finding the combination of Chung and Oh
teaches or suggests the video file being played back on a particular type of display
device, and the playback settings file having been previously generated further
based on the particular type of display device, as required by claim 2.
The Examiner did not err in finding the combination of Chung and Oh
teaches or suggests initially processing the video file to generate the playback
settings file, such that the video file remains unaltered, as required by claim 3.
The Examiner did not err in finding the combination of Chung and Oh
teaches or suggests the playback settings file provides playback settings for the
video file on at least substantially a frame-by-frame basis, such that the playing
back the video file in accordance with the playback settings file comprises using
the playback settings for the video file for playing back at least substantially each
of a plurality of frames of the video file, as required by claim 9.
The Examiner did not err in finding the combination of Chung and Oh
teaches or suggests the playback settings file providing playback settings for the
video file on at least substantially a group of frames-by-group of frames basis, as
required by claim 11.
The Examiner did not err in finding the combination of Chung and Oh
teaches or suggests wherein the playback mechanism is to play back the video file
such that no real-time analysis of the video file occurs during playback for
determining playback settings for the video file, as required by claim 22.
The Examiner did not err in finding the combination of Chung and Oh
teaches or suggests the playback settings file providing playback settings for the
video file on at least substantially a frame-by-frame basis, as required by claim 24.

Appeal 2010-009538
Application 11/047,937

10

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-11, 16-18, 22, 24-28, 30, 31, 33,
and 35 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

ELD