Ex Parte Dane et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 19, 2016

12417527 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 19, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/417,527 0410212009
23696 7590 02/23/2016
QUALCOMM INCORPORATED
5775 MOREHOUSE DR.
SAN DIEGO, CA 92121
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Gokce Dane
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.
082205 6656
EXAMINER
BAILEY, FREDERICK D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2483
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/23/2016 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):
us-docketing@qualcomm.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte GOKCE DANE and CHIA-YUAN TENG
Appeal2014-003080
Application 12/417,527
Technology Center 2400
Before DAVID M. KOHUT, CATHERINE SHIANG, and TERRENCE W.
McMILLIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
rejection of claims 1--43. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b). We affirm.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The present invention relates to digital video encoding and decoding.
See generally Spec. 1. Claim 1 is exemplary:
1. A method comprising:
determining whether individual video frames in a sequence of
video frames are progressive frames or interlaced frames based on a
Appeal2014-003080
Application 12/417,527
number of groups of adjacent pixels in a column satisfying a criterion
in a video frame of the individual video frames;
identifying a pattern of the progressive frames and the
interlaced frames in the sequence of video frames;
identifying a telecine technique based on the pattern; and
performing an inverse telecine technique with respect to the
sequence of video frames based on the identified telecine technique,
wherein the inverse telecine technique converts N video frames per
second to M video frames per second, wherein M and N are positive
integers and M is less than N.
Baylon
DeGarrido
Braune
Bronstein
Hui
References and Rejections
US 2006/0139491 Al
US 2006/0171457 Al
US 2008/0316310 Al
US 2009/0161766 Al
US 7,623,576 Bl
Jun.29,2006
Aug.3,2006
Dec. 25, 2008
Jun.25,2009
Nov. 24, 2009
Claims 1, 4--11, 14--24, 27-34, and 37--43 are rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Bronstein, Hui, Baylon, and
Braune.
Claims 2, 3, 12, 13, 25, 26, 35, and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as being unpatentable over Bronstein, Hui, Baylon, Braune, and
DeGarrido.
ANALYSIS
The Obviousness Rejections
2
Appeal2014-003080
Application 12/417,527
On this record, we find the Examiner did not err in rejecting claim 1.
We disagree with Appellants' arguments (App. Br. 6-14; Reply Br.
5-14 ), and agree with and adopt the Examiner's findings and conclusions on
pages 2-5 of the Answer as our own. Therefore, we limit our discussion to
the following points for emphasis.
Appellants contend Braune and Hui do not collectively teach
"determining whether individual video frames in a sequence of video frames
are progressive frames or interlaced frames based on a number of groups of
adjacent pixels in a column satisfying a criterion in a video frame of the
individual video frames," as recited in claim 1. See App. Br. 6-12; Reply
Br. 6-11. In particular, Appellants cite Specification examples and argue
Braune does not teach the limitation "based on a number of groups of
adjacent pixels in a column satisfying a criterion in a video frame of the
individual video frames," because "Braune does not describe counting a
number of identified groups in a column." App. Br. 9; see also App. Br. 8-
11; Reply Br. 8-11. Appellants also contend "the motivation to combine
Braune with one or more of the cited references is not adequately supported
by the current record." App. Br. 11; see also App. Br. 11-12; Reply Br. 11-
13.
Appellants fail to show reversible error.
First, it is well established that during examination, claims are given
their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, but
without importing limitations from the specification. See In re Am. A cad. of
Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (citations omitted);
SuperGuide Corp. v. DirecTV Enters., Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875 (Fed. Cir.
2004 ). Appellants do not contend the inventors have assigned special
3
Appeal2014-003080
Application 12/417,527
meanings to the disputed claim terms. Therefore, we decline to import
Specification examples into the disputed claim terms. As a result, claim 1
does not require counting a number of identified groups in a column, as
argued by Appellants.
The Examiner finds-and Appellants do not dispute-Hui teaches
"determining whether individual video frames in a sequence of video frames
are progressive frames or interlaced frames based on[]" See Final Rej. 3;
Ans. 2. Therefore, Hui also teaches "in a video frame of the individual
video frames."
Further, Braune states:
Braune i-f 48.
The evaluating unit 11 looks initially in each column
for transitions corresponding to the signature. To this end, a
first minimum number of adjacent dark pixels must be followed
by a second minimum number of adjacent bright pixels, which
in tum are followed by a third minimum number of
dark pixels. In the extreme case one pixel suffices as the
minimum number. However, to avoid reacting to minute
soiling, at a minimum there should be at least a few pixels.
More complicated criteria are possible. For example, a group of
adjacent pixels should have at least a minimum number of
pixels having the requisite bright or dark characteristic.
Therefore, the Examiner reasonably finds Braune teaches (i) a number
of groups of adjacent pixels (mapped to Braune's first minimum number of
adjacent dark pixels, a second minimum number of adjacent bright pixels, a
third minimum number of dark pixels) (ii) in a column (mapped to Braune's
"in each column") (iii) satisfying a criterion (mapped to Braune's "a first
minimum number of adjacent dark pixels are followed by a second
minimum number of adjacent bright pixels, which in tum are followed by a
third minimum number of dark pixels."). See Ans. 2; Braune i-f 48.
4
Appeal2014-003080
Application 12/417,527
As a result, Bronstein, Braune and Hui collectively teach
"determining whether individual video frames in a sequence of video frames
are progressive frames or interlaced frames based on a number of groups of
adjacent pixels in a column satisfying a criterion in a video frame of the
individual video frames," as recited in claim 1.
Second, the U.S. Supreme Court has held "[t]he combination of
familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when
it does no more than yield predictable results." KSR Int 'l Co. v. Teleflex,
Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007). Further, "[i]f the claim extends to what is
obvious, it is invalid under § 103" and "the analysis need not seek out
precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged
claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a
person of ordinary skill in the art would employ." Id. at 418-19.
Contrary to Appellants' arguments, "[i]n determining whether the
subject matter of a patent claim is obvious, neither the particular motivation
nor the avowed purpose of the patentee controls." KSR, 550 U.S. at 419.
Appellants' argument that "the proffered combination cannot be sustained ..
. as Braune lacks some teaching, suggestion, or motivation, either in the
references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of
ordinary skill in the art, to modify the reference or to combine reference
teachings" (App. Br. 12; Reply Br. 12) contradicts the current case law. See
KSR, 550 U.S. at 419 ("The obviousness analysis cannot be confined by a
formalistic conception of the words teaching, suggestion, and motivation, or
by overemphasis on the importance of published articles and the explicit
content of issued patents."). Further, Appellants' attorney arguments (App.
5
Appeal2014-003080
Application 12/417,527
Br. 11-12; Reply Br. 11-13) lack adequate support and therefore, are
unpersuasive.
In contrast, the Examiner has provided an articulated reasoning with a
rational underpinning as to why one skilled in the art would have found it
obvious to combine the teachings of Bronstein, Braune and Hui. See Final
Rej. 4--5; Ans. 3-5. For example, such combination would have been
enabled fast and reliable evaluations. See Final Rej. 4--5; Ans. 3-5. The
Examiner's findings are reasonable because the skilled artisan would "be
able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle"
since the skilled artisan is "a person of ordinary creativity, not an
automaton." KSR, 550 U.S. at 420-21. Appellants do not present adequate
evidence that the resulting arrangements were "uniquely challenging or
difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art" or "represented an unobvious
step over the prior art." See Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485
F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing KSR, 550 U.S. at 418-19).
Therefore, we agree with the Examiner that because Bronstein,
Braune, and Hui teach prior art elements that perform their ordinary
functions to predictably result in the disputed claim limitation, the proposed
combination would have been within the purview of the ordinarily skilled
artisan. See Ans. 3-5. Applying the Braune and Hui techniques in the
Bronstein method would have predictably used prior art elements according
to their established functions-an obvious improvement. See KSR, 550 U.S.
at 417.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1, and
corresponding dependent claims for similar reasons.
6
Appeal2014-003080
Application 12/417,527
For similar reasons, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of
independent claims 11, 24, and 34, and corresponding dependent claims.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1--43 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)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
7