Ex Parte Dwivedula et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 18, 2016

13009946 (P.T.A.B. May. 18, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/009,946 01/20/2011
121312 7590 05/20/2016
Foley & Lardner LLP/ Broadcom Corporation
3000 K Street N.W
Suite 600
Washington, DC 20007-5109
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Priya Dwivedula
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.
106861-0337 1757
EXAMINER
ITSKOVICH, MIKHAIL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2483
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/20/2016 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):
ipdocketing@foley.com
cmckenna@foley.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte PRIYA DWIVEDULA, MICHAEL ERWIN, ERIC KLINGS,
PAUL GEHMAN, and LARRY PEARLSTEIN1
Appeal2014-008243
Application 13/009,946
Technology Center 2400
Before MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, DANIEL N. FISHMAN, and
JAMES W. DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judges.
DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction over the pending claims under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ).
We reverse.
1 Appellants identify Broadcom Corporation as the real party in interest.
App. Br. 2.
Appeal2014-008243
Application 13/009,946
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellants' invention is directed to "frame rate conversion of 3D
frames." Spec. i-f 3. According to the Specification, various video signals
and sources may have differing frames per second (fps) (e.g., 30 fps for
NTSC, 25 fps for PAL, and 24 fps for feature films), whereas display
devices such as HDTV s may be capable of displaying video at a rate of 60,
100, 120, 200, or 240 Hz. Spec. i-f 7. "A 3D video frame may be produced
by combining left view video components and right view video
components." Spec. i-f 5. In a disclosed embodiment of frame rate
conversion of a decompressed 3D video signal, the frame rate of both the
left and right views is converted to a second frame rate. Spec. i-f 17. Further,
the left and right views are converted to a full pixel resolution at the new
frame rate. Spec. i-f 17. A sequence of video frames, such as by alternating
the left and right views, may be generated and presented to a 3D video
rendering device. Spec. i-f 17.
Claims 1 and 11 are illustrative of the subject matter on appeal and are
reproduced below with the disputed limitations emphasized in italics:
1. A method for processing video, the method comprising:
in a three-dimensional (3D) video rendering device:
converting a first left view video of a decompressed 3D video
having a first frame rate to generate a second left view video having a
second frame rate, using frame rate conversion (PRC);
converting a first right view video of said decompressed 3D
video having said first frame rate to generate a second right view
video having said second frame rate, using said PRC;
converting said second left view video having said second
frame rate, which comprises a particular pixel resolution, to generate a
2
Appeal2014-008243
Application 13/009,946
third left view video having said second frame rate, which comprises
full pixel resolution of said decompressed 3D video;
converting said second right view video having said second
frame rate, which comprises said particular pixel resolution, to
generate a third right view video having said second frame rate, which
comprises said full pixel resolution; and
generating a sequence of video frames for 3D video display,
wherein said sequence of video frames comprises frames
corresponding to said third left view video and frames corresponding
to said third right view video, and saidframes corresponding to said
third left view video alternate with said frames corresponding to said
third right view video.
11. A system for processing video, the system comprising:
one or more processors, one or more circuits, or any
combination thereof for use in a three-dimensional (3D) video
rendering device, said one or more processors, one or more circuits,
or any combination thereof being operable to:
convert a first left view video of a decompressed 3D video
having a first frame rate to generate a second left view video having a
second frame rate, using frame rate conversion (PRC);
convert a first right view video of said decompressed 3D video
having said first frame rate to generate a second right view video
having said second frame rate, using said (PRC);
convert said second left view video having said second frame
rate, which comprises a particular pixel resolution, to generate a third
left view video having said second frame rate, which comprises full
pixel resolution of said, decompressed 3D video;
convert said second right view video having said second frame
rate, which comprises said particular pixel resolution, to generate a
third right view video having said second frame rate, which comprises
said full pixel resolution; and
generate a sequence of video frames for 3D video display,
wherein said sequence of video frames comprises frames
corresponding to said third left view video and frames corresponding
to said third right view video, and said frames corresponding to said
3
Appeal2014-008243
Application 13/009,946
third left view video alternate with said frames corresponding to said
third right view video.
The Examiner's Rejections
1. Claims 11-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and
distinctly claim the subject matter which the applicant regards as the
invention. Final Act. 7-9.
2. Claims 1-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) as
anticipated by Haskell et al. (US 6,055,012; Apr. 25, 2000) ("Haskell").
Final Act. 9-13.
Issues on Appeal
1. Did the Examiner err in finding claim 11 is indefinite for failing
to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter of the
invention?
2. Did the Examiner err in finding Haskell discloses left and right
views of video to be converting and generating as set forth in claim 1?
ANALYSIS2
Rejection under 35 U.S. C. § 112, second paragraph
The Examiner finds "one or more processors, one or more circuits, or
any combination thereof being operable to convert ... ,"as recited in claim
2 Throughout this Decision, we have considered the Appeal Brief filed
April 3, 2014 ("App. Br."); the Reply Brief filed July 15, 2014 ("Reply
Br."); the Examiner's Answer mailed May 16, 2014 ("Ans."); and the Final
4
Appeal2014-008243
Application 13/009,946
11, "raises ambiguity as to what is covered by the claim and which device
corresponds to which claimed function" and is, therefore, indefinite under 3 5
U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph. Final Act. 7. Further, the Examiner finds
this claim language invokes 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph "because it
uses a non-structural term 'one or more circuits' coupled with functional
language 'operable to convert' without reciting sufficient structure to
achieve the function." Final Act. 8 (emphasis omitted). Having determined
35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph is invoked, the Examiner concludes the
written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure for the
claimed function. Id.
"The test for definiteness is whether one skilled in the art would
understand the bounds of the claim when read in light of the specification."
Miles Laboratories, Inc. v. Shandon Inc., 997 F.2d 870, 875 (Fed. Cir.
1993); see also Orthokinetics, Inc. v. Safety Travel Chairs, Inc., 806 F .2d
1565, 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
We agree with Appellants and find that one of skill in the art would
understand from the Specification that that disputed limitation provides three
alternatives-in particular, (i) one or more processors; (ii) one or more
circuits; or (iii) any combination thereof. See App. Br. 7.
Additionally, it is well-settled that the failure to use the word "means"
creates a rebuttable presumption that invoke 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth
paragraph does not apply. Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339,
1348 (Fed. Cir. 2015). The presumption may be overcome if the claim term
fails to "recite sufficiently definite structure" or else recites "function
Office Action ("Final Act.") mailed September 10, 2013, from which this
Appeal is taken.
5
Appeal2014-008243
Application 13/009,946
without reciting sutlicient structure for performing that function."
Williamson, 792 F.3d at 1349 (quoting Watts v. XL Sys., Inc., 232 F.3d 877,
880 (Fed. Cir. 2000)).
We agree with Appellants that the disputed limitation connotes
sufficient structure to one of ordinary skill in the art. App. Br. 8-9; see also
Mass. Inst. of Tech. v. Abacus Software, 462 F.3d 1344, 1355-56 (Fed.
Cir. 2006). Accordingly, 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph is not invoked.
For the reasons discussed supra, we do not sustain the Examiner's
rejection of claims 11-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 112.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102
Appellants contend the Examiner erred in finding Haskell anticipates
claim 1. App. Br. 10-13. In particular, Appellants assert Haskell does not
disclose left and right views and cannot, therefore, disclose, inter alia,
converting first left and right views having a first frame rate to generate
second left and right views using frame rate conversion; converting second
left and right views comprising a particular pixel resolution to generate third
left and right views comprising full pixel resolution; and generating a
sequence of video frames corresponding to the third left and right views and
wherein the sequence of frames alternate between the third left view and
third right view. Id. Rather than disclosing left and right views, Appellants
argue Haskell discloses super-views, which are not left and right views.
App. Br. 12.
The Examiner explains "Haskell teaches that super-views include left
and right views in Fig. 4 ... [and] that the concept of super-views is a
broader concept that encompasses stereoscopic views (left and right) and can
6
Appeal2014-008243
Application 13/009,946
be coded the same way." Ans. 10 (citing Haskell, col. 4, 11. 9-13). The
Examiner concludes "every technique that Haskell applies to super-views
can be applied to stereoscopic views." Ans. 10.
"A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in
the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior
art reference." Verdegaal Bros., Inc. v. Union Oil Co. of Cal., 814 F.2d 628,
631 (Fed. Cir. 1987). "To establish inherency, the extrinsic evidence 'must
make clear that the missing descriptive matter is necessarily present in the
thing described in the reference.'" In re Robertson, 169 F.3d 743, 745 (Fed.
Cir. 1999) (quotation omitted).
The Haskell reference is directed to super-views. See, e.g., Haskell,
col. 5, 11. 7-11 ("Our invention, accordingly utilizes first and second super-
views."). As disclosed in Haskell, multi-view video, comprising two or
more image signals, is mapped into a pair of "super-views and coded similar
to our proposals for coding of stereoscopic video." Haskell, col. 4, 11. 9-13
(emphasis added). Further, Haskell states in co-pending applications
"coding of stereoscopic video composed of a left view and a right view" are
described, whereas in the present invention, "[t]he main difference is that
two super-views are employed, each composed of several reduced resolution
views, rather than a left and right view." Haskell, col. 14, 11. 29-37
(emphasis added). Additionally, the Examiner's finding that Haskell's
teachings could be applied to stereoscopic views does not amount to an
inherent disclosure of such an application. See In re Rijckaert, 9 F .3d 1531,
1534 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (the fact that a certain characteristic may occur or be
7
Appeal2014-008243
Application 13/009,946
present in the prior art is not sufficient to establish the inherency of that
characteristic). 3
Because we find as dispositive that Haskell does not disclose left and
right view videos, as required by independent claims 1 and 11, we need not
address the other issues related to the rejection of these claims raised by
Appellants. Accordingly, based on the record before us, for the reasons
discussed supra, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102 of claim 1 or the rejection of claim 11, which contains similar
recitations. We also do not sustain the Examiner's rejections of claims 2-10
and 12-20, which depend from claims 1 and 11, respectively.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's decision to reject claims 11-20 under 35
U.S.C. § 112.
We reverse the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-20 under 35
U.S.C. § 102.
REVERSED
3 We note although the Examiner appears to find Haskell suggests
converting stereoscopic views, a rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) is not before us. While the Board is authorized to reject claims
under 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b), no inference should be drawn when the Board
elects not to do so. See Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP)
§ 1213.02.
8