Ex Parte Ferguson

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jul 30, 2010

10780815 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 30, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
10/780,815 02/18/2004 Kevin M. Ferguson 7630 US 1 1492
30078 7590 08/02/2010
MATTHEW D. RABDAU
TEKTRONIX, INC.
14150 S.W. KARL BRAUN DRIVE
P.O. BOX 500 (50-LAW)
BEAVERTON, OR 97077-0001
EXAMINER
LE, TOAN M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2863
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/02/2010 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte KEVIN M. FERGUSON
_____________

Appeal 2009-002593
Application 10/780,815
Technology Center 2800

____________

Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, MARC S. HOFF,
and ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judges.

MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL1

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, or filing a request for rehearing, as
recited in 37 C.F.R. § 41.52, begins to run from the “MAIL DATE” (paper
delivery mode) or the “NOTIFICATION DATE” (electronic delivery mode)
shown on the PTOL-90A cover letter attached to this decision.
Appeal 2009-002593
Application 10/780,815

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection
of claims 1-5. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

INVENTION
Appellant’s claimed invention is directed to automatically setting gain
and offset for a signal based on a region of interest within the signal.
Maximum (Max) and minimum (min) values for the region of interest are
determined and tested against respective clipping levels. If either value
clips, then the gain and offset are adjusted. Alternatively if only one value
clips in the signal, then only the offset is adjusted, while if both values clip
then the gain is adjusted. The adjustments of the gain and offset continue
until a maximum number of attempts is reached or neither max/min value
within the region of interest is clipped. See Spec. 2:8-18.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on
appeal:
1. A method of automatically setting gain and offset for the
measurement and display of a signal comprising the steps of:
acquiring the signal;
defining a region of interest within the acquired signal;
determining max and min values for the acquired signal within the
region of interest;
testing the max and min values for clipping on a display;
calculating from the max and min values a gain and offset for the
signal when either the max or min value clips in the testing step; and
applying the gain and offset to the signal in the acquiring step.
Appeal 2009-002593
Application 10/780,815

3

THE REJECTION
The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence of unpatentability:
Odenheimer US 4,743,844 May 10, 1988
The following rejection is before us for review:
The Examiner rejected claims 1-5 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Odenheimer.2

ISSUES
Appellant’s argument (Ans. 11-12), addressed in the Analysis section
infra in detail, gives rise to the following pivotal issue:
Does Odenheimer teach the limitation of “defining the region of
interest within the acquired signal” as recited in representative claim 1?

FINDINGS OF FACT
The Following Findings of Fact (FF) are supported by a
preponderance of the evidence. We agree with the Examiner’s Findings of
Fact (Ans. 3-6) and we adopt them as our own, but we emphasize the
following pertinent facts:
1. Appellant’s Specification defines a region of interest within the signal
as a portion of a video line - sync pulse, burst pulse, or active video

2 The Examiner withdrew (Ans. 2) the rejection of claims 1-5 under
35 U.S.C. § 101. Accordingly the § 101 rejection is not presented for Board
review.
Appeal 2009-002593
Application 10/780,815

4
according to a desired measurement and the signal acquired (Spec.
2:10-12).
2. Odenheimer teaches an input signal produced by a device and applied
to an oscilloscope 10 (col. 6, ll. 24-26), determining the max/min
values for the acquired signal (col. 14, l. 47-col. 15, l. 20) within the
region of interest (i.e., searching within the portion of the signal
between: the range of 0 and 4.75/2 Div. or 4.75/2.5 to 4.75 Div. for
the Max. peak; and the range of 0 to -4.75/2 Div. or -4.75/2.5 to -4.75
Div. for the Min. peak).
3. Odenheimer teaches “determining the maximum and minimum peak
levels of the input signal” (col. 14, ll. 47-49).

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
Although claims are interpreted in light of the specification,
limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. In re Van
Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993).

ANALYSIS
Appellant argues that while measurements of min and max are
described, there is no mention of “defining a region of interest within the
acquired signal” (App. Br. 12).
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument. Appellant’s
Specification defines a region of interest within the signal as a portion of a
video line - sync pulse, burst pulse, or active video according to a desired
measurement and the signal acquired (FF 1).
Appeal 2009-002593
Application 10/780,815

5
Odenheimer teaches an “input signal” produced by a device (i.e.,
acquired signal), determining the max/min values for the acquired signal
within the region of interest (i.e., searching within the portion of the signal
between: the range of 0 and 4.75/2 Div. or 4.75/2.5 to 4.75 Div. for the Max.
peak; and the range of 0 to -4.75/2 Div. or -4.75/2.5 to -4.75 Div. for the
Min. peak) (FF 2). Accordingly, we find that Odenheimer does teach
“defining a region of interest within the acquired signal” as required by
claim 1 because Odenheimer teaches searching within the portion of the
acquired signal (i.e., portion of signal set by the ranges) for min/max values.
With respect to Appellant’s statement regarding the Specification
(page 2, line 21) referring to the max and min values within the region of
interest to provide a superior display of that region even when the signal
outside the region of interest is allowed to clip (App. Br. 12) as a distinction
over the prior art, we note that the distinction is not commensurate in scope
with the language of claim 1. Although claims are interpreted in light of the
specification, limitations from the specification (i.e., to provide a superior
display of that region even when the signal outside the region of interest is
allowed to clip) are not read into the claims. See Van Geuns, 988 F.2d at
1184.
Appellant’s further argument expresses a disagreement (App. Br. 11-
12) with the Examiner’s reliance on Figure 7, providing a detailed analysis of
determining the maximum and minimum peak levels of the input signal, for
meeting the limitation of “defining a region of interest within the acquired
signal.” Appellant points to step 162 of Figure 7 describing “SET MAIN
AND WINDOW TRIGGER LEVEL TO MIN./MAX. MIDPOINT”, and
thereby argues that because it is well understood that the trigger prompts the
Appeal 2009-002593
Application 10/780,815

6
acquisition of the signal, Odenheimer has not even acquired a signal yet, but
rather, “characterized the input signal to set a proper trigger” (App. Br. 11-
12). Again we are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument.
Odenheimer teaches “determining the maximum and minimum peak
levels of the input signal” (FF 3) and the “input signal” was produced by a
device and applied to an oscilloscope 10 (FF 2), and thereby, under the
broadest reasonable interpretation, the input signal is an acquired signal.
Even if we agreed with Appellant that the input signal is used to set a proper
trigger that does not mean that the input signal is not an acquired signal.
Accordingly, we will affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b), and for similar reasons the rejection of claims 2-5,
because Appellant has not advanced any other arguments with respect to
these claims.

CONCLUSIONS
Odenheimer teaches the limitation of “defining the region of interest
within the acquired signal.”

Appeal 2009-002593
Application 10/780,815

7
ORDER
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-5 under 35 U.S.C. §
102(b) 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

Tkl

MATTHEW D. RABDAU
TEKTRONIX, INC.
14150 S.W. KARL BRAUN DRIVE
P.O. BOX 500 (50-LAW)
BEAVERTON OR 97077-0001