Ex Parte Ferguson

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jun 30, 2010

10463154 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 30, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________

Ex parte KEVIN M. FERGUSON
__________

Appeal 2009-006667
Application 10/463,154
Technology Center 2100
__________

Decided: July 1, 2010
__________

Before JAMES D. THOMAS, CAROLYN D. THOMAS, and
STEPHEN C. SIU, Administrative Patent Judges.

SIU, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2, and 4. Claim 3 is canceled. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Appeal 2009-006667
Application 10/463,154

2
Invention
The invention relates a method of interpolating between sampled
points for waveform and vector displays (Spec. 1, ll. 5-7).
Independent claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A method of interpolating between consecutive
samples of input data for providing a display comprising
the steps of:
determining an interpolation distance from the
consecutive samples;
determining which coefficient look-up table from among
a plurality of lookup tables to use for the FIR [finite
impulse response] filter according to the interpolation
distance;
filtering the consecutive samples according to
coefficients from the coefficient look-up table to provide
interpolated data between the consecutive samples;
repeating the determining an interpolation distance,
determining which coefficient look-up table; and filtering
steps for each set of consecutive samples of the input
data; and
rendering a display of one parameter versus another
parameter based on the interpolated data.
References
The Examiner relies upon the following references as evidence in
support of the rejection:
Gessert US 4,428,059 Jan. 24, 1984
Yada US 5,481,568 Jan. 2, 1996
Appellant’s Admitted Prior Art, Spec. 1-3 (“AAPA”).
Appeal 2009-006667
Application 10/463,154

3
Rejections
Claims 1 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Yada and AAPA.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Yada, AAPA, and Gessert.
ISSUES
Issue 1
The Examiner interprets “the limitation ‘determining an interpolation
distance from the consecutive samples’ as a suboperation, the [output] of
which is stored in a parameter as [the] interpolation distance from two
consecutive samples” (Ans. 7).
Appellant argues that “although the distance is discussed, and its
relationship defined . . . the only inputs are Sk, which is a sample, a control
Vk, and Pk, along with a constant C provided at 42. None of these values
provides a means for determining Sk-Sk-1” (App. Br. 9).
Issue: Did the Examiner err in finding that Yada and AAPA would
have taught or suggested determining an interpolation distance from
consecutive samples?
Issue 2
The Examiner finds that “[t]he claim language simply makes a
determination of the distance and uses this determination in some manner to
determine the appropriate table” (Ans. 7). The Examiner further finds “that
the claim language does not clearly define the structure and/or dimension[s]
of the look-up table” (Ans. 9).
Appeal 2009-006667
Application 10/463,154

4
Appellant argues that “the rejection has mischaracterized Yada as
determining the interpolation distance from the consecutive samples as
providing Pk” (App. Br. 10). Appellant further argues that “there is nothing
in Yada to indicate a look-up table of look-up tables” (id.).
Issue: Did the Examiner err in finding that Yada and AAPA would
have taught or suggested determining which coefficient look-up table from
among a plurality of lookup tables to use for an FIR filter according to an
interpolation distance?
Issue 3
The Examiner finds that it would have been obvious to an artisan to
combine the teachings and suggestions of Yada and AAPA “because it
would enable [one] to monitor the signal” (Ans. 10).
Appellant argues that “there is nothing aside from Appellant’s own
description of his invention to provide a motivation to combine Yada, which
related to data detecting and resampling, and the display methodologies
provided in Appellant’s background” (App. Br. 10).
Issue: Did the Examiner err in finding that it would have been
obvious to an artisan to combine the teachings and suggestions of Yada and
AAPA?
Appeal 2009-006667
Application 10/463,154

5
FINDINGS OF FACT
The following Findings of Fact (FF) are shown by a preponderance of
the evidence.
1. Yada teaches that
instantaneous phase ΔPk is obtained from Equation (1)
below by supposing that a single waveform between the
two consecutive signal sample values Sk and Sk−1 can be
linearly approximated (refer to FIG. 13).

1
12
−
−
−
×=Δ
kk
kNPLL
k SS
SP (1)
where 2NPLL−1 is the number of quantized phases for
every other samples.
(Col. 4, ll. 28-36; fig. 13).
2. Yada teaches that
[a] phase updating rule is as given by Equation (2).
if(modify_Pk = 0) (2)
then phase is not corrected (PLL runs on its own)
Pk = Pk−1 + 2NPLL−1
elseif(modify_Pk = 1)
then phase is corrected
Pk = Pk−1 + 2NPLL−1 + d(ΔPk − (Pk−1 + 2NPLL−1))
(Col. 5, ll. 12-23).
3. Yada teaches that
[e]ach tap coefficient of the FIR filter is given by the
ROM [read only memory] table storing 2NPLL−1 kinds of
coefficients. . . . The ROM addresses are switched all at
once depending on the phase data Pk given from the
digital PLL [phase-locked loop] circuit (D3PLL) 103 to
Appeal 2009-006667
Application 10/463,154

6
perform interpolation and resampling at the same time. It
should be noted that the Pk may vary in each time slot . . .
(Col 9, ll. 30-39; fig. 7).
4. AAPA teaches under “background of the invention” that
[f]or digitally samples data such as digital video (ITU-R
BT.601) and for streaming video such as .avi, etc., it is desired
to interpolate between sampled points for both input parameters
for several reasons. One reason is to allow traditional test
signals, such as color bars, to be rendered in a familiar and
recognizable way to detect abnormalities in the signal. Without
interpolation subtle changes in the transitions may be hard to
detect, as shown in Fig. 1 [labeled as prior art].
(Spec. 1, ll. 11-17; fig. 1).
PRINCIPLES OF LAW
Admissions
“Admissions in the specification regarding the prior art are binding on
the patentee for purposes of a later inquiry into obviousness.” PharmaStem
Therapeutics, Inc. v. ViaCell, Inc., 491 F.3d 1342, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2007)
(citations omitted). Such admissions can include statements of fact lacking
“any indication of who discovered that fact.” In re Wiseman, 596 F.2d 1019,
1023 (CCPA 1979). Arguments are insufficient to show discovery by
Appellants. Id. “[T]here must be some evidence of record by way of
affidavits or declarations, or at least a clear and persuasive assertion in the
specification, that the fact relied on to support patentability was the
discovery of the applicants for patent.” Id.
Appeal 2009-006667
Application 10/463,154

7
Claim interpretation
“In the patentability context, claims are to be given their broadest
reasonable interpretations. . . . [L]imitations are not to be read into the
claims from the specification.” In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed.
Cir. 1993) (citations omitted). A claim meaning is reasonable if one of
ordinary skill in the art would understand the claim, read in light of the
specification, to encompass the meaning. See In re American Academy of
Science Tech Center, 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Any special
meaning assigned to a term “must be sufficiently clear in the specification
that any departure from common usage would be so understood by a person
of experience in the field of the invention.” Multiform Desiccants Inc. v.
Medzam Ltd., 133 F.3d 1473, 1477 (Fed. Cir. 1998).
Obviousness
The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying
factual determinations including (1) the scope and content of the prior art,
(2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art, and
(3) the level of skill in the art. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17-
18 (1966). “The 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).
Appeal 2009-006667
Application 10/463,154

8
ANALYSIS
Issue 1
Appellant challenges the Examiner’s finding that Yada would have
taught or suggested determining an interpolation distance from consecutive
samples. Based on Appellant’s arguments in the Appeal Brief, we will
decide the appeal of claims 1, 2, and 4 with respect to issue 1 on the basis of
claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments, which are
contradicted by the admission that the distance Sk − Sk-1 “has been identified
in col. 4 as cited [and] is also shown and explained in Fig. 5 in relation to
Pk” (App. Br. 9). Moreover, this distance is used in obtaining the
instantaneous phase ΔPk (FF 1). Therefore, Yada and AAPA would have
taught or suggested determining an interpolation distance from consecutive
samples (Sk − Sk-1).
For at least these reasons, we find no evidence persuasive of error in
the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claim 1, and claims 2 and 4
which fall therewith with respect to this issue.
Issue 2
Appellant argues that the Examiner mischaracterizes Yada. Appellant
further argues that Yada lacks a look-up table of look-up tables. Based on
Appellant’s arguments in the Appeal Brief, we will decide the appeal of
claims 1, 2, and 4 with respect to issue 2 on the basis of claim 1. See 37
C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
Appeal 2009-006667
Application 10/463,154

9
We are unconvinced by Appellant’s argument that the Examiner
mischaracterizes Yada. The phase updating rule taught by Yada includes a
phase correction modification to Pk that uses ΔPk (FF 2). As discussed, ΔPk
is obtained using the distance Sk − Sk-1. Thus, when the phase is corrected,
the value of Pk is obtained using the distance Sk − Sk-1.
Appellant further argues that Yada lacks a look-up table of look-up
tables. However, the value of Pk is used to switch address in a ROM table
storing 2NPLL−1 kinds of coefficients, which provide the tap coefficients for
an FIR filter (FF 3). Furthermore, the claim language does not clearly define
the structure or dimensions of the look-up table of look-up tables. Thus, we
apply a reasonably broad interpretation of a look-up table of look-up tables
as encompassing a plurality of sets. Yada’s ROM table stores a plurality of
kinds of coefficients, where the tap coefficients of each kind form a set.
Based on these teachings and suggestions, we find that Yada and
AAPA would have taught or suggested determining which coefficient look-
up table (set of tap coefficients) from among a plurality of lookup tables (in
a ROM table storing 2NPLL−1 kinds of coefficients) to use for an FIR filter
according to (switched using) an interpolation distance (the value Pk, which
is obtained using the distance Sk − Sk-1).
For at least these reasons, we find no evidence persuasive of error in
the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claim 1, and claims 2 and 4
which fall therewith with respect to this issue.
Appeal 2009-006667
Application 10/463,154

10
Issue 3
Appellant argues that the Examiner erred in finding that it would have
been obvious to an artisan to combine the teachings and suggestions of Yada
and AAPA. Based on Appellant’s arguments in the Appeal Brief, we will
decide the appeal of claims 1, 2, and 4 with respect to issue 3 on the basis of
claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
Appellant argues that the only rationale for an artisan to combine
Yada and the display methodologies of AAPA comes from Appellant’s own
description of the invention (App. Br. 10). However, Appellant discusses in
the background of the invention (i.e., admitted prior art) the desirability of
interpolating between sample points for rendering (FF 4). Appellant has not
provided evidence (affidavits, declarations, or at least a clear and persuasive
assertion in the specification) that Appellant discovered this desirability.
Because Appellant admits that desirability of interpolating between sample
points for rendering was known in the prior art, and because Yada teaches or
suggests interpolating between sample points, we agree with the Examiner
that it would have been obvious to an artisan possessing common sense and
creativity to combine the teachings and suggestions of Yada and AAPA.
For at least these reasons, we find no evidence persuasive of error in
the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claim 1, and claims 2 and 4
which fall therewith with respect to this issue.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Based on the findings of facts and analysis above, we find no
evidence persuasive of error in the Examiner’s findings:
Appeal 2009-006667
Application 10/463,154

11
1. that Yada and AAPA would have taught or suggested determining
an interpolation distance from consecutive samples (issue 1);
2. that Yada and AAPA would have taught or suggested determining
which coefficient look-up table from among a plurality of lookup tables to
use for an FIR filter according to an interpolation distance (issue 2); and
3. that it would have been obvious to an artisan to combine the
teachings and suggestions of Yada and AAPA (issue 3);
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decisions rejecting claims 1, 2, and 4 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
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

msc

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