Ex Parte Flint et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 28, 2017

13016928 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 28, 2017)

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.
13/016,928 01/28/2011 Gary Flint 337722-320601/P10065US2 5563
133036 7590
DLA Piper LLP (US)
2000 University Avenue
East Palo Alto, CA 94303-2215
EXAMINER
DANG, HUNG Q
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2484
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/02/2017 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):
ApplePros Admin @ dlapiper.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte GARY FLINT and STEFAN HAFENEGER
Appeal 2015-004318
Application 13/016,928
Technology Center 2400
Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, JEFFREY S. SMITH, and
JON M. JURGOVAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2015-004318
Application 13/016,928
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection of
claims 1—28, which are all the claims pending in the application. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Illustrative Claim
1. A method comprising:
obtaining a video;
identifying a defective portion of the video, wherein the
defective portion includes a plurality of frames of the video;
removing the defective portion of the video, the
removing resulting in at least two non-defective portions of the
video;
selecting a transition type based on content
characteristics of the at least two non-defective portions of the
video; and
inserting an animation effect of the transition type
between the at least two non-defective portions of the video;
wherein the method is performed by one or more
processors.
Prior Art
Foster US 6,662,329 B1 Dec. 9, 2003
Hannuksela US 2004/0139462 A1 Jul. 15,2004
Lin US 2005/0182503 A1 Aug. 18, 2005
Yoshimatsu US 2006/0197843 A1 Sept. 7, 2006
Igarashi US 2006/0078218 A1 Apr. 13, 2006
Watanabe US 2008/0181494 A1 Jul. 31,2008
2
Appeal 2015-004318
Application 13/016,928
Examiner’s Rejections
Claims 1, 2, 7, 9-11, 16, 18—20, 25, 27, and 28 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Foster and Hannuksela.
Claims 3,12, and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Foster, Hannuksela, and Yoshimatsu.
Claims 4, 13, and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Foster, Hannuksela, and Igarashi.
Claims 5,6, 14, 15, 23, and 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Foster, Hannuksela, and Lin.
Claims 8, 17, and 26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Foster, Hannuksela, and Watanabe.
ANALYSIS
We adopt the findings of facts made by the Examiner in the Final
Action and Examiner’s Answer, and agree with the Examiner’s decisions for
the reasons given by the Examiner in the Final Action and Examiner’s
Answer. We highlight the following for emphasis.
Section 103 rejections of claims 1, 2, 7, 10, 11, 16, 19, 20, 25, and 28
Claim 1 recites removing a defective portion of video, then “selecting
a transition type based on content characteristics of the at least two non­
defective portions of the video.” The Examiner finds Foster discloses this
limitation in teaching selecting a transition type of either interpolation or
without interpolation, based on the last and next valid video data. Ans. 10,
11 (citing Foster col. 7,11. 9—15). Appellants contend the cited section of
Foster does not state how the type of correction is selected. Reply Br. 3.
3
Appeal 2015-004318
Application 13/016,928
However, claim 1 does not recite how the type of transition is
selected, other than “based on content characteristics of the at least two non­
defective portions of the video.” Foster discloses replacing errored data with
data based on either or both of the last and next valid video data. Col. 7,11.
9-12. Foster also discloses performing different types of correction based
on the last and next valid video data, among other things. Col. 7,11. 12—15.
Although Foster does not explicitly discuss selecting the type of correction
(or “transition type”) before performing the correction, we agree with the
Examiner that a person of ordinary skill in the art who wants to perform the
correction based on last and next valid video data, would select a type that
would perform the correction based on last and next valid video data. See,
e.g., Foster col. 8,11. 1—18.
Appellants contend Foster teaches interpolation for error concealment,
rather than a “transition type” as claimed. App. Br. 13—14. According to
Appellants, the broadest reasonable interpretation of “transition type” refers
to specific animations such as fade-in, dissolve, and wipe, as disclosed in
Paragraphs 27—29 of Appellants’ Specification. App. Br. 14. However,
Appellants’ Specification discloses these transition types as non-limiting
examples. Appellants have not provided a definition of “transition type”
that excludes interpolation, as well as the other types of error correction, as
taught by Foster. Further, the Examiner relies on Hannuskela to show that
transition types such as fade-in, dissolve, and wipe, were known to those of
ordinary skill in the art. Final Act. 4.
Claim 1 recites “inserting an animation effect of the transition type
between the at least two non-defective portions of the video.” The Examiner
finds Hannuksela teaches this limitation. Final Act. 4. Appellants do not
4
Appeal 2015-004318
Application 13/016,928
persuasively rebut this finding. Rather, Appellants contend Hannuksela does
not teach the selecting limitation of claim 1. App. Br. 16—18; Reply Br. 4—5.
However, Foster teaches the selecting limitation as discussed above.
Further, the Examiner finds Hannuksela teaches several different
transition types used for error concealment. Ans. 12 (citing || 76—99).
Appellants have not persuasively shown that using the transition types of
Hannuksela when performing different types of error correction as taught by
Foster was “uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the
art.” See Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher—Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162
(Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing KSR Inti Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 419
(2007)).
In addition, Appellants’ Specification as originally filed does not
explicitly disclose “animation effect.” We highlight the scope of “inserting
an animation effect of the transition type between the at least two non­
defective portions of the video,” when read in light of Appellants’
Specification as originally filed, encompasses replacing errored data with
interpolated data between the last and next valid video data as taught by
Foster.
We sustain the rejection of claim 1. Appellants do not present
arguments for separate patentability of claims 2,1, 10, 11, 16, 19, 20, 25,
and 28, which fall with claim 1.
Section 103 rejection of claims 9, 18, and 27
Claim 9 recites “determining content characteristics of the at least two
non-defective portions based on sideband data associated with the at least
two non-defective portions.” The Examiner finds one of ordinary skill in the
5
Appeal 2015-004318
Application 13/016,928
art understands a modulated signal, such as the video stream of Foster,
includes a carrier signal and sideband signals that contain data, such as video
content. Ans. 12—14. Appellants contend the Examiner’s finding is based
on personal knowledge rather than the knowledge of one of ordinary skill.
Reply Br. 5. We agree with the Examiner that one of ordinary skill in the
art, such as an Electrical Engineer with a Bachelor’s degree, would
understand that sideband data is contained in the sideband of a modulated
signal, where the sideband is defined as “the band of frequencies on either
side of the carrier frequency produced by modulation.” See, e.g., Merriam-
Webster Online Dictionary.
We sustain the rejection of claims 9, 18, and 27.
Section 103 rejections of claims 3—6, 12—15, and 21—24
Appellants present arguments for the patentability of claims 3—6, 12—
15, and 21—24 similar to those presented for claim 1. App. Br. 19, 20. We
find Appellants’ arguments unpersuasive for the reasons given in our
analysis of claim 1.
We sustain the rejections of claims 3—6, 12—15, and 21—24.
Section 103 rejection of claims 8, 17, and 26
Claim 8 recites “selecting the transition type based on content
characteristics [of the non-defective portions of the video] includes selecting
based on color characteristics, motion characteristics, temporal
characteristics, or a combination thereof.” Appellants contend Watanabe
discusses using color characteristics when correcting an image, but does not
discuss selecting the transition type based on the color characteristics. App.
6
Appeal 2015-004318
Application 13/016,928
Br. 20, 21. The Examiner relies on the combination of Foster and
Hannuksela to teach selecting the transition type based on content
characteristics, and relies on Watanabe to show one of ordinary skill would
understand content characteristics include color characteristics. Ans. 14.
Appellants do not persuasively rebut the Examiner’s findings.
We sustain the rejection of claims 8, 17, and 26.
DECISION
The rejections of claims 1—28 are 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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.50(f).
AFFIRMED
7