Ex Parte Gutierrez Novelo

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 17, 2016

12837435 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 17, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/837,435 07/15/2010
20995 7590 06/21/2016
KNOBBE MARTENS OLSON & BEAR LLP
2040 MAIN STREET
FOURTEENTH FLOOR
IRVINE, CA 92614
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Manuel Rafael Gutierrez Novelo
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.
TDVS.003C1Cl 4192
EXAMINER
LEE, YYOUNG
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2485
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/21/2016 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):
j ayna.cartee@knobbe.com
efiling@knobbe.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MANUEL RAFAEL GUTIERREZ NO VELO
Appeal2013-010685 1
Application 12/837,435
Technology Center 2400
Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, CATHERINE SHIANG, and NORMAN
H. BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judges.
BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
rejection of claims 21-38. 2 Claims 1-20 are cancelled. We have
jurisdiction over the pending claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm.
1 An oral hearing was held June 7, 2016.
2 In the Appeal Brief, Appellant identifies TDVision Corporation S.A. de
C.V. as the real party in interest. (Br. 3.)
Appeal2013-010685
Application 12/837,435
THE INVENTION
Appellant's invention is directed to encoding three-dimensional
images from a digital video stream. (Abstract.) Claim 21, reproduced
below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
21. A system for encoding stereoscopic digital video,
compnsmg:
a receiver configured to receive a first eye image and a
second eye image from one or more input video signals;
a processor configured to calculate a difference by
determining a difference between the first eye image and the
second eye image; and
an encoder configured to:
select between a plurality of bit patterns to be stored
in a header in a first video stream, the plurality of bit
patterns comprising a first bit pattern and a second bit
pattern, the first bit pattern configured to indicate to a
decoder reading the header that the digital video is not a
stereoscopic digital video, the second bit pattern
configured to indicate to a decoder reading the header that
.1 1· ., 1 • 1 • ' • 1· ., 1 • 1 1ne mgna1 v10eo is a s1ereoscop1c mgna1 v10eo,
store a bit set corresponding to the second bit pattern
in the header in the first video stream,
store the first eye image in the first video stream,
store the difference in the second video stream, and
output the first video stream and the second video stream in a
stereoscopic digital video.
REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejected claims 21-33 and 38 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Chen (US 6,043,838, issued Mar. 28, 2000) and
Furuhata et al. (US 5,907,364, issued May 25, 1999). (Final Act. 2-3.)
2
Appeal2013-010685
Application 12/837,435
The Examiner rejected claims 34--37 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Chen, Furuhata, and Tahara et al. (US
2009/0252231 Al, pub. Oct. 8, 2009). (Final Act. 4.)
ISSUES ON APPEAL
Appellant's arguments in the Appeal Brief present the following
issue: 3
Whether the combination of Chen and Furuhata teaches or suggests
the independent claim 21 limitations, "an encoder configured to: select
between a plurality of bit patterns to be stored in a header in a first video
stream [and] store a bit set corresponding to the second bit pattern in the
header in the first video stream," and the similar limitations recited in
independent claim 28. (Br. 7-14.)
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellant's
arguments that the Examiner erred. We disagree with Appellant's
arguments, and we adopt as our own ( 1) the pertinent findings and reasons
set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken (Final
Act. 2--4) and (2) the corresponding reasons set forth by the Examiner in the
Examiner's Answer in response to Appellant's Appeal Brief (Ans. 6-10),
and we concur with the applicable conclusions reached by the Examiner.
We emphasize the following.
3 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellant and positions of the
Examiner, we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed May 7, 2013); Final Office
Action (mailed May 10, 2012); and the Examiner's Answer (mailed June 11,
2013) for the respective details.
3
Appeal2013-010685
Application 12/837,435
In rejecting the independent claims, the Examiner relies on the
disclosure in Chen of a stereoscopic video transmission system, in which the
similarity between the left and right eye images is used to compress the one
image with respect to the other. (Final Act. 2; Chen Abstract, Figs. 1, 8, col.
2, 11. 9--22.) The Examiner also relies on the disclosure in Furuhata of a
display system that can display, inter alia, a standard television signal or a
stereoscopic television signal, with a provision for "identification
information for indicating whether or not the stereoscopic television signal is
presented to the display device." (Final Act. 3, Furuhata Abstract, Fig. 8,
col. 22, 11. 27--46.)
Appellant argues neither reference teaches the above-quoted
limitations, which require selection, and storage in a header, of bit patterns
that indicate whether or not the video to be encoded is stereoscopic video.
(Br. 8-11.) Appellant asserts the Examiner's reliance on Furuhata as
teaching the "concept" of using identification information to indicate the
,.. ' • • 1 • • ,..,. • ' 1 • ,.. • ' • 1 •
presence or stereoscopic v10eo 1s an msurnc1ent oasis ror reJecung cia1ms
that explicitly require selection and storage of "bit patterns" that indicate
whether or not stereoscopic video is to be coded. (Id.) Appellant further
argues there is an insufficient basis to combine Chen with Furuhata. (Br.
11-14.)
Appellants have not persuaded us the Examiner errs. We agree with
the Examiner that Appellant's arguments are unpersuasive as attacking the
Chen and Furuhata references individually, whereas the rejection is based on
the combination of the references. (Ans. 6-7.) See In re Keller, 642 F.2d
413 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091 (Fed. Cir. 1986). We
also agree with the Examiner that the broadest reasonable interpretation of
"bit patterns" encompasses the "identification information, encoded in
4
Appeal2013-010685
Application 12/837,435
digital format," present in at least one embodiment described in Furuhata.
(Ans. 8.) Appellant's Specification provides an example of such a bit pattern
as simply consisting of a "zero" bit to indicate the presence of stereoscopic
digital video and a "one" bit to indicate stereoscopic digital video is not
present. (Spec. iii! 178-179.) Similarly, Furuhata discloses:
Identification information for indicating whether or not the
stereoscopic television signal is presented to the display device
may be multiplexed with the stereoscopic television signal. ...
[A] mode designation signal for monaural (Ml) or stereo (M3)
may be generated on the basis of the supplied identification
information ....
[W]hen the stereoscopic television is put in broadcasting
service by using, for example, the digital broadcasting system,
component signals and composite signals based on the
stereoscopic television may be decoded from the digital
broadcasting signal by using a decoder and the decoded signals
may be supplied to the display device of the present invention.
(Furuhata col. 22, 11. 27-34, col. 33, 11. 61-67.) This disclosure, combined
with the disclosure in Chen of a "user data portion of a picture header,"
teaches or at least suggests using a digital bit pattern as the described
"identification information" stored in a digital video header and indicating
the presence of a stereoscopic television signal. (Ans. 7-8; Chan col. 8, 11.
29.)
In addition, Appellants have not persuaded us the Examiner errs in
finding:
Chen discloses a "base" process of stereoscopic digital video
encoding. Furuhata et al teaches a comparable process of both
stereoscopic and nonstereoscopic digital video that has been
improved in the same way as the claimed invention. Furuhata
et al 's known improvement could have been applied in the same
way to the "base" process of Chen and the results would have
been predictable and resulted in encoding both stereoscopic and
5
Appeal2013-010685
Application 12/837,435
non-stereoscopic digital video. Furthermore, both Chen and
Furuhata et al use and disclose similar system functionality (i.e.
digital stereoscopic video processing) so that the combination is
more easily implemented. Therefore, the claimed subject
matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary
skill in the art at the time the invention was made.
(Ans. 9.) In sum, Appellant's argument does not persuade us that the
Examiner's rationale for combining Chen and Furuhata is insufficient, or
that the Examiner erred in finding the combination teaches or suggests the
claimed subject matter. (Final Act. 2-3.) Additionally, Appellant does not
point to any evidence of record 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." Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v.
Fisher-Price, Inc., 485F.3d1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citingKSRint'l
Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418-19 (2007). 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. We are persuaded the claimed subject matter exemplifies the
principle, "[ 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, 550 U.S. at 416.
CONCLUSIONS
For the reasons discussed above, we sustain the obviousness rejection
of claims 21 and 28 over Chen and Furuhata. We also sustain the rejections
of claims 22-27, 29-33, and 38 over Chen and Furuhata, which rejections
are not argued separately with particularity. (Br. 6.)
6
Appeal2013-010685
Application 12/837,435
With respect to the obviousness rejections of claims 34--37 over Chen,
Furuhata, and Tahara, Appellant argues "Tahara does not cure the
deficiencies of Chen and Furuhata." (Br. 14.) Because, as discussed above,
Appellants have not persuaded us of the alleged deficiencies of Chen and
Furuhata, we also sustain the rejection of claims 34--37.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's rejections of claims 21-38.
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