Ex Parte Gutierrez Novelo

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 17, 2016

12837421 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 17, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/837,421 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.002C1Cl 4155
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
Appeal2013-010453 1
Application 12/837,421
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--45.2 Claims 1-20 are cancelled. 3 We have
jurisdiction over the pending claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm-in-part.
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. (App. Br. 3.)
3 Although Appellant purported to cancel claims 41--45 in a Response to
Notice ofNoncompliant Amendment dated June 5, 2013, the Appellant and
the Examiner subsequently treated these claims as rejected and pending.
(Suppl. App. Br. l; Ans. 3; Corrected App. Br. 4.) Therefore, we consider
those claims on Appeal.
Appeal2013-010453
Application 12/837,421
THE INVENTION
Appellant's invention is directed to decoding three-dimensional
images from a digital video stream. (Abstract.) Claim 21, reproduced
below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
21. A system for displaying a stereoscopic digital video to a
user, the system comprising:
a receiver configured to receive a first video stream and a
second video stream, the first video stream comprising a first eye
image and a header comprising bits, the second video stream
comprising a delta, wherein the delta was calculated by
determining a difference between the first eye image and a
second eye image;
a decoder configured to decode video streams;
a first bit pattern stored in the receiver and configured to
indicate to the decoder that the digital video is not a stereoscopic
digital video;
a second bit pattern stored in the receiver and configured
to indicate to the decoder that the digital video is a stereoscopic
digital video, wherein the decoder is configured to:
receive the header in the first video stream and read the
bits in the header,
compare the received bits with the first bit pattern and the
second bit pattern, and
output a stereoscopic digital video when the received
header comprises bits that match the second bit pattern, wherein
the stereoscopic digital video comprises the first eye image and
a decoded second eye image formed by comparing the delta to
the first eye image; and
a video output configured to output the stereoscopic digital
video.
2
Appeal2013-010453
Application 12/837,421
REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejected claims 21, 22, 24--40, and 45 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--4.)
The Examiner rejected claim 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Chen and Applicant's admitted prior art (AAPA). (Final
Act. 4.)
The Examiner rejected claims 41--44 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--5.)
ISSUES ON APPEAL
Appellant's arguments in the Appeal Brief present the following
issues: 4
Issue One: Whether the combination of Chen and Furuhata teaches or
suggests the independent claim 21 limitations:
a first bit pattern stored in the receiver and configured to
indicate to the decoder that the digital video is not a stereoscopic
digital video;
a second bit pattern stored in the receiver and configured
to indicate to the decoder that the digital video is a stereoscopic
digital video;
4 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellant and positions of the
Examiner, we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed Apr. 19, 2013, supplemented
June 10, 2013 and corrected Aug. 16, 2013); Reply Brief (filed Aug. 19,
2013); Final Office Action (mailed Apr. 19, 2012); and the Examiner's
Answer (mailed June 20, 2013) for the respective details.
3
Appeal2013-010453
Application 12/837,421
compare the received bits with the first bit pattern and the
second bit pattern;
output a stereoscopic digital video when the received
header comprises bits that match the second bit pattern ....
and the similar limitations recited in independent claims 29 and 37. (App.
Br. 7-15.)
Issue Two: Whether the combination of Chen and Applicant's
admitted prior art teaches or suggests the additional limitation of dependent
claim 23. (App. Br. 15-17.)
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellant's
arguments that the Examiner erred. Except with respect to claim 23, 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. 2-5) and (2) the corresponding reasons
set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner's Answer in response to
Appellant's Appeal Brief (Ans. 8-11 ), and we concur with the applicable
conclusions reached by the Examiner. We emphasize the following.
Issue One
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. 2-3; 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
4
Appeal2013-010453
Application 12/837,421
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. 27-29.)
Appellant argues neither reference teaches the above-quoted
limitations, which require storage and comparison of bit patterns that
indicate whether or not the video to be encoded is stereoscopic video, and
resulting stereoscopic video output depending on the comparison. (App. Br.
8-13.) Appellant asserts the Examiner's reliance on Furuhata as teaching
the "concept" of using identification information to indicate the presence of
stereoscopic video is an insufficient basis for rejecting claims 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. (App. Br. 13-15.)
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. 8.) 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 digital
format," present in at least one embodiment described in Furuhata. (Ans. 9.)
Appellant's Specification provides an example of such a bit pattern as
simply consisting of a "zero" bit to indicate the presence of stereoscopic
5
Appeal2013-010453
Application 12/837,421
digital video and a "one" bit to indicate stereoscopic digital video is not
present. (Spec. i-fi-f 178-79.) 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. 8-10; Chan col. 8, 11.
29.)
In addition, we are not persuaded 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
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
6
Appeal2013-010453
Application 12/837,421
would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the
art at the time the invention was made.
(Ans. 10-11.) 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., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing KSR Int'!
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.
Issue Two
Claim 23 depends from claim 21, but the Examiner's rejection relies
only on Chen and Applicant's admitted prior art. As discussed above, we
sustain the rejection of claim 21 as obvious over Chen and Furuhata.
Although perhaps inadvertent, the Examiner does not include Furuhata in the
combination relied upon for the rejection of claim 23, and has not shown the
limitations of claim 21 are obvious in light of Chen alone, nor of Chen in
7
Appeal2013-010453
Application 12/837,421
combination with Applicant's admitted prior art. Therefore, on the record
before us, we cannot sustain the rejection of claim 23.
CONCLUSIONS
For the reasons discussed above, we sustain the obviousness rejection
of claims 21, 29 and 37 over Chen and Furuhata. We also sustain the
rejections of claims 22, 24--28, 30-36, 38--40, and 45 over Chen and
Furuhata, which rejections are not argued separately with particularity.
(App. Br. 7.)
Also for the reasons discussed above, we do not sustain the rejection
of claim 23 over Chen and Applicant's admitted prior art.
With respect to the obviousness rejection of claims 41--44 over Chen,
Furuhata, and Tahara, Appellant argues "The addition of Tahara fails to cure
the deficiencies of Chen and Furuhata, nor does the Examiner use the
additional applied art in such a manner." (App. Br. 17.) Because, as
discussed above, we are not persuaded of the alleged deficiencies of Chen
and Furuhata, we also sustain the rejections of claims 41--44.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's rejections of claims 21, 22, and 24--45.
We reverse the Examiner's rejection of claim 23.
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-IN-PART
8