Ex Parte Hall et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Dec 31, 2007

10100394 (B.P.A.I. Dec. 31, 2007)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte BARBARA A. HALL, AGNES Y. NGAI,
and ROBERT L. WOODARD
____________

Appeal 2007-2998
Application 10/100,394
Technology Center 2600
____________

Decided: December 31, 2007
____________

Before KENNETH W. HAIRSTON, MAHSHID D. SAADAT, and JOHN
A. JEFFERY, Administrative Patent Judges.

HAIRSTON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. §§ 6(b) and 134 from the final
rejection of claims 1 to 20.
Claim 1 is representative of the claimed invention, and it reads as
follows:
1. A system for processing a High Definition Television (HDTV)
image, comprising:
a plurality of video encoders connected in parallel;
Appeal 2007-2998
Application 10/100,394

wherein each of the encoders receives an entire image from a HDTV
video source; and
wherein each of the encoders is programmable for processing only a
portion of the entire image.
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Johnson US 5,398,315 Mar. 14, 1995
Dieterich US 6,100,940 Aug. 8, 2000
Gebler US 6,356,589 B1 Mar. 12, 2002
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 9 to 11, 16, and 17 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) based upon the teachings of Johnson.
The Examiner rejected claims 3, 7, 13, 15, and 20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) based upon the teachings of Johnson.
The Examiner rejected claims 5, 12, 18, and 19 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) based upon the teachings of Johnson and Gebler.
The Examiner rejected claims 8 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
based upon the teachings of Johnson and Dieterich.
Turning first to the anticipation rejection, Appellants contend that “a
specific processor of Johnson receives an entire ‘image’ and processes the
received entire ‘image’” (Br. 4). The Examiner is of the opinion that
Johnson describes a plurality of encoders connected in parallel wherein each
of the encoders receives an entire image from a HDTV video source, and
each of the encoders is programmable for processing only a portion of the
entire image (Ans. 3 and 4).
We agree with the Appellants’ argument. Johnson clearly describes a
video display system that includes a plurality of processors P1 to P3
2
Appeal 2007-2998
Application 10/100,394

connected in parallel, and wherein each of the processors receives an entire
image from the digital video source (Figure 4; Abstract). The processors P1
to P3, unlike the encoders in the claims on appeal, are programmable for
processing the entire image1 (Abstract; col. 2, ll. 9 to 19, and 58; col. 3, ll.
31 to 50; col. 6, ll. 23 to 27; col. 8, ll. 40 to 45; col. 12, ll. 4 to 7). Thus, the
anticipation rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 9 to 11, 16, and 17 is reversed
because each and every limitation in the claims is not found either expressly
or inherently in the cited reference to Johnson. In re Crish, 393 F.3d 1253,
1256 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
The obviousness rejections of claims 3, 5, 7, 8, 12 to 15, and 18 to 20
are reversed because the teachings of Gebler and Dieterich fail to cure the
noted shortcoming in the teachings of Johnson.
The decision of the Examiner is reversed.

1 Although the processors in the admitted prior art in Johnson are
programmable for processing “only a portion” of the entire image, the
admitted prior art is silent as to whether each of the processors receives “an
entire image” from a video source (col. 1, ll. 56 to 66; col. 2, ll. 61 to 66).
3
Appeal 2007-2998
Application 10/100,394

REVERSED

eld

HOFFMAN WARNICK & D'ALESSANDRO, LLC
75 STATE STREET
14TH FLOOR
ALBANY NY 12207
4