Ex Parte Holtz et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 21, 2012

10434461 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 21, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte ALEX HOLTZ, ROBERT J. SNYDER,
JOHN R. BENSON, WILLIAM H. COUCH,
MARCEL LAROCQUE, CHARLES M. HOEPPNER,
KEITH GREGORY TINGLE,
RICHARD TODD and MAURICE SMITH
____________

Appeal 2011-011601
Application 10/434,4611
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before LANCE LEONARD BARRY, THU A. DANG and
CAROLYN D. THOMAS, Administrative Patent Judges.

THOMAS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

1 The real party in interest is THOMSON LICENSING S.A.
Appeal 2011-011601
Application 10/434,461

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’s
final decision rejecting claims 1-6, which are all the claims remaining in the
application. Claim 7 is cancelled and claims 8-21 are withdrawn. We have
jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
The present invention relates generally to production of live and
as-live shows using live segments and re-purposed archived materials.
See Spec., 2: ¶ [0003].
Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A production system, comprising:

a first production path;

a second production path; and

a control system that causes said first production
path to generate a show in a first aspect ratio, and that
causes said second production path to generate said show
in a second aspect ratio,

wherein field acquisitions for the show in the first
aspect ratio and for the show in the second aspect ratio
are originally captured at the first aspect ratio and the
second aspect ratio, respectively and separately preserved
throughout each production path, said control system
having a first output for outputting the show in the first
aspect ratio and a second output for outputting the show
in a second aspect ratio, the first and second outputs
being synchronized with each other.

Appellants appeal the following rejections:

Appeal 2011-011601
Application 10/434,461

3
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Washino (US 5,537,157, Jul. 16, 1996), Kihara (European
Patent App. Pub. 0 559 478 A1, Mar. 5, 1993), and Yoshioka (US
5,122,885, June 16, 1992).

Claim Groupings
Based on Appellants’ arguments in the Appeal Brief, we will
decide the appeal on the basis of claims as set forth below. See 37 C.F.R.
41.37(c)(1)(vii).

ANALYSIS
Claims 1-3, 5, and 6
Issue1: Did the Examiner err in finding that the combined teachings
of the cited art, particularly Yoshioka, teaches and/or suggests a show
“originally captured at the first aspect ratio and the second aspect ratio,
respectively and separately preserved throughout each production path,” as
claimed?

Appellants contend that “[t]hroughout a variety of different passages,
Washino makes clear that different aspect ratios result from converting a
signal in a first aspect ratio to a second aspect ratio.” (App. Br. 9.)
Appellants further contend that in Yoshioka “the aspect ratio decider circuit
makes a determination as to which aspect ratio to provide, rather than
preserving both aspect ratios throughout respective producing paths.” (Id. at
12.)

Appeal 2011-011601
Application 10/434,461

4
The Examiner found that “Washino is capable of producing two
signals of different formats simultaneously.” (Ans. 7.)
The Examiner further found that:
Yoshioka further states that a first output switching means “delivers
the video signals as it is to the monitor television of a1 aspect ratio”, if
the native aspect ratio is a1, and a second output switching means
“delivers the video signals as it is to the monitor television of a2
aspect ratio”, if the aspect ratio is a2. Therefore, in the instances in
which the argued time compression or expansion does not take place,
differing aspect ratios are preserved throughout the production path.
(Ans. 8.) We agree with the Examiner.

Claim 1 recites, inter alia, a show “originally captured at the first
aspect ratio and the second aspect ratio, respectively and separately
preserved throughout each production path.” Similarly, both Washino and
Yoshioka discloses capturing a show at different aspect ratios (see Washino,
col. 12, ll. 12-15; see also Yoshioka, col. 2, ll. 5-13.) Yoshioka further
discloses that a “first output switching means delivers the video signal as it
is to the monitor television of a1 aspect ratio . . . when the reproduced signal
is for the aspect ratio a1” (Yoshioka, col. 2, ll. 55-60). In addition, Yoshioka
discloses that “[t]he second output switching means delivers the video signal
as it is to the monitor television of a2 aspect ratio . . . when the reproduced
signals is for the aspect ratio a2” (id. at col. 2, l. 63 to col. 3, l. 1). In other
words, Yoshioka delivers both the a1 aspect and the a2 aspect videos as is to
respective monitors (i.e., throughout each first and second production paths)
when compression or expansion is not needed. Therefore, we agree with the
Examiner that the claimed “separately preserved throughout each production
path” reads on at least Yoshioka’s features discussed supra.
Appeal 2011-011601
Application 10/434,461

5
For these reasons, we sustain the Examiner’s §103 rejection of claims
1-3, 5, and 6.
Claim 4
Issue2: Did the Examiner err in finding that the combined teachings
of the cited art, particularly Washino, teaches and/or suggests “a script
comprising a plurality of transition macros,” as claimed?

Appellants contend that “Washino fails to teach or suggest that the
system therein employs a script in any manner whatsoever during the
production of the show.” (App. Br. 13.)
The Examiner found that “Washino allows for the control of the first
and second production paths, which is analogous to the claimed ‘script’ and
‘transition macros’ for the same.” (Ans. 9.)

Here, the Examiner rationalize that because Washino shows that data
is transmitted to/from the devices under the control of a microprocessor
(Washino, col. 9, ll. 47-48), scripts and macros including instructions must
be used therein (Ans. 9). We agree.
We see no error in the Examiner’s equating the claimed “plurality of
transition macros . . . comprising a first set of instructions . . . a second set of
instructions” to Washino’s microprocessor transmitting data to/from the
devices (Washino, col. 9, ll. 47-48), given the scope and breadth of the term
“transition macros.” Notably, Appellants define the term “transition
macros” as “a set of video production commands where each video
production command is transmitted from a processing unit to a video
production device” (Spec., 7: ¶[0028]). Here, Appellants describe a
Appeal 2011-011601
Application 10/434,461

6
“transition macros” somewhat broadly, generally, and in permissive and
exemplary terms, which can include, among other examples, any
instructions for providing video production commands to a video production
device. The Examiner has shown that Washino discloses transmitting video
data under the control of a microprocessor (i.e., instructions) (see Washino,
Abstract and col. 9, ll. 47-48).
For these reasons, we sustain the Examiner’s §103 rejection of
claim 4.

DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s § 103 rejection.
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.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv) .

AFFIRMED

Vsh