Ex Parte Hurst

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 30, 2018

14712474 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 30, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
141712,474 05/14/2015
14824 7590 05/02/2018
Moser Taboada/ SRI International
1030 Broad Street
Suite 203
Shrewsbury, NJ 07702
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Robert Norman Hurst JR.
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.
SRI15499CON 6584
EXAMINER
FLYNN, RANDY A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2424
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/02/2018 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):
docketing@mtiplaw.com
llinardakis@mtiplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ROBERT NORMAN HURST JR.
Appeal2017-010048
Application 14/712,474
Technology Center 2400
Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, NORMAN H. BEAMER, and
ADAM J. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant 1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 1-20, which constitute all the pending claims in
this application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We reverse.
1 Appellant identifies SRI INTERNATIONAL as the real party in interest
(App. Br. 3).
Appeal2017-010048
Application 14/712,474
THE INVENTION
Appellant's claimed invention is directed to "detecting and
quantifying losses" in video equipment, in which a "test pattern is indicative
of a color transformation mismatch after encoding/decoding with
incompatible video transmission standards" (Abstract).
Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the
subject matter on appeal:
1. A method for detecting video color transformation
mismatches in video equipment, comprising:
generating a test pattern, the test pattern comprising
at least two colors;
processing the test pattern through video equipment
to obtain a color transformed test pattern; and
displaying the color transformed test pattern on a
display to a viewer, wherein when a color transformation
mismatch occurs due to processing with incompatible
video transmission standards, the displayed color
transformed test pattern exhibits a reduction in contrast
between the at least two colors.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is the following:
Higgins
Hollowbush
Sayre
Borg
US 2005/0083352 Al
US 2005/0219267 Al
US 2006/0203125 Al
US 7,149,348 Bl
2
Apr. 21, 2005
Oct. 6, 2005
Sept. 14, 2006
Dec. 12, 2006
Appeal2017-010048
Application 14/712,474
REJECTIONS
The Examiner made the following rejections:
Claims 4, 11, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, as being indefinite. Final Act. 4.
Claims 1-3, 6, 8-10, 13, 15-17, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hollowbush and Borg. Final Act. 5.
Claims 5, 12, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Hollowbush, Borg, and Higgins. Final Act. 8.
Claims 7 and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Hollowbush, Borg, and Sayre. Final Act. 9.
ISSUES
The issues are whether the Examiner erred in finding:
1. indefiniteness caused by use of the term "about" recited in dependent
claim 4, and similarly recited in dependent claims 11 and 18; and
2. that the combination of Hollowbush and Borg teaches or suggests the
limitation of:
displaying the color transformed test pattern on a display to a
viewer, wherein when a color transformation mismatch occurs
due to processing with incompatible video transmission
standards, the displayed color transformed test pattern exhibits
a reduction in contrast between the at least two colors,
as recited in independent claim 1, and similarly recited in independent
claims 8 and 15.
3
Appeal2017-010048
Application 14/712,474
Indefiniteness
ANALYSIS
Dependent claim 4 recites "wherein when one color of the at least two
colors is about 100% of its range and another color of the at least two colors
is set to about the reciprocal of the gain increase to that color that occurs
when a transformation mismatch is present in the video equipment."
The Examiner finds the use of the term "about" as indefinite because
" [ t ]he claims state ' ... about 100%' which leads to an indefinite
interpretation of the language, as it is unclear if 'about 100%' is limited to a
particular range, or not." (Ans. 9, Final Act. 4). Appellant argues "[t]he use
of the phrase 'about 100%' is intended to cover situations at least where the
one color may not be set to exactly 100% of its range because of limitations
of a system, however is set to near 100% of its range" (Reply Br. 3; App. Br.
6).
We agree with Appellant. A claim fails to comply with 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, second paragraph, "when it contains words or phrases whose meaning
is unclear." In re Packard, 751F.3d1307, 1310, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (per
curiam) (approving, for pre-issuance claims, the standard from MPEP
§ 2173.05(e)); see also Ex parte McAward, Appeal 2015-006416, 2017 WL
3669566, at *5 (PTAB Aug. 25, 2017) (precedential) (adopting the approach
for assessing indefiniteness approved by the Federal Circuit in Packard).
"Claim language employing terms of degree has long been found definite
where it provided enough certainty to one of skill in the art when read in the
context of the invention." Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc., 766 F.3d
1364, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
4
Appeal2017-010048
Application 14/712,474
Here, the claim refers to an occurrence of a "transformation
mismatch" that the disclosure refers to as a "result of clipping" (Spec. i-f 15;
see also App. Br. 6-7). After transformation, a color whose range exceeds
100% would be modified or clipped so that its range is limited to 100%. See
Spec. i-fi-149-50. One skilled in the art would be aware of the numerical
errors occurring during color transformations when a color is about 100% of
range prior to transformation, and the color's post transformation range is
greater than 100%, because of the imprecision inherent in encoding and
decoding color values that are represented by digitized values often eight or
ten bits in size. See, for example, Spec. i-f 38. Accordingly, we reverse the
Examiner's indefiniteness rejection of claims 4, 11, and 18.
Obviousness
Appellant argues "Hollowbush teaches that when at least one of the
associated color space values exceeds some threshold value (such as when a
gamut error occurs), such error can be indicated in the top left quadrant of
the graphical display by a white burst point" (Reply Br. 7, citing
Hollowbush i-f 71 ). Appellant contents that
Hollowbush merely teaches that if one of the associated color
space values exceeds some threshold value, such error can be
indicated in the top left quadrant of the graphical display by a
white burst point, which does not teach or suggest that a test
pattern exhibits a reduction in contrast between the colors of the
test pattern when a color transformation mismatch occurs
(Reply Br. 7-8).
We are persuaded by Appellant's argument. The Examiner finds that
when looking at element 112 in Figure 4 of Hollowbush, the
gamut error is displayed in the plot as indicated by element 114.
5
Appeal2017-010048
Application 14/712,474
Element 114 shows a color where a gamut error has occurred (i.e.
color transformation error), and the Examiner interprets this as
showing a similar contrast to the other color(s) adjacent to it (i.e.
as opposed to stark contrast between other color areas of the plot)
(Ans. 12). While the remedy for the gamut error may involve selecting a
point adjacent to the gamut error but inside the radius (see Hollowbush i-f 74,
Fig. 4, gamut error iris plot 112), the Examiner has not explained how the
view of automatically selected pixels 114 in the upper left quadrant of
Figure 4 can be compared to nearby pixels in order to determine a contrast
change, particularly when automatically selected pixels 114 in both the
upper left and upper right quadrant of Figure 4 are gamut error points
highlighted to the viewer as "white burst points," in which the color white
appears to be used to highlight to the user the existence of these errors in the
transformed pixels and image (Hollowbush i-f 71 ). The additional references
Borg, Higgins, and Sayre do not remedy this deficiency.
Accordingly, we are constrained by the record to reverse the
Examiner's obviousness rejection for independent claims 1, 8, and 15, as
well as dependent claims 2, 3, 5-7, 9, 10, 12-14, 16, 17, 19, and 20.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner erred in finding:
1. indefiniteness caused by use of the term "about" recited in dependent
claim 4, and similarly recited in dependent claims 11 and 18; and
2. that the combination of Hollowbush and Borg teaches or suggests the
limitation of:
6
Appeal2017-010048
Application 14/712,474
displaying the color transformed test pattern on a display to a
viewer, wherein when a color transformation mismatch occurs
due to processing with incompatible video transmission
standards, the displayed color transformed test pattern exhibits
a reduction in contrast between the at least two colors,
as recited in independent claim 1, and similarly recited in independent
claims 8 and 15.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 4, 11, and 18 under 35
U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, is reversed.
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-3, 5-10, 12-17, 19, and
20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is reversed.
REVERSED
7