13609708 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 27, 2017)

Ex Parte Joseph

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 27, 2017

13609708 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 27, 2017)

United States Patent and Trademark Office 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 APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. PD-210014 2557 EXAMINER WALSH, KATHLEEN M. ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2482 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 13/609,708 09/11/2012 143859 7590 02/28/2017 AT&T Legal Dept. - ETT.T.P Attention: Patent Docketing Room 2A-207 One AT&T Way Bedminster, NJ 07921 Kuriacose Joseph 02/28/2017 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte KURIACOSE JOSEPH Appeal 2016-006200 Application 13/609,708 Technology Center 2400 Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, JAMES R. HUGHES, and ERIC S. FRAHM, Administrative Patent Judges. HUGHES, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2016-006200 Application 13/609,708 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims 1—18. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. The invention relates to “reformatting 3D television data into a two- dimensional (2D) television data format for distribution to viewers” (Spec. 11). Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A system to provide 3D content to a viewer, comprising: a subsampler to subsample a stereoscopic 3D image; a packer to pack the subsampled stereoscopic 3D image into a 2D compatible format having four quadrants; a compression system to compress the packed data, wherein the compression system increases processing resolution at at least one quadrant boundary in the packed data; and a transmitter to transmit the packed data to the viewer. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Kamito US 2010/0220792 A1 Sept. 2, 2010 Takahashi WO 2011001864 A1 Jan. 6, 2011 REJECTION The Examiner made the following rejection: 2 Appeal 2016-006200 Application 13/609,708 Claim 1—18 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Takahashi and Kamito. ANALYSIS The Examiner finds the combination of Takahashi and Kamito discloses all the limitations of independent claim 1, including that Kamito teaches “a compression system to compress the packed data, wherein the compression system increases processing resolution at at least one quadrant boundary in the packed data” (Final Act. 3—4). Appellant contends “Kamito does not compress pixels ‘in the vicinity’ of a subimage boundary, that is, ‘within a predetermined number of pixels from the boundary’” (App. Br. 6). Accordingly, Appellant argues, Kamito “does not compress pixels at a quadrant boundary and therefore does not [teach] ‘a compression system to compress the packed data, wherein the compression system increases processing resolution at at least one quadrant boundary in the packed data, ’ as recited in claim 1” (id.). We agree with Appellant. Kamito discloses encoding an image by dividing the target image into subimages, and executing the encoding such that the quantizing steps used in the encoding vary according to distance away from the boundary between subimages (Kamito, Abstract). Specifically, “small quantizing steps are adopted for the vicinity of the boundary in the encoding, and larger quantizing steps are adopted as being further away from the boundary” (Kamito, 1123). However, “the image encoding device 100 transmits pixels in the vicinity of the boundary on PCM signals, without compressing them” (Kamito, 1125). Further, Kamito’s Figures 6 and 7 show that pixels at the boundaries of subimages are transmitted as PCM signals, and thus are not compressed. 3 Appeal 2016-006200 Application 13/609,708 Accordingly, we find Kamito does not teach “increasing processing resolution at at least one quadrant boundary,” as recited in claim 1, because Kamito teaches there is no compression at the subimage boundaries. The Examiner responds to Appellant’s arguments by asserting “the claim language does not require complete compression or complete compression at the boundaries” (Ans. 8). This assertion is unavailing because claim 1 requires compression of data, “wherein the compression system increases processing resolution at least one quadrant boundary.” Kamito fails to disclose any compression at a subimage boundary, and thus fails to teach the disputed claim limitation. We are, therefore, constrained by the record to find the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claim 1, independent claim 7 which recites commensurate limitations, and dependent claims 2—6 and 8—12 for similar reasons. Appellant argues independent claims 13 and 16 similarly to independent claim 1 (see App. Br. 4—10). The Examiner’s response to Appellant’s arguments treats independent claims 13 and 16 similarly to independent claim 1 (see Ans. 7—10). We are thus also constrained by the record to find the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claims 13 and 16, and claims, 14, 15, 17, and 18, which depend therefrom. CONCLUSION The Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1—18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). DECISION For the above reasons, the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—18 is reversed. REVERSED 4