12490589 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 24, 2017)

Ex Parte Jung et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 24, 2017

12490589 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 24, 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. 12/490,589 06/24/2009 Kil-soo Jung 011001.0311 3772 89980 7590 NSIP LAW P.O. Box 65745 Washington, DC 20035 EXAMINER BECKER, JOSEPH W ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2486 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/28/2017 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): pto@nsiplaw.com pto.nsip@gmail.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte KIL-SOO JUNG, HYUN-KWON CHUNG, and DAE-JONG LEE Appeal 2015-007435 Application 12/490,589 Technology Center 2400 Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, IRVIN E. BRANCH, and MICHAEL J. ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judges. BRANCH, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims 1—7, 22—31, 33, and 34, all pending claims. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. Appeal 2015-007435 Application 12/490,589 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to processing video data. Abstract. Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A video processing method of a video processing apparatus, the video processing method comprising: decoding a current frame of two-dimensional video data; adjusting a brightness of the decoded current frame of two- dimensional video data to increase the brightness of the decoded current frame; converting the brightness-adjusted current frame into three-dimensional video data; and displaying the converted three-dimensional video data, wherein the brightness of the decoded current frame of two- dimensional video data is increased to compensate for decrease of the brightness of the displayed converted three-dimensional video data which is caused by shutter glasses. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Kawamura US 4,667,228 issued May 19, 1987 Swift US 2005/0078108 A1 published Apr. 14, 2005 Yamamoto US 6,900,778 B1 issued May 31, 2005 Tam ’614 US 2007/0024614 A1 published Feb. 1, 2007 Tam ’670 US 2008/0247670 A1 published Oct. 9, 2008 REJECTIONS Claims 1, 7, 22, 28, and 33 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Tam ’670 and Swift. Ans. 3—5, 9-10. 2 Appeal 2015-007435 Application 12/490,589 Claims 1 and 33 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Tam ’614 and Swift. Ans. 5—6. Claims 2—7, 23—27, and 29-31 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Tam ’670, Swift, and Kawamura. Ans. 6—9. Claim 34 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Tam ’670, Swift, and Yamamoto. Ans. 10—11. ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection in light of Appellants’ arguments the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants’ conclusions and, except as discussed below, we adopt as our own: (1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken (Final Act. 2—11) and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellants’ Appeal Brief (Ans. 11—22). We concur with the conclusions reached by the Examiner, and we highlight the following for emphasis.1 Claims 1 and 33 Appellants argue error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 over the combination of Tam ’670 and Swift because neither the references individually nor the combination disclose “converting the brightness- adjusted current frame into three-dimensional video data.” App. Br. 8—14; Reply Br. 2—6.2 The basis of Appellants’ argument is that Tam ’670 does 1 Only those arguments made by Appellants have been considered in this decision. Arguments Appellants did not make in the briefs have not been considered and are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). 2 Appellants’ Reply Brief is not numbered. We refer to the Reply Brief as if the first page having the caption is page 1. 3 Appeal 2015-007435 Application 12/490,589 not disclose adjusting brightness at all. Id. Appellants argue that, although Swift discloses adjusting brightness, Swift’s brightness adjustment is of final (i.e., three-dimensional) video data and not two-dimensional data as the claim requires. App. Br. 11—13. We find Appellants’ arguments unpersuasive because Tam ’670 discloses brightness adjustment of decoded two-dimensional data. Appellants do not dispute that Tam ’670 discloses intensity levels of the chrominance components are adjusted to generate color-based depth maps. See, e.g., Reply Br. 4 (referring to Tam ’670, Fig. 1). Appellants argue, however, that adjusting the intensity of a color component is not adjusting brightness as claimed. This reasoning is flawed, as the Examiner points out, with reference to Tam ’670, paragraphs 29 and 40. Ans. 12—13. In short, the adjustment of a color component adjusts brightness even if only the brightness of that color component. Accordingly, Appellants’ arguments are unpersuasive because they fail to recognize that Tam ’670’ s color component intensity adjustment includes “adjusting a brightness of the decoded current frame of two-dimensional video data to increase the brightness of the decoded current frame.” We note Appellants’ argument that the Examiner’s Answer is not responsive to arguments pertaining to Swift. Reply Br. 8 (referring to various pages of Appellants’ Appeal Brief). Swift, however, was cited by the Examiner for the field of use limitation “wherein the brightness of the decoded current frame of two-dimensional video data is increased to compensate for decrease of the brightness of the displayed converted three- dimensional video data which is caused by shutter glasses.” See, e.g., Ans. 4. Appellants do not dispute that Swift discloses what it was cited for. See, 4 Appeal 2015-007435 Application 12/490,589 e.g., App. Br. 8—14; Reply Br. 2—6, 8. Accordingly, Appellants’ arguments against Swift are not relevant to whether the combination of Tam ’670 and Swift discloses “converting the brightness-adjusted current frame into three- dimensional video data.” In view of the foregoing, we are unpersuaded of error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 as obvious over the combination of Tam ’670 and Swift. Similarly, we are unpersuaded of error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 33 as obvious over the combination of Tam ’670 and Swift, which Appellants argue on the same basis. We sustain the rejection of claims 1 and 33 over Tam ’670 and Swift. In view of our sustaining the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 1 and 33 over Tam ’670 and Swift, we do not reach the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of these same claims over Tam ’614 and Swift. See In re Gleave, 560 F.3d 1331, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (not reaching other issues upon deciding a dispositive issue). The Remaining Claims We have reviewed Appellants’ arguments alleging error in the Examiner’s rejection of claims 7, 22, and 28 as unpatentable over Tam ’670 and Swift (App. Br. 8—12; Reply Br. 2—6); the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2—7, 23—27, and 29-31 over Tam ’670, Swift, and Kawamura (App. Br. 19- 30); and the Examiner’s rejection of claim 34 over Tam ’670, Swift, and Yamamoto (id. 30). Based on the arguments presented by Appellants, we are unpersuaded of error for the reasons stated by the Examiner. Ans. 3—22. Accordingly, given the record before us, we adopt as our own the 5 Appeal 2015-007435 Application 12/490,589 Examiner’s findings and conclusion that claims 2—7, 22—28, and 29-31, and 34 are unpatentable. Id. DECISION We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—7, 22—31, 33, and 34. 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)(l)(iv). AFFIRMED 6