Ex Parte Kettle

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 26, 2013

10765595 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 26, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte WIATT KETTLE
____________________

Appeal 2012-000764
Application 10/765,595
Technology Center 2400
____________________

Before THU A. DANG, JAMES R. HUGHES,
and GREGORY J. GONSALVES, Administrative Patent Judges.

DANG, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2012-000764
Application 10/765,595

2
I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Non-Final
Rejection of claims 1-31. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

A. INVENTION
Appellant’s invention is directed to a display device having a process
for converting a frame of a video feed to fit within its display having a
horizontal to vertical resolution; wherein, at least one marker is embedded
within the frame of the video feed that indicates a display region having a
horizontal to vertical ratio that matches the horizontal to vertical resolution
ratio of the display device (Abstract; Spec.¶¶ [0011] and [0022]).

B. ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
Claim 1 is exemplary:
1. A method for fitting a frame of a video feed to a display
device, the method comprising:

ascertaining at least one marker defining a region of the
frame, the region having a horizontal to vertical ratio matching
a horizontal resolution to vertical resolution ratio of the
display device;

buffering at least one row of the region defined by the at
least one marker and excluding rows outside the region defined
by the at least one marker such that the rows outside the region
defined by the at least one marker are simultaneously cropped
from the video feed; and

displaying, on the display device, the region of the frame
defined by the at least one marker.
Appeal 2012-000764
Application 10/765,595

3

C. REJECTIONS
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Sullivan US 2002/0047918 Al Apr. 25, 2002

Claims 1-4, 6-12, 14-19, 21-27, and 29-31 stands rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Sullivan.
Claims 5, 13, 20, and 28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Sullivan.

II. ISSUES
The dispositive issues before us are whether the Examiner has erred in
determining that Sullivan teaches:
1. “ascertaining at least one marker defining a region of the frame,
the region having a horizontal to vertical ratio matching a horizontal
resolution to vertical resolution ratio of the display device” (claim 1,
emphasis added); and
2. “parsing the at least one marker from the video feed” (claim 9,
emphasis added).

Appeal 2012-000764
Application 10/765,595

4
III. FINDINGS OF FACT
The following Findings of Fact (FF) are shown by a preponderance of
the evidence.
Sullivan
1. Sullivan discloses a method and apparatus for encoding video
content where an original video image 400 having a 16:9 aspect ratio is
encoded with information identifying four different display regions (402,
404, 406, and 408) for displaying the original video image on a video
display having a 4:3 aspect ratio (Fig. 4; ¶¶ [0034] and [0046]).
2. An identified display region is defined by data included in or
transmitted with the video content and may change locations from one frame
to the next (¶ [0046]).
3. Although the original video image having a 16:9 aspect ratio
and display regions (402, 404, 406, and 408) for display upon a video
display having a 4:3 aspect ratio, the original video image may include any
number of display regions for any number of different video display types
including a 4:3 aspect ratio, 2.3:1 aspect ratio, high resolution 16:9 aspect
ratio, and low resolution 16:9 aspect ratio (¶ [0041]).
4. The receiving video display includes a video decoder 322
having a display region locator 324 and an active region locator 326;
wherein, the display region locator 324 identifies one or more display
regions encoded in the video signal and the active region locator 326
identifies an active region encoded in the video signal (¶ [0032]).
Appeal 2012-000764
Application 10/765,595

5

IV. ANALYSIS
Claims 1, 3, 4, 6-8, 10, 11, 14-16, 18,
19, 21-24, 26, 27, and 29-31
Appellant contends that “[a]lthough Sullivan teaches … that data is
included with the video content, it is clear that no markers are ascertained in
fitting a frame of a video feed to a display device within the Sullivan
reference” (App. Br. 13). Appellant asserts that:
[R]ather than utilizing a marker defining a region of a frame of
a video feed, the system of Sullivan teaches the opposite when
it teaches that a user selects a particular display region based on
user preferences and that the “identified display region is
defined by data included in or transmitted with the video
content and may change locations from one frame to the
next . . . .”
(id.). Appellant then argues that “Sullivan simply teaches … that all
the four display regions … present[] a different portion of the original
video image on the video display with dimensions that do not match
the horizontal resolution to vertical resolution ratio of the video
display” (App. Br. 13-14).
However, the Examiner finds that Sullivan discloses “that a region is
being defined by at two parameters, such as two (x, y) coordinates” which
are defined “by using input devices such as a computer keyboard, a mouse, a
game pad, joystick, etc;” therefore, “the (x, y) coordinates define[] or mark[]
a desired display region, [which] can be interpreted as a marker” (Ans. 7).
The Examiner notes that Sullivan discloses that “a particular original video
image may include any number of display regions for any number of
different video display types” including a “high resolution 16:9 aspect ratio[]
and a low resolution 16:9 aspect ratio” display type for “original video
Appeal 2012-000764
Application 10/765,595

6
image with a 16:9 aspect ratio” (Ans. 8). Thus, “Sullivan basically states the
horizontal to vertical ratio of a defined video image region matches the
horizontal to vertical ratio of a display device or devices” (id.).
We give the claim its broadest reasonable interpretation consistent
with the Specification. See In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir.
1997). Claim 1 does not define “marker” other than it defines the region of
the frame which has a horizontal to vertical ratio that matches the horizontal
to vertical resolution of the display device. Thus, we give “ascertaining at
least one marker defining a region of the frame, the region having a
horizontal to vertical ratio matching a horizontal resolution to vertical
resolution ratio of the display device” its broadest reasonable interpretation
as data that defines a region of a frame having a horizontal to vertical ratio
that equals the horizontal to vertical resolution of a display device.
Sullivan discloses a method and apparatus for encoding video content
having 16:9 aspect ratio with information identifying four different display
regions for video displays of 4:3 aspect ratio, 2.3:1 aspect ratio, high
resolution 16:9 aspect ratio, and low resolution 16:9 aspect ratio (FF1 and
3). The display region is identified by data encoded in the video content or
transmitted with the video content (FF 2). We find that the data defining the
display region comprises data that defines a region of a frame having a
horizontal to vertical ratio that equals the horizontal to vertical resolution of
a display device.
In view of our claim construction above, we find that Sullivan
discloses “ascertaining at least one marker defining a region of the frame,
the region having a horizontal to vertical ratio matching a horizontal
Appeal 2012-000764
Application 10/765,595

7
resolution to vertical resolution ratio of the display device,” as required by
claim 1.
Accordingly, we find that Appellant has not shown that the Examiner
erred in rejecting claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) over Sullivan. Further,
independent claims 16 and 24 having similar claim language and claims 1, 3,
4, 6-8, 10, 11, 14-16, 18, 19, 21-24, 26, 27, and 29-31 (depending from
claims 1, 16, and 24), which have not been argued separately, fall with claim
1.
Claims 2, 9, 12, 17, and 25
As to claim 9, Appellant contends that “Sullivan simply teaches that a
user can select a particular predefined display region for viewing, and is
silent regarding parsing video content for a marker” (App. Br. 15).
Appellant argues that “because the system of Sullivan provides for user-
selection of a particular display region, and because the Sullivan device only
provides predefined display regions, Sullivan teaches away from parsing a
video feed for a marker” (id.). Appellant contends further that “Sullivan
fails to teach or suggest, ‘at least one marker defining a region of the frame,
the region having a horizontal to vertical ratio matching a horizontal
resolution to vertical resolution ratio of the display device’” (App. Br. 16).
However, the Examiner finds that “Sullivan basically indicates that
the display region information and the active region information are
transmitted along with the video data, and identified and separated from the
video packet by the display region locator 324 and active region locator 326,
respectively;” wherein, the “locators are essentially data parsers because
they parse location data from a video data stream” (Ans. 10).
Appeal 2012-000764
Application 10/765,595

8
Claim 9 does not define “parsing;” thus, we give “parsing the at least
one marker from the video feed” its broadest reasonable interpretation as any
extraction of data from the video content.
As noted supra, Sullivan discloses that data is included within the
video content or transmitted with the video content which defines the display
region (FF 2). The video display includes a video decoder having a display
region locator and an active region locator, which both identify the display
region in the video content (FF 4). Similar to that noted above, we find that
adding data to the video content comprises the step of adding to the video
feed at least one marker defining a region of the frame having a horizontal to
vertical ratio matching a horizontal to vertical resolution of the display
device. We find further that the method of extracting the display region
from the video content by the display region and the active region locators
comprises extraction of the data from the video content.
Accordingly, we find that Appellant has not shown that the Examiner
erred in rejecting claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) over Sullivan. Further,
independent claim 12 having similar claim language and claims 2, 17, and
25 (depending from claims 1 and 16), which have similar arguments, fall
with claim 1.
Claims 5, 13, 20, and 28
Appellant argues that claims 5, 13, 20, and 28 are patentable over the
cited prior art for the same reasons asserted with respect to parent claims 1,
12, 16, and 24 (App. Br. 25).
As noted supra, however, we find that Sullivan teaches all the features
of claim 1. We therefore affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 5, 13, 20,
Appeal 2012-000764
Application 10/765,595

9
and 28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 for the same reasons expressed with respect to
claim 1, supra.

V. CONCLUSION AND DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-4, 6-12, 14-19, 21-27, and 29-31
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) and claims 5, 13, 20, and 28 under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

peb