Ex Parte MacInnis

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 29, 2013

10794858 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 29, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

____________________

Ex parte ALEXANDER G. MACINNIS
____________________

Appeal 2010-007385
Application 10/794,858
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 2010-007385
Application 10/794,858

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1-4, 6, 7, 9, 12-22, 24, 25, and 27-35 (App. Br. 2). Claims 5, 8, 10,
11, 23, and 26 were indicated as containing allowable subject matter, and
thus are not subject to this Appeal. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We affirm-in-part.

A. INVENTION
According to Appellant, the invention is directed to providing
improved processing of comb filtered signals, which includes generating a
signal indicative of the quality of a field-combed signal, generating a signal
indicative of inter-field signal difference substantially outside the chroma
frequency band, and generating a signal indicative of inter-field and inter-
line signal difference substantially inside the chroma frequency band (Spec.
4,¶[09]).

B. ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
Claim 1 is exemplary:
1. A method for generating a signal indicative of the
quality of a current signal processed utilizing three-dimensional
comb filtering, the current signal being from a current video
line of a current video field, the method comprising:

generating a first signal indicative of inter-field and inter-
line signal difference substantially inside the chroma frequency
band;
determining a quality indication based at least in-part on
the first signal; and
Appeal 2010-007385
Application 10/794,858

3
generating a quality signal indicative of the quality
indication.

C. REJECTION
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Creed U.S. 5,006,927 Apr. 9, 1991

Claims 1-4, 6, 7, 9, 12-22, 24, 25, and 27-35 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Creed.

II. ISSUE
The dispositive issue before us is whether the Examiner has erred in
finding that Creed teaches “generating a first signal indicative of inter-field
and inter-line signal difference substantially inside the chroma frequency
band” (claim 1, emphasis added).

III. FINDINGS OF FACT
The following Findings of Fact (FF) are shown by a preponderance of
the evidence.
Creed
1. Creed discloses a composite digital video signal encoder that
comprises crosstalk measuring filters for measuring crosstalk between
luminance and chrominance components (Abstract), wherein Creed’s Figure
12 is reproduced below:
Appeal 2010-007385
Application 10/794,858

4

Figure 12 depicts a block schematic circuit diagram of an apparatus (See
Creed, col. 6, ll.3-4)
In Figure 12, digital composite video signal on the bus 20 is applied to
a vertical (line delay) chrominance separation comb filter 22 and a
vertical/temporal (field delay) chrominance separation comb filter 24, and
the combed output signals from the chrominance separation comb filters 22
and 24 are passed via respective delay circuits 30 and 32 to respective inputs
of a mixer 34 and the digital composite signal on the bus is also passed
directly to a third input of the mixer 34 via a delay circuit 36 (col. 10, ll. 39-
60).
2. The mixer 34 mixes the three signals applied to its respective
inputs at a mixing ratio determined by control signals from a mixer control
means 44 (col. 10, ll. 64-67), and mixer control means 44 generates the
control signals from a field (vertical/temporal) crosstalk energy
measurement signal FX obtained from the field crosstalk energy
measurement filter 28 and a line (vertical) crosstalk energy measurement
signal LX obtained from the line crosstalk energy measurement filter 26,
Appeal 2010-007385
Application 10/794,858

5
wherein the signal FX is representative of vertical/temporal (field) crosstalk
energy and the signal LX is representative of vertical (line) crosstalk energy
(col. 11, ll. 4-20).

IV. ANALYSIS
As for claim 1, the Examiner finds that, in Creed, “the
vertical/temporal field delay comb filter item 24 provides chrominance
(chroma) signal which includes crosstalk or cross-color… in its output by
acting between samples in different fields,” and thus, “inter-field signal
difference is generated” (Ans. 6) (citations omitted). The Examiner then
finds that “the vertical line delay comb filter item 22 provides chrominance
(chroma) signal which includes crosstalk or cross-color… in its output by
acting within a field of signal between vertically adjacent samples in
different lines of the field,” and thus, “inter-line signal difference is
generated” (id.) (citaitons omitted).
However, although the Examiner finds that an inter-field signal
difference and an inter-line signal difference are generated in Creed (Ans. 6),
we cannot find any teaching in the sections of Creed referenced by the
Examiner that a signal indicative of inter-field and inter-line signal
difference is generated. Instead, Creed discloses that combed output signals
from the two chrominance separation comb filters are passed via respective
delay circuits to respective inputs of a mixer, while the digital composite
signal on the bus is passed directly to a third input of the mixer via a delay
circuit (FF 1). That is, in Creed, three separate signals from the three
separate delay circuits are passed to three separate inputs of a mixer.
Appeal 2010-007385
Application 10/794,858

6
Therefore, we cannot determine where in Creed’s three separate signal
is a signal that is indicative of inter-field and inter-line difference, as
required by the claim. Furthermore, the Examiner does not explain as to
which of these three signals read on the claimed signal.
Since the Examiner has not made a clear distinction as to what
teachings of Creed comprise “a first signal” which is indicative of inter-field
and inter-line signal difference, as required by claim 1, the Examiner has
failed to meet the initial burden of proof required for the rejection pursuant
to 35 U.S.C. § 102 (b). Accordingly, we are constrained to reverse the
Examiner’s rejection of representative claim 1 over Creed. Independent
claim 20 recites similar limitations and thus stands with claim 1.
Accordingly, we also reverse the rejection of independent claim 20 and
claims 2-4, 6, 7, 9, 12, 21, 22, 24, 25, and 27 depending respectively from
claims 1 and 20 over Creed. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
As for claim 13, Appellant merely argues that Creed fails to disclose
“generating a field comb quality signal based at least in-part on the
generated field comb signal” because “Creed clearly fails to teach that the
crosstalk signals generated by items 26, 28 are based in any way, shape or
form on items 22, 24” (App. Br. 15). However, the Examiner finds that “the
mixer (item 34) establishes at its output a quality signal by doing
calculations based at least in-part on the signal (which includes crosstalk)
generated by the comb filter (items 22, 24) which includes a field comb filter
(24)” (Ans. 8). We find no error in the Examiner’s findings.
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 13 does not define a “field comb quality signal” other than it
Appeal 2010-007385
Application 10/794,858

7
is generated based at least in-part on the generated field comb signal.
Although Appellant argues that crosstalk signals generated by items 26 and
28 are not based on items 22 and 24 (App. Br. 15), Appellant appears to
argue that the claimed “field comb quality signal” can only be generated by
items 26 and 28 of Creed. However, claim 13 does not limit the signal to
such output of items 26 and 28.
In Creed, the mixer mixes the signals from the field comb filters
applied to its respective inputs and provides an output (FF 2). In particular,
the output is based at least in-part on the inputted signals from the field
comb filters. We find no error in the Examiner’s finding that “the mixer
(item 34) establishes at its output a quality signal by doing calculations
based at least in-part on the signal (which includes crosstalk) generated by
the comb filter (items 22, 24) which includes a field comb filter (24)” (Ans.
8). That is, we find that Creed discloses generating a quality signal based at
least in-part on a generated field comb signal.
Accordingly, we find that Appellant has not shown that the Examiner
erred in rejecting claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) over Creed. Further,
independent claim 28 reciting similar claim language and claims 14-19 and
29-35 depending respectively from claims 13 and 28 which have not been
argued separately, fall with claim 13. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).

Appeal 2010-007385
Application 10/794,858

8
V. CONCLUSION AND DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 13-19 and 28-35 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) is affirmed while the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-4, 6, 7, 9, 12,
20-22, 24, 25, and 27 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is reversed.
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).

ORDER
AFFIRMED-IN-PART

llw