Ex Parte Maurer

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Sep 16, 2004

09231128 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 16, 2004)

1
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written
for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 19
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________
Ex parte STEVEN D. MAURER
__________
Appeal No. 2004-0204
Application No. 09/231,128
__________
ON BRIEF
__________
Before KRASS, JERRY SMITH, and RUGGIERO, Administrative Patent Judges.
KRASS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal from the final rejection of claims 1-3, 7-11, 14, 16
and 18-20.
The invention pertains to processing compressed video streams. In particular,
the invention provides for detecting content based defects in a video stream by testing
the field data and changes in field data to generate an appropriate alarm signal for an
operator.
Appeal No. 2004-0204
Application No. 09/231,128
2
Representative independent claim 1 is reproduced as follows:
1. An apparatus for detecting content based defects in a video stream
comprising:
means for detecting a specified content characteristic in the video stream;
means for determining whether the specified content characteristic meets
a predetermined alarm criterion; and
means for reporting an error when the predetermined alarm criterion is
met.
The examiner relies on the following references:
Tamer 4,430,671 Feb. 7, 1984
Rao et al. (Rao) 6,041,142 Mar. 21, 2000
(Filed Apr. 8, 1996)
Hasegawa 6,075,552 Jun. 13, 2000
(Filed Jun. 11, 1997)
Dimitrova et al. (Dimitrova) 6,100,941 Aug. 8, 2000
(Filed Jul. 28, 1998)
Van De Schaar-Mitrea et al.
(Van De Schaar-Mitrea) 6,175,386 Jan. 16, 2001
(Filed Jun. 2, 1998)
Japanese Patent Application
Hirokawa JP9-266567-A Oct. 7, 1997
Claims 1 and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §102 (e) as anticipated by
Hasegawa.
Claims 1-3, 7-11, 14, 16 and 18-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103. As
evidence of obviousness, the examiner offers Hasegawa with regard to claims 2, 16 and
19, adding Rao with regard to claims 1-3, 8, 9, 11/8 and 18-20. The examiner offers
Appeal No. 2004-0204
Application No. 09/231,128
3
Tamer or Dimitrova in view of Hasegawa with regard to claims 1, 2, 7, 11/7, 18 and 19,
while offering Van De Schaar-Mitrea in view of Hasegawa with regard to claims 1, 2, 10,
18 and 19. The examiner offers Hirokawa in view of Hasegawa with regard to claims 1,
2, 14, 18 and 19.
Reference is made to the brief and answer for the respective positions of
appellant and the examiner.
OPINION
First, with regard to the rejection of independent claims 1 and 18 under 35 U.S.C.
§102 (e), a rejection for anticipation requires that the four corners of a single prior art
document describe every element of the claimed invention, either expressly or
inherently, such that a person of ordinary skill in the art could practice the invention
without undue experimentation. In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1478-79, 31 USPQ2d
1671, 1673 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
The examiner postulates that Hasegawa discloses a system, in Figure 1, and a
method, in Figure 7, for detecting errors, which the examiner equates to “abnormalities,”
in a video stream sent by headend 21, wherein count values indicative of specific video
content are stored and compared with a preset value, and a visual alarm, indicated by
the examiner as a “background color,” is displayed to the viewer. The examiner further
alleges that the Hasegawa system reports the occurrence of the detected error back to
the headend via element 36.
Appeal No. 2004-0204
Application No. 09/231,128
4
Appellant’s view is that Claims 1 and 18 recite “detecting a specified content
characteristic in the video stream” and that a “specified content characteristic” is not
equivalent to a count value that indicates whether a picture frame has been decoded or
not between computer interrupts. That is, appellant argues that one cannot equate an
interrupted service of Hasegawa, indicated by a lack of a decoded picture frame to a
content characteristic of the instant invention, wherein such characteristic is based on
comparing decoded picture frames with other picture frames, i.e., what is actually in the
picture frame is the content characteristic, not the absence of a picture frame (brief-
page 4).
We agree with the examiner that a broad, yet reasonable, interpretation of the
claim limitation, “specified content characteristic” would include the disclosure by
Hasegawa wherein an abnormality, causing an interruption, is an indication of a
“content characteristic” since detection of presence or absence of a video signal can
certainly be a “content characteristic.” If a signal is absent, there is no content; hence
the “characteristic” of the content is that it is not present. Moreover, as pointed out by
the examiner, Hasegawa , in the background section of the patent, discusses prior art
detection of an abnormal state from picture data of a monitor, wherein brightness value
of pixel data of a moving picture frame is compared with that of a picture frame taken
previously. Clearly, “brightness” can be considered as a “content characteristic,” as
Appeal No. 2004-0204
Application No. 09/231,128
5
claimed. Brightness is “actually in the picture frame” and thus meets appellant’s
definition of “content characteristic” at page 4 of the brief.
Accordingly, we will sustain the rejection of claims 1 and 18 under 35 U.S.C.
§102 (e).
With regard to the rejection of claims 2, 16 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. §103 over
Hasegawa, the examiner explains that although Hasegawa does not specify the video
parameter being detected, it would have been obvious to apply the counter of
Hasegawa to the brightness data since video data is uniquely represented by and
presented as brightness and color information (answer-page 5).
Appellant argues that the examiner erroneously contends that it would have been
obvious to apply the counter of Hasegawa to brightness data. Appellant contends that
the rejection is “difficult to understand” since the brightness detector is just one of many
listed in claims 2 and 19, and is not mentioned in claim 18. The appellant urges that
only claim 16 recites that a brightness detector is used as the detecting means. In any
event, appellant contends that there is no teaching or suggestion in Hasegawa that a
brightness detector may be used ‘because Hasegawa is based on the absence of a
decoded picture frame” (brief-page 5).
We are unpersuaded by appellant’s arguments. First, in Hasegawa’s
background section, mentioned supra, detection of an abnormal state of a picture frame
based on brightness value is disclosed.
Appeal No. 2004-0204
Application No. 09/231,128
6
With regard to appellant’s difficulty in understanding the rejection because
brightness is “just one of many listed” in claims 2 and 19, these claims list the detectors
in a Markush group, “the group consisting of...” Accordingly, a showing of any one of
the items in that group is sufficient to meet the claim language. The examiner has
shown the obviousness of employing a brightness detector in view of Hasegawa. This
is all that is required, as broadly as the subject matter is claimed.
While Hasegawa’s preferred embodiment may involve detecting the absence of a
decoded picture frame, the discussion of the prior art to Hasegawa, still part of the
Hasegawa disclosure, makes it clear that it was known to detect brightness in detecting
defects, or abnormalities, of a picture frame.
Accordingly, we will sustain the rejection of claims 2, 16 and 19 under 35 U.S.C.
§103.
With regard to claims 1-3, 8, 9, 11/8 and 18-20, the examiner contends that since
Rao analyzes content in a video stream, by detecting duplicate fields, to decide which
compression mode should be applied, with signal 418 used to indicate the results of the
data detected in video sequence (the indication being reasonably considered a type of
alarm), that it would have been obvious to register the detection, or to make a note or
record of it, constituting a report as specifically taught by Hasegawa, at least for the
purpose of informing the operator of the results, with the subsequent processing
Appeal No. 2004-0204
Application No. 09/231,128
7
applied to the identified video stream, for the operator’s own information or personal
benefit (see answer-pages 5-6).
Appellant argues that since Rao does not teach that the disclosed 3:2 pulldown
detection is a defect, but only affects the compression decision when detected, the
artisan would have had no reason for combining this detection with Hasegawa, which
only looks for missing decoded fields for interruption of the transmission of the VOD
stream.
Appellant’s argument is not persuasive since, as discussed supra, Hasegawa
already teaches/suggests detection of a “defect,” or, as broadly claimed, a
determination of a specific content characteristic and the report of an error when a
predetermined alarm criterion is met. Appellant has not pointed to any specific claim
language, other than “specified content characteristic” on which he relies for
patentability.
Accordingly, we will sustain the rejection of claims1-3, 9, 11/8 and 18-20 under
35 U.S.C. §103.
Similarly, with regard to the rejection of claims 1, 2, 7, 11/7, 18 and 19 under 35
U.S.C. §103 over Tamer or Dimitrova in view of Hasegawa, appellant merely points out
that Tamer teaches the display of a channel number when video fades to black and the
artisan would not have introduced this feature into Hasegawa except to display the
selected video channel when the VOD service is interrupted; that Tamer does not teach
Appeal No. 2004-0204
Application No. 09/231,128
8
the “specific content characteristic”; that Dimitrova teaches locating a commercial within
a video data stream, that one factor in the method is whether a black frame has
occurred based on certain criteria, that this is not a detection of an error or a defect, and
that while combining Dimitrova and Hasegawa may produce the ability to skip
commercials when the video is interrupted, it does not indicate any error or defect in
video content.
Again, appellant points to no specific claim language, other than “specific content
characteristic,” on which he relies for patentability. The “specific content characteristic”
language has been dealt with supra, with regard to Hasegawa. Since it is unclear as to
on what other claim limitations appellant bases his argument for patentability, we will
sustain the rejection of claims 1, 2, 7, 11/7, 18 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. §103.
With regard to the rejection of claims 1, 2, 10, 18 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. §103
over Van De Schaar-Mitrea and Hasegawa, appellant again argues that Van De
Schaar-Mitrea’s different compressions, dependent on whether the signals are graphic
or video, is not a detection of errors or defects in the video content.
Since the examiner has already shown how Hasegawa broadly discloses the
claimed detection of errors in video content, appellant’s argument that another
reference does not show this is unpersuasive of patentability.
Appeal No. 2004-0204
Application No. 09/231,128
9
Thus, we will sustain the rejection of claims 1, 2, 10, 18 and 19 under 35 U.S.C.
§103.
Finally, with regard to claims 1, 2, 14, 18 and 19 and their rejection under 35
U.S.C. §103 over Hirokawa and Hasegawa, we will also sustain this rejection since
appellant again argues no suggestion of detecting errors in the video content while we
have decided, supra, that Hasegawa already discloses this broadly claimed limitation.
Since we find none of appellant’s arguments persuasive of patentability, we have
sustained the rejection of claims 1 and 18 under 35 U.S.C. §102 (e) and the rejection of
claims 1-3, 7-11, 14, 16 and 18-20 under 35 U.S.C. §103.
The examiner’s decision is, accordingly, affirmed.
Appeal No. 2004-0204
Application No. 09/231,128
10
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal
may be extended under 37 CFR § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED
)
Errol A. Krass )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
Jerry Smith )
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
)
) INTERFERENCES
Joseph F. Ruggiero )
Administrative Patent Judge )
EAK/jlb
Appeal No. 2004-0204
Application No. 09/231,128
11
Francis I Gray
Tektronix Inc
P.O. Box 500
Delivery Station 50 Law
Beaverton, OR 97077