Ex Parte Megeid

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Dec 17, 2010

10344228 (B.P.A.I. Dec. 17, 2010)

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.
10/344,228 02/10/2003 Magdy Megeid RCA 90252 4197
7590 12/20/2010
Joseph S Tripoli
Thomson Multimedia Licensing Inc
PO Box 5312
Princeton, NJ 08543-5312
EXAMINER
JACKSON, JAKIEDA R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2626
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/20/2010 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 BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte MAGDY MEGEID
____________

Appeal 2009-007604
Application 10/344,228
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before KENNETH W. HAIRSTON, MAHSHID D. SAADAT,
and ROBERT E. NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judges.

SAADAT, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL1

1 The two month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304 or for filing a request for rehearing as
recited in 37 C.F.R. § 41.52, begins to run from the “MAIL DATE” (paper
delivery mode) or the “NOTIFICATION DATE” (electronic delivery mode)
shown on the PTOL-90A cover letter attached to this decision.
Appeal 2009-007604
Application 10/344,228

2
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the rejection of claims
1-3, 5, and 11-15. Claims 4 and 6-10 have been canceled. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant’s invention relates to an audio speed converter for use with
video systems that provides improved synchronization between audio and
video output signals (Abstract).
Independent Claim 1 is illustrative of the invention and reads as
follows:
1. A system for processing audio and video signals,
comprising:
first processing means for receiving said audio signal at a
first rate of speed, processing said received audio signal in
dependence upon a plurality of control signals each
representing a level of a different reference parameter, and
providing output of said received audio signal at a second rate
of speed in dependence upon said processing;
comparator means for comparing said second rate of
speed to a required rate of speed, and generating a comparison
signal in dependence upon said comparison;
second processing means for generating said control
signals in dependence upon said comparison signal, and
a video speed converter having an input coupled to said
video signal, the output of said first processing means being
coupled to a control input of said video speed converter to
synchronize the speed of the output of said video speed
converter to said second rate of speed.
The Examiner relies on the following prior art in rejecting the claims:
Ware US 5,583,652 Dec. 10, 1996
Appeal 2009-007604
Application 10/344,228

3
Hidemitsu Baba et al., Development of a Voice Speed Control System
LSI, 41 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON CONSUMER ELECTRONICS 909 (1995).
Claims 1-3, 5, and 11-15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Ware and Baba.

ISSUE
Appellant contends that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-3, 5,
and 11-15 as being obvious over Ware and Baba because the references,
alone or in combination, do not teach all the claimed features (App. Br. 6-7).
Appellant specifically argues that Ware includes no teaching related to
synchronizing the speed of the output of the video speed converter with a
processed video signal at a second rate of speed (App. Br. 6; Reply Br. 2).
With respect to Baba, Appellant asserts that the reference relates to
processing sound signals and the combination would use one clock to
control another clock instead of using a processed audio signal to control a
video speed converter (App. Br. 7).
Therefore, the issue before us is whether the Examiner erred in
rejecting the claims as being obvious because the references fail to teach or
suggest all the claim limitations.

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s
arguments that the Examiner has erred.
We disagree with Appellant’s conclusion. We adopt as our own the
findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this
appeal is taken and the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s
Answer (Ans. 8-12) in response to Appellant’s Appeal Brief.
Appeal 2009-007604
Application 10/344,228

4
We specifically agree with the Examiner’s response (Ans. 10) that
Ware is directed to a user-controlled, continuous variable-speed playback of
digital audio and video signals where the audio, video, or user input scaling
factors can control the playback rate. The Examiner properly cites to
column 3, lines 1-40 of Ware for describing the user control of the video
playback rate by setting a video scaling factor (col. 3, ll. 11-13), directly
controlling the audio frames playing rate (col. 3, ll. 25-28), and inputting a
scaling factor which controls the speed of system clock which in turn
controls the audio and video playback rate (col. 3, ll. 36-38).
We also agree with the Examiner (Ans. 11) that Ware teaches the
claimed controlling video signal speed in accordance with the second rate of
speed since the above-cited portions indicate that the video signal speed is
controlled based on the adjusted speed, or the second speed, of the audio
signal. Additionally, as pointed out by the Examiner (Ans. 4), a video speed
converter is shown as the video decoder 405 in Figure 4 of Ware coupled to
the output of the processing means 416 which inputs the scaling factor to the
time domain harmonic scaler 406 (col. 8, ll. 40-49). Ware specifies that the
audio decoder 407, scaler 406, and audio 410 provide the means to decode,
scale, and play audio frames (col. 8, ll. 20-22), while the video decoder 405,
video display buffer 408, and display 409 provide the means to decode and
display the video signal (col. 8, ll. 22-24). Therefore, as stated by the
Examiner (Ans. 11-12), the audio signal at a second rate of speed in Ware is
based on the time domain harmonic scaling factor input by the user, which is
used to adjust the audio speed to a second rate of speed and is used to
control the speed of the video signal playback by the video decoder.
Appeal 2009-007604
Application 10/344,228

5
With respect to Appellant’s arguments against the applicability of the
teaching of Baba to the audio/video playback system of Ware (App. Br. 7),
we note that the Examiner relied on Baba for processing the audio signal
based on a plurality of control signals. While Baba relates to processing
sound signals, the Examiner has applied Baba because its overall teachings
provide enhanced features for processing the audio frames in the audio and
video playback system of Ware.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner has not erred in rejecting claims 1-3, 5, and 11-15 as
obvious over Ware and Baba because the combination of the references
teaches or suggests all the claim limitations. Accordingly, we sustain the
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of all the claims.

ORDER
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-3, 5, and 11-15 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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(v).

AFFIRMED

Appeal 2009-007604
Application 10/344,228

6
babc

Joseph S Tripoli
Thomson Multimedia Licensing Inc
PO Box 5312
Princeton, NJ 08543-5312