Ex Parte Millin et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 6, 201310125565 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 6, 2013) Copy Citation 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. 10/125,565 04/19/2002 Andrew Millin 006020.00018 9200 22907 7590 12/09/2013 BANNER & WITCOFF, LTD. 1100 13th STREET, N.W. SUITE 1200 WASHINGTON, DC 20005-4051 EXAMINER VO, TUNG T ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2486 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/09/2013 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 PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte ANDREW MILLIN and PHILIP HARMAN ____________ Appeal 2011-008940 Application 10/125,565 1 Technology Center 2400 ____________ Before JEAN R. HOMERE, JEFFREY S. SMITH, and JOHNNY A. KUMAR, Administrative Patent Judges. SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL 1 An oral hearing was held in this appeal on November 19, 2013. Appeal 2011-008940 Application 10/125,565 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1-16, which are all the claims pending in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. Representative Claim Claim 1. A method of encoding a 2D image with an associated depth map, comprising recording said associated depth map in at least a visible portion of a plurality of frames making up said 2D image, each frame having an odd and even field, said associated depth map being recorded in at least a visible portion of said odd or even field. Prior Art Blackham US 5,173,948 Dec. 22, 1992 Ngai US 6,188,730 B1 Feb. 13, 2001 Harman WO 99/30280 June 17, 1999 Examiner’s Rejections Claims 1-3, 6, 15, and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Harman. Claims 4 and 5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Harman and Blackham. Claims 7-14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Harman and Ngai. Appeal 2011-008940 Application 10/125,565 3 ANALYSIS Section 102 rejection of claims 1-3, 6, 15, and 16 Appellants contend that Harman does not describe recording an associated depth map in at least a visible portion of a plurality of frames making up a 2D image. App. Br. 3-9; Reply Br. 2-3. However, Appellants’ Specification does not provide an explicit definition of “visible.” In particular, Appellants’ Specification does not explain how image data, when stored in a memory, is “visible” within the normal and customary meaning of visible. The image data only becomes visible when read from memory and displayed on a screen. Therefore, the broadest reasonable meaning of “recording said associated depth map in at least a visible portion of a plurality of frames making up said 2D image,” when read in light of Appellants’ Specification, encompasses recording the depth map data in a memory so that the recorded data can be read from the memory and subsequently displayed on a screen. Harman describes recording depth map data in an MPEG data stream in a technique used for closed captioning and teletext within standard television images. See Harman, p. 13, ll. 13-15. The data recorded in the closed captioning technique is read from memory and displayed on a screen, in a predetermined area of the odd and even fields of each frame that makes up the 2D image (such as the lower portion of the field), so that hearing impaired people can read the spoken words. The scope of “recording said associated depth map in at least a visible portion” encompasses recording the depth map in an MPEG data stream using a closed captioning technique as described by Harman. Appeal 2011-008940 Application 10/125,565 4 Further, the data contained in the “depth map” does not affect the step of “recording.” The step of “recording” is performed the same way, regardless of whether the data being recorded is depth map data or any other data. Therefore, the depth map is directed to non-functional descriptive material,which not entitled to patentable weight. Consequently, the term “recording said associated depth map” does not distinguish the claim from the prior art that records data in at least a visible portion of a plurality of frames making up a 2D image. See In re Ngai, 367 F.3d 1336, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Cf. In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385 (Fed. Cir. 1983). See also Ex parte Nehls, 88 USPQ2d 1883, 1887-90 (BPAI 2008) (precedential). We sustain the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102. Appellants do not present arguments for separate patentability of claims 2, 3, 6, 15, and 16 which fall with claim 1. Section 103 rejection of claims 4 and 5 Appellants present arguments for the patentability of claims 4 and 5 similar to those presented for claim 1 which we find unpersuasive. App. Br. 9. We sustain the rejection of claims 4 and 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Section 103 rejection of claims 7-14 Appellants present arguments for the patentability of claims 7-14 similar to those presented for claim 1 which we find unpersuasive. App. Br. 9. We sustain the rejection of claims 7-14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Appeal 2011-008940 Application 10/125,565 5 DECISION The rejection of claims 1-3, 6, 15, and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Harman is affirmed. The rejection of claims 4 and 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Harman and Blackham is affirmed. The rejection of claims 7-14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Harman and Ngai 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). See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f). AFFIRMED kis Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation