Ex Parte Morphet

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 31, 2012

11361705 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 31, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

____________

Ex parte STEPHEN MORPHET
____________

Appeal 2011-001133
Application 11/361,705
Technology Center 2600
____________

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

GONSALVES, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-001133
Application 11/361,705

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the rejection of
claims 1-8 and 10-17 (App. Br. 1). Claims 9, 18, and 19 were cancelled
(id.). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm in part.
The Invention
Exemplary Claim 1 follows:
1. A method for enhancing an edge transition in a
video signal comprising the steps of:

receiving a video signal including an edge transition;

generating a correction signal for the edge transition;

applying the correction signal to the video signal to
produce a corrected signal;

measuring maximum and minimum amplitudes of a
predefined pattern of pixels adjacent to the edge transition; and

restricting the amplitude of the corrected signal to extend
between extended maximum and minimum amplitude limits in
dependence on the measured maximum and minimum
amplitudes of the predefined pattern of pixels.

Claims 1, 6-8, 10, and 15-17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Lin (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2003/0107678) in view of
Vlahos (U.S. 6,363,526) (Ans. 4-5).
Claims 2 and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Lin in view of Vlahos and Parker (U.S. 5,369,446) (Ans.
6).
Appeal 2011-001133
Application 11/361,705

3
Claims 3-5 and 12-14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Lin in view of Vlahos and Hongu (U.S. 4,198,650)
(Ans. 6-7).

ISSUES
Appellant’s responses to the Examiner’s positions present the
following issues:
1. Did the Examiner err in concluding that the combination of Lin
and Vlahos teaches “restricting the amplitude of the corrected signal to
extend between extended maximum and minimum amplitude limits in
dependence on the measured maximum and minimum amplitudes of the
predefined pattern of pixels,” as recited in claim 1, and as similarly recited in
claim 10?
2. Did the Examiner err in concluding that Vlahos teaches that the
“predetermined pattern [of adjacent pixels] is a cross shaped window,” as
recited in claim 8 and as similarly recited in claim 17?

ANALYSIS
35 U.S.C. § 103 Rejection of Claims 1, 6, 10, and 15
Appellant contends that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1 and
10 as obvious because the combination of Lin and Vlahos does not teach the
claim limitation emphasized above (App. Br. 4-6). Appellant argues that
“Lin discloses that after receiving the input signal F, the distance to local
minimum and the distance to local maximum for the input signal F are
determined in steps 52 and 54, rather than the maximum and minimum
amplitudes of the predefined pattern of pixels” (id. at 4-5). Appellant further
Appeal 2011-001133
Application 11/361,705

4
argues that “Vlahos does not disclose that the clipping range is dynamic or is
computed in dependence on the measured minimum and maximum
amplitude limits of the input signal” (id. at 5).
The Examiner found, however, that Lin describes determining
maximum and minimum pixel values, Fmax and Fmin, respectively . . . [for a ]
predefined pattern of pixels” (Ans. 8). The Examiner also found that Vlahos
describes the addition of an offset (id.). The Examiner then reasoned that
the combination of Lin and Vlahos teaches restricting the corrected signal to
extend from the extended maximum and minimum values for a neighboring
pattern of pixels (id.).
We agree with the Examiner. Lin discloses that “[t]he gain control
function g provides different gains for different image areas, making the
color transient enhancement processing adaptive to local image feature” (¶
[0028]). Lin also discloses computing the local maximum Fmax and the local
minimum Fmin “by searching the interval of radius r centered at the current
signal sample position” (¶ [0029]). In addition, Vlahos discloses that “[a]
small selected offset, equal to the height of the small spike overshoot,
permits clipping the large spikes at the subjects edge without clipping the
smaller spikes introduced by enhancement” (col. 4, l. 64 – col. 5, l. 1).
Accordingly, we conclude that the claim requirement of restricting the
corrected signal to extend between extended maximum and minimum
amplitude limits of a predefined pattern of pixels is a combination of
familiar elements of Lin and Vlahos that yields predictable results. KSR
Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007). Thus, we find no error
in the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of independent claims 1 and 10 and
Appeal 2011-001133
Application 11/361,705

5
claims 6 and 15 dependent therefrom because Appellant did not set forth any
separate patentability arguments for those dependent claims (see App. Br. 6).

35 U.S.C. § 103 Rejection of Claims 7 and 16
Appellant contends that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 7 and
16 because neither Lin nor Vlahos teaches “‘the predetermined pattern of
pixels is a symmetric measurement window about the edge transition’”
(App. Br. 6). We agree with the Examiner’s underlying factual findings and
ultimate conclusion that Lin teaches a symmetric measurement window
because Lin discloses “searching the interval of radius r centered at the
current signal sample position” (¶[0029]). Accordingly, we error in the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 7 and 16.

35 U.S.C. § 103 Rejection of Claims 2 and 11
Appellant contends that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 2 and
11 as obvious because the combination of Lin, Vlahos and Parker does not
teach or suggest that “‘the calculated extended limits are proportional to the
difference between the measured maximum and minimum amplitudes of the
predetermined pattern of pixels adjacent to the edge transition’” (App. Br. 6-
7). In support of this contention, Appellant argues that Parker discloses
“that the ‘shoots’ provided by such transversal filters exhibit amplitudes that
are proportional to the overall change in signal level, rather than
proportional to the difference between the measured maximum and
minimum amplitudes of the predetermined pattern of pixels adjacent to the
edge transition” (id. at 7).
Appeal 2011-001133
Application 11/361,705

6
However, the Examiner based the rejection on the teachings of both
Lin and Parker, rather than Parker alone (Ans. 9). In particular, the
Examiner found that “[t]he Parker reference is used to teach amplitudes that
are proportional to signal level [and that] [t]he Lin reference teaches using
the difference to calculate the extended max and min values” (Ans. 9).
We agree with the Examiner’s findings. Parker discloses that “the
‘shoots’ . . . exhibit amplitudes that are proportional to the overall change in
signal level” (col. 1, ll. 34-37). Lin discloses computing “the distance
between the input signal F and the local minimum Fmin” (¶[0029]). Lin also
discloses computing “the distance between the input signal F and the local
maximum Fmax” (¶[0030]).
Accordingly, we conclude that the claim requirement of calculating
extended limits that are proportional to the difference between the measured
maximum and minimum amplitudes of a pattern of neighboring pixels is a
combination of familiar elements of Lin and Parker that yields predictable
results. KSR Int’l Co at 416. Thus, we find no error in the Examiner’s
obviousness rejection of independent claims 2 and 11.

35 U.S.C. § 103 Rejection of Claims 3-5 and 12-14
Appellant argues that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 3-5 and
12-14 because “[i]n Hongu’s system, the input signal beyond the range is
less amplified. In contrast, the present invention teaches compressing the
extended maximum and minimum amplitude limits” (App. Br. 7).
The Examiner based the rejection on the teachings of Lin, Vlahos and
Hongu, rather than Hongu alone (Ans. 10). In particular, The Examiner
found that “Hongu teaches amplitudes of overshoots that are compressed”
Appeal 2011-001133
Application 11/361,705

7
(id.). The Examiner also found that “[t]he Lin reference teaches the gain
depends on the local image feature” (id.).
Hongu teaches compression of overshoots by disclosing that “either
positive or negative excursions of the input signal beyond the range Ewd are
amplified less than signals within that range” (col. 7, ll. 44-46). And Lin
discloses that gain “depends on the local image feature so that different
regions of the image can be treated differently” (¶[0016]).
Accordingly, we conclude that the claim requirement of compressing
the maximum and minimum amplitude limits is a combination of familiar
elements of Lin and Hongu that yields predictable results. KSR Int’l Co at
416. Thus, we find no error in the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of
independent claims 3-5 and 12-14.

35 U.S.C. § 103 Rejection of Claims 8 and 17
Appellant argues that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 8 and 17
because neither Lin nor Vlahos teaches that “‘the predetermined pattern is a
cross shaped window’” (App. Br. 6). The Examiner concluded only that
“one of ordinary skill in the art would not have been precluded from using a
cross shaped window pattern” (Ans. 5; see also id. at 9).
We agree with Appellant that neither Lin nor Vlahos discloses or
would have suggested a “cross shaped window” as recited. Contrary to the
Examiner’s finding, the mere finding that one would not be precluded from
using a claimed feature does not render that feature obvious. Accordingly,
we find error in the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 8 and 17.

Appeal 2011-001133
Application 11/361,705

8
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-7, 9, and 10-16
as obvious and reverse the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 8 and 17 as
obvious.
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-IN-PART

pgc