Ex Parte Newton et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 15, 2016

13139925 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 15, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/139,925 06/15/2011 Philip Steven Newton
24737 7590 06/17/2016
PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS
465 Columbus A venue
Suite 340
Valhalla, NY 10595
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
2008P01779WOUS 4803
EXAMINER
OWENS, TSION B
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2487
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/17/2016 ELECTRONIC
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.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address( es):
marianne.fox@philips.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte PHILIP STEVEN NEWTON,
MARKUS JOZEF MARIA KURVERS, and
DENNIS DANIEL ROBERT JOZEF BOLIO
Appeal2015-000704
Application 13/139,925
Technology Center 2400
Before JOHN A. EV ANS, LINZY T. McCARTNEY, and SCOTT E. BAIN,
Administrative Patent Judges.
BAIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
final rejection of claims 1, 3-6, 8, 10-13, and 15, which constitute all
pending claims. Claims 2, 7, 9, and 14 have been canceled. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
1 Appellants identify Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V. as the real party
in interest. App. Br. 2.
Appeal2015-000704
Application 13/139,925
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants' invention relates to overlaying graphics, such as subtitles
or menus, on a 3D video display. See Spec. 1-3. Claims 1 and 8 are
independent. Exemplary claim 1 is reproduced below (paragraphing added):
1. A method of decoding and outputting video information
suitable for three-dimensional [3D] display, the video
information comprising encoded main video information
suitable for displaying on a 2D display and encoded additional
video information for enabling three-dimensional [3D] display,
the method comprising:
receiving or generating three-dimensional [3D] overlay
information to be overlayed over the video information;
buffering a first part of the overlay information to be
overlayed over the main video information in a first buffer;
buffering a second part of overlay information to be
overlayed over the additional video information in a second
buffer;
decoding the main video information and the additional
video information and generating as a series of time interleaved
video frames, each outputted video frame being either main
video frame or additional video frame;
determining a type of a[[ n ]] video frame to be outputted
being either a main video frame or an additional video frame;
overlaying either first or second part of the overlay
information on an video frame to be outputted in agreement with
the determined type of frame; and
outputting the video frames and the overlayed
information;
2
Appeal2015-000704
Application 13/139,925
wherein the main video information is a left video frame
and the additional video information is a right video frame.
App. Br. 14.
PRIOR ART
The Examiner relies upon the following prior art in rejecting the
claims:
Newton
Yamashita
US 2010/0118119 Al
US 2012/0170917 Al
THE REJECTIONS ON APPEAL
May 13, 2010
July 5, 2012
Claims 1, 3---6, 8, 10-13, and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Yamashita and Newton. Final Act. 4--8.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellant's
arguments presented in this appeal. Any other arguments which Appellant
could have made but chose not to make in the Brief are deemed to be
waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). On this record, we are not
persuaded the Examiner erred, and we adopt as our own the findings and
reasons set forth in the rejections from which this appeal is taken and in the
Examiner's Answer. We provide the following to highlight and address
specific arguments.
Appellants contend the Examiner erred in finding the prior art teaches
the "buffering" elements of claim 1 (and claim 8, which is not argued
separately), namely, "buffering a first part of the overlay information" and
"buffering a second part of overlay information." App. Br. 9-12 (emphasis
3
Appeal2015-000704
Application 13/139,925
added). Appellants contend the buffering limitations, read in the context of
the final "wherein" clause of the claim, require buffering of overlay
information for each of a left and right video frame in a stereoscopic system,
which Appellants allege is absent from the prior art. Id. Appellants also
argue the prior art fails to teach "overlaying either first or second part of the
overlay information" on the corresponding video frame. App. Br. 11-12
(emphasis added). We are not persuaded by either argument.
The Examiner finds the "buffering" and "overlaying" elements in the
combination of Yamashita and Newton. Ans. 6-7. Newton is directed to
creating three-dimensional graphics data in an "L+D" (also referred to as
"depth map") 3D video system. Newton Abstract, i-f 22. The system in
Newton utilizes two data segments in a data stream to form the picture: a
first segment comprising a 2D image, and a second segment comprising
depth information on associated pixels. Id. The Examiner finds Newton
teaches the use of multiple buffers to facilitate overlaying graphical
information on the 3D display, and specifically, deploying a buffer for each
of the main video and depth data segments. Ans. 7; Newton i-f 50. Newton
discloses an "object buffer" (and related buffers) for buffering overlay data
on the main video segment, and a "depth map buffer" for buffering overlay
data on the depth segment. Ans. 6-7; Newton i-fi-147, 50, 51, 54, Fig. 3.
Additionally, the Examiner finds Newton discloses "overlaying" the
resulting object, such as a 3D "subtitle," on "the associated video image."
Id.; Newton i-f 47; 57.
Appellants point to nothing in the record demonstrating error in the
foregoing findings, but rather contend that Newton, as an L+D 3D system,
4
Appeal2015-000704
Application 13/139,925
does not teach buffering and overlaying elements in a stereoscopic 3D
system (i.e., with "a left video frame" and "right video frame"). This
argument, however, ignores the Examiner's cited combination of Yamashita
with Newton. Ans. 7.
As the Examiner explains, Yamashita is directed to a stereoscopic 3D
system including a data stream that comprises interleaved (alternating) left
and right video frames, in which graphical information (such as subtitle
data) is overlayed on each frame. Yamashita i-f 92, 142; Final Act. 5. Thus,
as the Examiner finds, modifying Yamashita's stereoscopic 3D display to
include the buffering and overlay elements taught in Newton results in
buffering and overlaying information applied to "a left video frame" and
"right video frame," as recited in claim 1. Id. Appellants' alleged
deficiencies of Yamashita and Newton individually, App. Br. 9-12, do not
persuade us of error in the Examiner's findings. See, e.g., In re Keller, 642
F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981) ("one cannot show non-obviousness by
attacking references individually where ... the rejections are based on
combinations of references" (citation omitted)).
Even if the combination includes all of the claim limitations, however,
Appellants contend the Examiner erred in finding a motivation to combine
the references. Appellants argue "in general, the two formats [stereoscopic
3D and L+D] [are] not compatible." App. Br. 8-9; Reply Br. 4.2 We find
2 Appellants' "compatibility" argument is somewhat contradicted by their
own Specification, which states that buffering the data streams is equally
useful in, and applicable to, stereoscopic (L+R) and depth map (L+D)
systems. See Spec. 3.
5
Appeal2015-000704
Application 13/139,925
the references are, nevertheless, directed to the same objective of improving
graphics overlay on 3D video. See, e.g., Innovention Toys LLC v. MGA
Entertainment Inc., 637 F.3d 1314, 1322-23 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (rationale to
combine may be found in references sharing the "same purpose," "goal," or
"objective"). Moreover, as the Examiner finds, both stereoscopic and depth
map systems utilize two data segments, both cite buffering of the segments,
and one of ordinary skill in the art would understand the need (and benefit)
of buffering both data segments to produce the 3D display. See Ans. 6
(alluding to importance of both left view and right view frame to achieve
viewable result in stereoscopic system). Appellants argue (Reply Br. 4)
there would be no need for a "Depth Map Buffer" in a stereoscopic system
such as Yamashita, but nothing in the record persuades us that the buffer's
label would suggest to one of ordinary skill that the benefits of buffering
only would apply to data streams in an L+D format. Finally, as the
Examiner states in the Answer (at 7), Yamashita itself discloses the use of
buffers for each of the left and right video frames of a stereoscopic system.
See Yamashita i-fi-f 125, 140-142, Fig. 5 (referring to "image memory" that
stores "subtitle streams" for each of left and right frames). Thus, we are not
persuaded the Examiner erred in finding one of ordinary skill in the art
would be motivated to combine the teachings of Newton and Yamashita.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claims 1 and 8, as well as
their respective dependent claims, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Yamashita and Newton.
6
Appeal2015-000704
Application 13/139,925
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1, 3---6, 8, 10-13,
and 15.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l)(iv) (2013).
AFFIRMED
7