Ex Parte Nix et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 27, 2016

12350672 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 27, 2016)

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.
12/350,672 01/08/2009 Uri Nix 156103/ 1376-1818 7298
111523 7590 12/29/2016
The Marbury Law Group/Qualcomm
11800 Sunrise Valley Drive, 15th Floor
Reston, VA 20191
EXAMINER
LEE, Y YOUNG
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2485
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/29/2016 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):
ptonoticesqc @marburylaw.com
ocpat_uspto@qualcomm.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte URI NIX and LIRON AIN-KEDEM
Appeal 2016-002591
Application 12/350,6721
Technology Center 2400
Before MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, HUNG H. BUI, and
DAVID J. CUTITTAII, Administrative Patent Judges.
BUI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1—3, 6, 10-18, 24, and 25, which are
all the claims pending in the application. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.2
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is CSR Technology Inc.
App. Br. 2.
2 Our Decision refers to Appellants’ Appeal Brief, filed August 24, 2015
(“App. Br.”); Reply Brief, filed January 6, 2016 (“Reply Br.”); Examiner’s
Answer, mailed November 6, 2015 (“Ans.”); Final Office Action, mailed
November 19, 2014 (“Final Act.”); and original Specification, filed January
8, 2009 (“Spec.”).
Appeal 2016-002591
Application 12/350,672
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
A compressed video signal is an encoded sequence of video frames
(images) with each frame including two fields, i.e., odd lines and even lines
of pixels in a frame. Spec. 1:17—20. There are two types of video signal:
(1) an interlaced video signal where one field containing odd lines of pixels
and the other field containing even lines of pixels form each frame; and (2) a
progressive (non-interlaced) video signal where all lines of each frame are
drawn in sequence. Spec. 1:17—2:3.
Video deinterlacing is a process of converting an interlaced video
signal into a non-interlaced form (i.e., progressive video signal). Spec. 2:8—
10. The deinterlacing process may involve two steps: (1) decoding an
encoded interlaced video signal or a progressive video signal and then (2)
providing the decoded signal to a deinterlacer unit for conversion into a non­
interlaced form. Spec. 2:6—9. According to Appellants, “known
deinterlacing schemes are imperfect, as visually perceptible distortions
appear in a display of the deinterlaced video signal, reducing its quality on
both standard and high definition displays.” Spec. 2:25—28.
Appellants’ invention proposes “systems [shown in Figure 1] and
methods for processing a video signal for the purpose of improved display of
the deinterlaced frames, regardless of the input [video signal] being an
interlaced video signal or a progressive video signal.'1'’ Spec. 3:3—6
(emphasis added).
Appellants’ Figure 1 is reproduced below with additional markings
for illustration.
2
Appeal 2016-002591
Application 12/350,672
Appellants’ Figure 1 shows a video processing system for processing a video
signal, either an interlaced video signal or a progressive video signal.
As shown in Figure 1, Appellants’ video processing system includes
(1) decoder unit 110 to decode a video signal in the form of a video stream,
i.e., an encoded sequence of video frames with each frame divided into
macroblocks as per MPEG standards (Spec. 7:20—22); (2) detector unit 125
to detect individual samples of reconstructed macroblocks associated with
motion (Spec. 8:16—17, 28—29, 9:4—6, 15—17); and (3) deinterlacer unit 155
responsive to controller 150 to select a de-interlacing scheme that converts
an interlaced video signal into a non-interlaced form (i.e., progressive video
signal) (Spec. 15:12—13, 16:3—5). According to Appellants, because samples
associated with motion in a frame of a video signal, either interlaced or
progressive are evaluated in advance (Spec. 14:15—17), deinterlacer unit 155
“may evaluate this information to identify and implement a deinterlacing
scheme that is best suited to the video signal” (Spec. 3:9—14, 21:23—25).
3
Appeal 2016-002591
Application 12/350,672
Claims 1,12, 24, and 25 are independent. Representative claim 1 is
reproduced below with disputed limitations in italics:
1. A method for processing a video signal, comprising:
detecting motion between consecutive fields of a single
frame of the video signal by evaluating a plurality of samples of
each of a plurality of reconstructed macroblocks of decoded
portions of the video signal frame;
generating data indicative of detected motion as a result
of evaluation of the plurality of samples of each of said
plurality of reconstructed macroblocks, the data being
associated with samples evaluated as indicating motion between
said consecutive fields of the single frame of the video signal;
storing the generated data in a data storage unit;
providing the stored data and the reconstructed
macroblocks to a deinterlacer unit; and
controlling the deinterlacer unit to deinterlace the
reconstructed macroblocks based at least in part on the stored
data.
App. Br. 10 (Claims Appendix).
Examiner’s Rejections
(1) Claims 1—3, 6, 10—16, 24, and 25 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Wells (US 7,116,828 B2; issued
Oct. 3, 2006. Ans. 2—3.
(2) Claims 17 and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Wells and Chow (US 7,202,907 B2; issued Apr. 10,
2007). Ans. 4.
Issue on Appeal
Based on Appellants’ arguments, the dispositive issue on appeal is
whether the cited prior art discloses the disputed limitation: “detecting
4
Appeal 2016-002591
Application 12/350,672
motion between consecutive fields of a single frame of the video signal by
evaluating a plurality of samples of each of a plurality of reconstructed
macroblocks of decoded portions of the video signal frame” as recited in
claim 1 and similarly recited in claims 12, 24, and 25. App. Br. 2—5; Reply
Br. 2-5.
ANALYSIS
35 U.S.C. § 102(b): Claims 1—3, 6, 10—18, 24, and25
Appellants contend the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1—3, 6, 10—
18, 24, and 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) because Wells does not disclose the
disputed limitation: “detecting motion between consecutive fields of a
single frame of the video signal by evaluating a plurality of samples of each
of a plurality of reconstructed macroblocks of decoded portions of the video
signal frame” as recited in claim 1, and similarly recited in claims 12, 24,
and 25. App. Br. 5—8; Reply Br. 2—5. In particular, Appellants present
several arguments against Wells, including:
(1) “[t]he scene classifier 104 of Wells detects scene
changes in a video signal” and “does not detect motion between
consecutive fields of a single frame of a video signal by
evaluating samples of reconstructed macroblocks” as recited in
claim 1, and similarly recited in claims 12, 24, and 25. App.
Br. 5—6 (citing Wells 5:34-42, 6:12—24);
(2) “disclosure of MPEG schemes in the discussion of
the background of the invention” cannot be relied upon to
support anticipation because “[tjhere is no disclosure in Wells’
background discussion of data being associated with samples
evaluated as indicating motion between said consecutive fields
of the single frame of the video signal.” App. Br. 6 (citing
Wells 1:54—65); and
5
Appeal 2016-002591
Application 12/350,672
(3) Wells does not disclose “motion between
consecutive fields” because “Wells discloses progressive
content detection for de-interlacing” and “that progressive
content includes video content where there is no motion
between the top and bottom video fields of the frame.” App.
Br. 6-7 (citing Wells 7:25-35).
According to Appellants, Wells’ “progressive content detection for de­
interlacing” does not and “cannot have any motion between top and bottom
fields of the frame.” App. Br. 7.
Appellants further argue: (1) because Wells’ “progressive video
signal has the same fields [in the same frame],” “[i]t is impossible to
‘ [detect] motion between consecutive fields of a single frame of the video
signal’” and (2) one skilled in the art
would understand that “motion between consecutive fields of a
single frame of the video signal” will never be detected if the
video signal is a progressive video signal. . . because both
fields in a frame of a progressive video signal will always
contain the same content (i.e., no motion or difference).
Reply Br. 3^4.
We acknowledge that “Wells may not describe a method identical to
that disclosed by [A]ppellants” as recognized by the Examiner. Ans. 7.
However, Appellants’ claims are drafted broader than specific embodiments,
shown in Appellants’ Figures 1—3. As such, we do not find Appellants’
arguments persuasive and commensurate with the scope of Appellants’
claims, for example, claim 1, and similarly claims 12, 24, and 25. Instead,
we agree with the Examiner that Wells discloses all the limitations of
independent claims 1, 12, 24, and 25. As such, we adopt the Examiner’s
findings and explanations provided therein. Ans. 4—7.
6
Appeal 2016-002591
Application 12/350,672
For example, Wells discloses an integrated video decoding system,
shown in Figure 3, with spatial/temporal video processing.
Wells’ Figure 3 is reproduced below with additional markings for
illustration.
O!>tbXii XKkk;i5 ;XK:!pifSsii05f
sMC) --■> deiiXi: xxkoii
Wells’ Figure 3 shows video decoding system 100.
As shown in Figure 3, Wells’ video decoding system 100 includes
video decoder 12 to receive a video signal in the form of a video stream, i.e.,
an encoded sequence of video frames with each frame divided into
macroblocks (Wells 1:31—32) followed by a separate post processor stage
102 that includes deblocking filter 16, motion compensation (MC) temporal
filter 106, and deinterlacer 18; and scene classifier 104 to classify the scene
from a video stream (Wells 5:22—32).
First, and contrary to Appellants’ argument, (MC) temporal filter 106,
and not scene classifier 104, is used to detect motion by way of an optional
motion estimator (now shown) for performing motion compensated de­
interlacing (Wells 4:34—36, 5:13—15, 5:30-33).
7
Appeal 2016-002591
Application 12/350,672
Second, the compressed video signal in the form of an encoded
sequence of video frames with each frame divided in macroblocks as per
MPEG standards as disclosed in Wells’ background is the same video signal,
i.e., “encoded bitstream . . . generated using video compression and coding
standards such as any of MPEG, MPEG2, H.261, H.263, and H.264, for
example” as disclosed by Appellants. Spec. 7:20—22. As such, any of
Appellants’ arguments to the contrary is at odds with the reality of video
data processing, including the video deinterlacing process addressed by
Wells and Appellants’ invention.
Third, we note claim terms are given their broadest reasonable
interpretation consistent with the Specification. In re Am. Acad, of Sci. Tech
Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Under the broadest reasonable
interpretation, claim terms are given their ordinary and customary meaning,
as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art in the context of
the entire disclosure. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257
(Fed. Cir. 2007). The term “video signal” is specifically described by
Appellants’ Specification as including (1) an interlaced video signal, or (2) a
progressive video signal. Spec. 3:5—6, 14—15, 20-21; 4:11—12, 19-21; 6:18—
20. As such, the input video signal can be either an interlaced video signal
or progressive video signal as referenced by the Examiner relative to Wells.
Reply Br. 3 (citing Wells 7:29—31).
Fikewise, the term “consecutive fields of a single frame of a video
signal” in the context of “detecting motion between consecutive fields” is
not defined by Appellants’ Specification. Instead, Appellants’ Specification
only describes in terms of “sample [(s) of reconstructed macroblocks]
associated with motion.” Spec. 5:3—4, 8:28—29, 9:15—17. In the absence of
8
Appeal 2016-002591
Application 12/350,672
any explicit definition from Appellants’ Specification, the Examiner has
interpreted that term as encompassing Wells’ “disclosure of detecting
motion from interlaced frames describes consecutive fields of top and
bottom portions within a single frame that are included in the motion
estimation ME process.” Ans. 7.
We find the Examiner’s interpretation to be reasonable and consistent
with Appellants’ Specification. “Absent an express definition in their
specification, [even if] appellants can point to definitions or usages that
conform to their interpretation [this] does not make the PTO’s definition
unreasonable when the PTO can point to other sources that support its
interpretation.” In re Morris, 111 F.3d 1048, 1056 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Lastly, we note that an anticipatory reference need not duplicate, word
for word, what is in the claims. Standard Havens Prods., Inc. v. Gencor
Indus., Inc., 953 F.2d 1360, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 1991). Even in the context of
anticipation, “it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of
the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would
reasonably be expected to draw therefrom.” In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826
(CCPA 1968). Based on the teachings of Wells, we find a skilled artisan
would understand Wells teaches all the limitations of claims 1, 12, 24, and
25, including the disputed limitation: “detecting motion between
consecutive fields of a single frame of the video signal by evaluating a
plurality of samples of each of a plurality of reconstructed macroblocks of
decoded portions of the video signal frame.”
For the reasons set forth above, Appellants have not demonstrated
Examiner error. As such, we sustain the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of
independent claims 1,12, 24, and 25 and their respective dependent claims
9
Appeal 2016-002591
Application 12/350,672
2, 3, 6, 10, 11, and 13—16, which Appellants do not argue separately. Reply
Br. 5.
35 U.S.C. § 103(a): Claims 17 and 18
With respect to claims 17 and 18, Appellants reiterate the same
arguments presented against independent claims 1, 12, 24, and 25, i.e.,
Chow does not cure the deficiencies of Wells because Wells does not teach
or suggest the disputed limitation discussed supra. For the same reason
discussed, we also sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 17
and 18 based on Wells and Chow.
CONCLUSION
On the record before us, we conclude Appellants have not
demonstrated the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1—3, 6, 10—18, 24, and
25 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) and § 103(a).
DECISION
As such, we AFFIRM the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1—3, 6,
10-18,24, and 25.
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)(iv).
AFFIRMED
10