Ex parte OH

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jan 25, 1999

08380315 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 25, 1999)

Application for patent filed January 30, 1995. 1
According to appellant, the application is a continuation of
Application 07/822,087, filed January 17, 1992.
THIS OPINION WAS NOT WRITTEN FOR PUBLICATION
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today
(1) was not written for publication in a law journal and
(2) is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 34
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte HUN S. OH
____________
Appeal No. 97-2709
Application No. 08/380,3151
____________
ON BRIEF
____________
Before HAIRSTON, MARTIN, and CARMICHAEL, Administrative Patent
Judges.
HAIRSTON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 11
through 17.
Appeal No. 97-2709
Application No. 08/380,315
2
The disclosed invention relates to a method and apparatus
for compressing an input video signal for transmission, and to
a method and apparatus for reproducing the input video signal
from the transmitted video signal.
Claim 11 is illustrative of the claimed invention, and it
reads as follows:
11. A method of compressing an input video signal for
transmission, the method comprising the steps of:
(a) separating the input video signal into frequency
components representing horizontal and vertical components of
the input video signal using first and second filters,
respectively, wherein said first filter is a lowpass filter
for passing low band frequencies of said horizontal component,
and said second filter is a lowpass filter for passing low
band frequencies of said vertical component;
(b) decimating only the low band frequencies respectively
output by said first and second filters using first and second
decimators, respectively, wherein said first and second
decimators decimate the low band frequencies by M:1 to produce
a digital output signal representing horizontal and vertical
low band frequency components of the input video signal,
wherein M is a real number;
(c) interpolating only the digital output signal, prior
to transmission thereof, using first and second interpolators
for respectively interpolating low band frequencies making up
the digital output signal corresponding to said horizontal and
vertical components to produce an analog output signal
representing horizontal and vertical low band frequency
components of the input video signal;
(d) delaying the input video signal for a time period
corresponding to a time period required to execute steps (a)
Appeal No. 97-2709
Application No. 08/380,315
3
through (c), and passing the delayed input video signal
simultaneously with the output of the analog output signal
produced in step (c);
(e) producing an analog difference signal representing a
difference between the delayed input video signal and the
analog output signal; and
(f) transmitting both the digital output signal and the
analog difference signal as a representation of the input
video signal.
The references relied on by the examiner are:
Kretzmer 2,850,574 Sept. 2,
1958
Gharavi 4,969,040 Nov. 6,
1990
Citta et al. (Citta) 5,016,100 May 14,
1991
Citta et al. (Citta) 5,144,431 Sept. 1,
1992
(filed Sept. 15,
1989)
Claims 11 through 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Citta '100 in view of Gharavi.
Claims 11 through 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Kretzmer in view of Citta '431 and
Gharavi.
Reference is made to the Office Action (paper number 25)
immediately prior to the final rejection, the answer and the
Appeal No. 97-2709
Application No. 08/380,315
4
brief for the respective positions of the examiner and the
appellant.
OPINION
The obviousness rejections of claims 11 through 17 are
reversed.
Citta '100 discloses the separation of a video signal 10
into a high frequency component 12 and a low frequency
component 18 (Figure 1). An interpolator 46 is used to
reconstruct a low frequency component signal on line 48, and
this digital signal is summed with the delayed high frequency
component in summation unit 52 to produce a high frequency
difference signal 53. The vertical blank insertion unit 40
then inserts the low frequency digital component signal into
the vertical blanking interval of the analog high frequency
signal.
The examiner acknowledges (paper number 25, page 3) that
Citta '100 “does not disclose separate horizontal and vertical
components with associated decimators and interpolators".
Gharavi discloses a decimator 105 which decimates the low
frequency and the high frequency components of a video signal,
and an interpolator 131 in a feedback loop that interpolates
Appeal No. 97-2709
Application No. 08/380,315
5
the low frequency and the high frequency components that are
output by the decimator 105. The interpolated outputs on line
145 input a predictor 147 that in turn outputs a predicted PEL
value on line 102 for comparison with incoming PELs 101 in the
next video frame.
Even if we assume for the sake of argument that it would
have been obvious to combine the filter, decimator and
interpolator teachings of Gharavi with the low frequency
separation teachings of Citta '100 (paper number 25, pages 3
and 4), we still agree with the appellant (Brief, page 12)
that “Citta ('100), like Gharavi, neither teaches nor suggests
decimating and/or interpolating only the low band frequencies
as required by independent claims 11-16.” For this reason,
the obviousness rejection of claims 11 through 17 based upon
the combined teachings of Citta '100 and Gharavi is reversed.
In the alternative obviousness rejection of claims 11
through 17, the examiner notes (paper number 25, page 4) that
Kretzmer divides an incoming video signal into a high
frequency analog component 17, and a low frequency analog
component 15. The examiner acknowledges (paper number 25,
pages 4 and 5) that Kretzmer “does not disclose the idea of
Appeal No. 97-2709
Application No. 08/380,315
6
processing the low frequency signal digitally while processing
the high frequency by analog means.”
Citta '431 discloses that it is advantageous to remove
low frequency analog components from a video signal, and
digitize them before transmission (Abstract).
Even if we agree with the examiner (paper number 25, page
5) that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in
the art to process the low frequency components in Kretzmer in
a digital format as taught by Citta '431, we must agree with
appellant’s argument (Brief, page 17) that Gharavi can not be
properly combined with the teachings of Kretzmer and Citta
'431 to arrive at the claimed invention because as indicated
supra Gharavi does not decimate and/or interpolate only the
low band frequencies. The obviousness rejection of claims 11
through 17 based upon the combined teachings of Kretzmer,
Citta '431 and Gharavi is reversed.
Appeal No. 97-2709
Application No. 08/380,315
7
DECISION
The decision of the examiner rejecting claims 11 through
17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
REVERSED
KENNETH W. HAIRSTON )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
JOHN C. MARTIN ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
JAMES T. CARMICHAEL )
Administrative Patent Judge )
lp
Appeal No. 97-2709
Application No. 08/380,315
8
SUGHRUE MION ZINN MACPEAK & SEAS
2100 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE NW
WASHINGTON DC 20037-3202
Leticia
Appeal No. 97-2709
Application No. 08/380,315
APJ HAIRSTON
APJ CARMICHAEL
APJ MARTIN
DECISION: REVERSED
Send Reference(s): Yes No
or Translation (s)
Panel Change: Yes No
Index Sheet-2901 Rejection(s): 103
Prepared: November 9, 1999
Draft Final
3 MEM. CONF. Y N
OB/HD GAU 2713
PALM / ACTS 2 / BOOK
DISK (FOIA) / REPORT