Ex Parte Ramos et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 9, 2012

11215571 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 9, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte JEREMY RAMOS, JASON WALTUCH, and
CHRISTOPHER J. BUTERA
____________

Appeal 2010-006846
Application 11/215,571
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO, JEFFREY S. SMITH, and JOHN A.
EVANS, Administrative Patent Judges.

RUGGIERO, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection of
claims 1-21, which are all of the pending claims. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner,
we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed July 30, 2009), the Answer (mailed Nov.
Appeal 2010-006846
Application 11/215,571

2
13, 2009), and the Reply Brief (filed Jan. 11, 2010). We have considered in
this decision only those arguments Appellants actually raised in the Briefs.
Any other arguments which Appellants could have made but chose not to
make in the Briefs are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(iv).

Appellants’ Invention
Appellants’ invention relates to the processing of digital video data in
which one or more optical sensor modules generate serial digital video
signals of captured images which are processed by a reconfigurable
computer coupled to the one or more optical modules. The reconfigurable
computer is configured to implement a digital filter which functions to
remove data pertaining to one or more of color, sound, and control symbols
from the serial digital video signal. The reconfigurable computer includes
one or more memories which store the filtered digital video signal as a
memory-mapped image. See generally Spec. ¶ [0008].

Claim 1 is illustrative of the invention and reads as follows:
1. A digital video processing system, the system comprising:

one or more optical sensor modules adapted to generate serial digital
video signals of captured images; and

a reconfigurable computer coupled to the one or more optical sensor
modules configured to process the serial digital video signal, wherein the
reconfigurable computer is further configured to implement a first digital
filter adapted to remove from the serial digital video signal data pertaining to
one or more of color, sound, and control symbols, and wherein the
reconfigurable computer is further configured to implement one or more
Appeal 2010-006846
Application 11/215,571

3
memories adapted to store the serial digital video signal filtered by the first
digital filter, as a memory-mapped image, wherein each pixel of the
memory-mapped image is mapped to a specific memory address in the one
or more memories.

The Examiner’s Rejections
The Examiner’s Answer cites the following prior art references:
Kamel US 4,746,976 May 24, 1988
Blackmon US 5,493,392 Feb. 20, 1996
Ludgate US 6,133,956 Oct. 17, 2000
Okuda US 6,493,467 B1 Dec. 10, 2002
Ogura US 6,774,940 B1 Aug. 10, 2004
Sugimori US 6,958,772 B1 Oct. 25, 2005
(filed Jan. 18, 2000)
Gagnon US 7,027,628 B1 Apr. 11, 2006
(filed Nov. 13, 2001)
Oya US 7,116,357 B1 Oct. 3, 2006
(filed Mar. 14, 1996)

Claims 1-4 and 6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Gagnon in view of Okuda.
Claims 7 and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Gagnon in view of Okuda and Ogura.
Claim 5 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Gagnon in view of Okuda and Sugimori.
Claims 8 and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Gagnon in view of Okuda and Ludgate.
Claims 10, 11, and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Gagnon in view of Okuda and Kamel.
Claim 12 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Gagnon in view of Okuda, Kamel, and Ludgate.
Appeal 2010-006846
Application 11/215,571

4
Claim 14 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Gagnon in view of Okuda and Blackmon.
Claims 15-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Gagnon in view of Okuda and Oya.

ANALYSIS
Claims 1-4 and 6
Appellants’ arguments, with respect to the obviousness rejection of
independent claim 1 based on the combination of Gagnon and Okuda,
contend that neither applied reference, individually or collectively, teaches
all of the claimed elements. In particular, Appellants contend that Gagnon
has no teaching or suggestion of removing color data from a video image as
claimed. According to Appellants (App. Br. 11-13; Reply Br. 2-5), the
Examiner erred in equating the claimed removal of color data with Gagnon’s
disclosure of adjusting the value of color data to increase or decrease the
presence of color in an image. Appellants also contend (App. Br. 13) that
Okuda’s generalized disclosure of nonlinear image processing such as color
correction does not remedy the deficiencies of Gagnon.
We do not agree with Appellants. Our interpretation of the disclosure
of Gagnon as it relates to appealed independent claim 1 coincides with that
of the Examiner. As explained by the Examiner (Ans. 16), Gagnon’s
disclosure of a color correction filter 720 which adjusts the value of color
data in a decreasing direction reasonably corresponds to the claimed removal
of data “pertaining to” color (col. 8, ll. 39-67).
As also alluded to by the Examiner (Ans. 16), contrary to Appellants’
contentions, there is no claimed requirement that all existence of color data
Appeal 2010-006846
Application 11/215,571

5
be removed. In other words, even if color data remains in Gagnon after
adjustment of the color data value to a decreased level, data “pertaining to”
color has nonetheless been removed in order to arrive at the decreased color
data value.
We also find that, contrary to Appellants’ generalized conclusion
(Reply Br. 5), the Examiner has provided a valid articulated line of
reasoning with a rational underpinning to support the conclusion of
obviousness with respect to the proposed combination of Gagnon and
Okuda. We agree with the Examiner that a skilled artisan would have
recognized and appreciated that Okuda’s teaching of a memory mapped
image processing feature would have served as an obvious enhancement in
the system of Gagnon (Ans. 5). KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,
418 (2007).
Lastly, we are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument that Gagnon is
non-analogous art since it is not reasonably pertinent to the problem with
which the invention is concerned (App. Br. 10; Reply Br. 7). As previously
discussed, Gagnon discloses a color correction filter which removes color
data from a video signal as in the instant claimed invention.
For the above reasons, the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of
independent claim 1, as well as dependent claims 2-4 and 6 not separately
argued by Appellants, is sustained.

Claims 5 and 7-21
We also sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejections of 5 and 7-21
based on separate combinations of the Gagnon/Okuda combination with
Ogura, Sugimori, Ludgate, Kamel, Blackmon, and Oya.. Appellants (App.
Appeal 2010-006846
Application 11/215,571

6
Br. 14-22; Reply Br. 4-5) have not argued the rejected claims with any
particularity but, instead, have relied upon arguments asserted against the
rejection of independent claim 1, which arguments we have found
unpersuasive as discussed supra.

CONCLUSION OF LAW
Based on the analysis above, we conclude that the Examiner did not
err in rejecting claims 1-21 for obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-21 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
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)(2010).

AFFIRMED

rwk