Ex Parte Van Eggelen et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 16, 2016

13121347 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 16, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/121,347 06/09/2011
23446 7590 09/20/2016
MCANDREWS HELD & MALLOY, LTD
500 WEST MADISON STREET
SUITE 3400
CHICAGO, IL 60661
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Edwin Van Eggelen
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.
Tl00189USN 8071
EXAMINER
LEE, MICHAEL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2422
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/20/2016 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):
mhmpto@mcandrews-ip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte EDWIN VAN EGGELEN, JEROEN DE KLEIJN, and MARCO
BOSMA
Appeal2014-009122
Application 13/121,347
Technology Center 2400
Before THU A. DANG, ERIC S. FRAHM, and SCOTT B. HOW ARD,
Administrative Patent Judges.
FRAHM, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF CASE
Introduction
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1-13 and 15. Claim 14 has been canceled (Br. 5). We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm.
Appeal2014-009122
Application 13/121,347
Exemplary Claim
Exemplary claim 1 under appeal, with emphases added to key
portions of the claim at issue, read as follows:
1. A method, comprising:
defining a first frame rate profile with a first frame rate,
defining a second frame rate profile with a second frame
rate, the second frame profile producing an increased frame
rate by inserting frames into an existing video steam;
rendering video frames of the existing video steam
according to the first frame rate profile,
detecting the quality of the rendered video frames, and
switching from the first frame rate profile to the second
frame rate profile depending on the detected quality of the
rendered video frames.
The Examiner's Rejections
(1) The Examiner rejected claims 1, 2, 11-13, and 15 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Chao (US 2006/0115165 Al; published
June 1, 2006). 1 Final Act. 2-3; Ans. 3--4.
(2) Claims 3, 4, 7, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Chao alone. Final Act. 4--5.
(3) Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Chao in view of Itani (US 2006/0171665 Al; Aug. 3,
2006). Final Act. 5.
1 Separate patentability is not argued for claims 2, 11-13, and 15, and
Appellants present arguments for independent claim 1 (see generally Br. 10-
13), and rely on those arguments as to the patentability of the remaining
claims rejected for anticipation (Br. 13). Method claims 1, 2, 11-13, and 15
each recite the same salient features in dispute and found in italics in claim 1
supra. In view of the foregoing, we select claim 1 as representative of the
group of claims consisting of claims 1, 2, 11-13, and 15.
2
Appeal2014-009122
Application 13/121,347
(4) Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Chao in view of Ogino (US 2008/0231745 Al; Sept. 25,
2008). Final Act. 6.
Appellants' Contentions2
Appellants contend (Br. 10-14) that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 1under35 U.S.C. § 102(b), because, inter alia, Chao only
modifies/changes a capture frame rate, and does not display or render a
frame rate as recited in claim 1 (Br. 10-13).
Reply Brief
No Reply Brief has been presented. Therefore, Appellants have not
disputed or shown error in the Examiner's articulated reasoning and findings
found at pages 3--4 of the Answer.
Principal Issue on Appeal
Based on Appellants' arguments in the Appeal Brief (Br. 10-14), the
following principal issue is presented on appeal:
Did the Examiner err in rejecting (i) claims 1, 2, 11-13, and 15 as
being anticipated by Chao, and (ii) claims 3-10 as being unpatentable over
Chao or Chao in view of either Itani or Ogino because Chao fails to disclose
the disputed limitations of representative claim 1?
2 Appellants primarily present arguments as to method claim 1 (Br. 10-13),
and asserts that dependent claims 3-10 contain similar features as claim 1
and are, therefore, patentable for the same reasons (Br. 13-14), and because
neither Itani nor Ogino cure the deficiencies of Chao with regard to claim 1.
As a result, the obviousness rejections of claims 3-10 will stand/fall with the
outcome as to claim 1.
3
Appeal2014-009122
Application 13/121,347
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections (Final Act. 2---6) in light
of Appellants' arguments in the Appeal Brief (Br. 10-14) that the Examiner
has erred, as well the Examiner's response to Appellants' arguments in the
Answer (Ans. 3--4). We disagree with Appellants' arguments. With regard
to representative claim 1, we adopt as our own ( 1) the findings and reasons
set forth by the Examiner in the Office Action from which this appeal is
taken (Final Act. 2-3), and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the
Examiner's Answer (Ans. 3--4) in response to Appellants' Appeal Brief. We
concur with the conclusions reached by the Examiner, and we provide the
following for emphasis.
We agree with the Examiner (Final Act. 2-3; Ans. 3--4) that Chao (see
i-f 24) discloses the salient features recited in representative claim 1 of
controlling frame rate profiles and rendering video frames. And more
particularly, we agree with the Examiner (Ans. 3--4) that Chao discloses
adjusting a displayed/rendered frame rate (i-f 24).
In view of the foregoing, we sustain the anticipation rejection of
representative claim 1 as well as claims 2, 11-13, and 15 grouped therewith
as being anticipated by Chao. We also sustain the obviousness rejections of
claims 3-10 (which all ultimately depend from claim 1) for similar reasons
as provided for claim 1.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in rejecting representative independent
claim 1 as being anticipated by Chao.
4
Appeal2014-009122
Application 13/121,347
DECISION
The Examiner's rejections of claims 1-13 and 15 are affirmed.
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.
§§ 41.50(f), 41.52(b) (2013).
AFFIRMED
5