Ex Parte Vilard et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jul 8, 2008

10281695 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 8, 2008)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte PHILIPPE VILARD
and MARNIK BOGAERT
____________________

Appeal 2007-4144
Application 10/281,6951
Technology Center 2600
____________________

Decided: July 8, 2008
____________________

Before ANITA PELLMAN GROSS, SCOTT R. BOALICK,
and MARC S. HOFF, Administrative Patent Judges.

HOFF, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a Final Rejection of
claims 1-3 and 6-10.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).

1 Application filed October 28, 2002. The real party in interest is
Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V.
Appeal 2007-4144
Application 10/281,695

2
We reverse.
Appellants’ invention relates to a device for accentuating the
impression of contrast in a video image, which is done by visually
accentuating the parts of the video signal corresponding to the transitions
(Spec. 1). The threshold below which transitions will be treated as “noise”
and thus not accentuated is variable as a function of the parameters of the
video signal (Spec. 2).
Claim 1 is exemplary:
1. A device for displaying a video signal on a screen by means of a
scanning operation, said video signal being characterized by an assembly of
parameters, said display device comprising:

a derivative circuit for generating a derivative signal from said video
signal;

a threshold circuit for performing a threshold operation at a given
threshold on said derivative signal so as to generate a modified derivative
signal;

a modulation circuit for modulating the scanning velocity on the basis
of said modified derivative signal; and

means for varying the value of said threshold as a function of said
parameters.

The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Lee US 4,261,014 Apr. 7, 1981
Altmanshofer US 5,093,728 Mar. 3, 1992

2 Claims 4 and 5 stand allowed by the Examiner.
Appeal 2007-4144
Application 10/281,695

3
Claims 1-3 and 6-10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Altmanshofer.
Claims 1-3 and 7-10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Lee.
Appellants contend that neither Altmanshofer nor Lee anticipates the
claimed invention because neither teaches a “threshold circuit” within the
meaning ascribed to the circuit by the Specification, and because neither
teaches means for varying the value of the threshold (Br. 6, 10).
Rather than repeat the arguments of Appellants or the Examiner, we
make reference to the Brief (filed March 27, 2006) and the Answer (mailed
June 6, 2006) for their respective details.

ISSUE
The principal issue in the appeal before us is whether the term
“threshold circuit” is to be construed as a circuit that only generates a signal
when the input signal exceeds a given threshold.

FINDINGS OF FACT
The following Findings of Fact (FF) are shown by a preponderance of
the evidence.
The Invention
1. According to Appellants, they have invented a device for
accentuating the impression of contrast in a video image, which is done by
visually accentuating the parts of the video signal corresponding to the
transitions (Spec. 1).
Appeal 2007-4144
Application 10/281,695

4
2. An object of Appellants’ invention is to improve the impression
of contrast of transitions of a small amplitude without accentuating the noise
signal contained in the video signal (Spec. 2).
3. The threshold below which transitions will be treated as “noise”
and thus not accentuated is variable as a function of the parameters of the
video signal (Spec. 2, 3).
4. The derivative signal of the luminance signal is modified by the
threshold circuit, such that the transitions of a level below said threshold –
corresponding to the transitions generated by the noise – are set at zero so as
not to be accentuated (Spec. 4).
5. Transistor T5 (of the threshold circuit) “will only be turned on
during positive transmissions having a value of more than Δ1. In other
words, the threshold value corresponds to the quantity Δ1 and the output of
the transistor T5 only supplies the positive transitions which are higher than
said threshold value” (Spec. 6). Negative transitions are handled in an
analogous manner, using transistor T3 and threshold value -Δ2 (Spec. 7).
Altmanshofer
6. Altmanshofer teaches a beam scan velocity modulation (SVM)
apparatus including means for monitoring the current in the output stage of
the SVM circuit and controlling the operation of a preceding stage
differential amplifier in accordance with the monitored current (col. 2, ll. 29-
34).
7. Altmanshofer teaches a limiting circuit which operates to “limit
the differentiated video signal both in the positive and negative direction”
(col. 3, ll. 17-18).
Appeal 2007-4144
Application 10/281,695

5
Lee
8. Lee teaches a spot arrest system that modulates cathode ray
tube beam scanning speed in accordance with compressed and noise-
processed image enhancement signals derived from video signal transitions
(Abstract).
9. Lee teaches limiter 56, which limits signals inputted thereto to a
voltage of, illustratively, between alpha (α) and one volt, depending on the
inputted voltage (Fig. 4; col. 6, ll. 10-12).

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
Anticipation is established when a single prior art reference discloses
expressly or under the principles of inherency each and every limitation of
the claimed invention. Atlas Powder Co. v. IRECO, Inc., 190 F.3d 1342,
1347 (Fed. Cir. 1999); In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1478-79 (Fed. Cir.
1994).
Our reviewing court states that “claims must be interpreted as broadly
as their terms reasonably allow.” In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321 (Fed. Cir.
1989). Our reviewing court further states that “the words of a claim ‘are
generally given their ordinary and customary meaning.’” Phillips v. AWH
Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (internal citations
omitted). The “ordinary and customary meaning of a claim term is the
meaning that the term would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art in
question at the time of the invention, i.e., as of the effective filing date of the
patent application.” Id. at 1313. The description in the specification can
limit the apparent breadth of a claim in two instances: (1) where the
Appeal 2007-4144
Application 10/281,695

6
specification reveals a special definition given to a claim term by the
patentee that differs from the meaning it would otherwise possess; and (2),
where the specification reveals an intentional disclaimer, or disavowal, of
claim scope by the inventor. Id. at 1316.
The pertinence of the specification to claim construction is reinforced
by the manner in which a patent is issued. The Patent and Trademark Office
(“PTO”) determines the scope of claims in patent applications not solely on
the basis of the claim language, but upon giving claims their broadest
reasonable construction “in light of the specification as it would be
interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art.” Id. at 1316 (quoting In re
Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004)).

ANALYSIS
§ 102 rejection over Altmanshofer
The Examiner argues that Altmanshofer’s limiter 32 teaches the
claimed “threshold circuit for performing a threshold operation … to
generate a modified derivative signal,” because “element 32 limits the input
signal applied thereto to values only within the upper and lower bounds, or
maximum/minimum levels, or thresholds” (Ans. 5). Appellants argue that
Altmanshofer does not anticipate the claim because limiter 32, cited by the
Examiner as corresponding to the claimed threshold circuit, limits the output
signal when the input is greater than a threshold value (Br. 6), whereas
Appellants’ threshold circuit suppresses the output when the input is less
than a threshold value (i.e., the circuit interprets the input signal as noise).
Appellants argue that under Phillips, one must construe the “threshold
Appeal 2007-4144
Application 10/281,695

7
circuit” of claim 1 as it is described in the Specification, i.e., as a circuit that
does not accentuate transitions below a threshold value. Appellants further
argue that Altmanshofer does not teach means for varying the value of the
threshold as a function of said [video signal] parameters (Br. 7).
The Examiner asserts that it is his responsibility to give the claim “the
broadest reasonable interpretation regardless of how more exactly the
specification defines and describes the system elements” (Ans. 6). We do
not believe that the Examiner states the rule correctly. Our reviewing court
instructs the Examiner to determine the scope of claims “not solely on the
basis of the claim language, but upon giving claims their broadest reasonable
construction ‘in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of
ordinary skill in the art.’” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1316 (internal citations
omitted).
Appellants’ Specification is entirely consistent in its disclosure of the
threshold circuit as a circuit that only accentuates transitions above a given
threshold value. An object of Appellants’ invention is to improve the
impression of contrast of transitions of a small amplitude without
accentuating the noise signal contained in the video signal (FF 2). The value
of the threshold above which transitions are accentuated is automatically
adjusted as a function of the value of video signal parameters (FF 3). The
derivative signal of the luminance signal is modified by the threshold circuit,
such that the transitions of a level below said threshold – corresponding to
the transitions generated by the noise – are set at zero so as not to be
accentuated (FF 4). Describing the operation of the threshold operation on
positive transitions, Appellants disclose that “transistor T5 will only be
Appeal 2007-4144
Application 10/281,695

8
turned on during positive transmissions having a value of more than Δ1. In
other words, the threshold value corresponds to the quantity Δ1 and the
output of the transistor T5 only supplies the positive transitions which are
higher than said threshold value” (FF 5). Negative transitions are handled in
an analogous manner, using transistor T3 and threshold value -Δ2 (FF 5).
Nowhere in the Specification do Appellants describe the threshold circuit to
operate in any different manner.
Because Appellants define “threshold circuit” consistently and in
detail, we find that the person having ordinary skill in the art would construe
the term to mean a circuit that accentuates transitions in the output signal
only when the input signal exceeds (in magnitude) a given threshold, and
sets transitions below that threshold to zero. Altmanshofer’s limiting circuit
32, acting as it does to “limit the differentiated video signal both in the
positive and negative direction” (FF 7), does not correspond to that
construction. As a result, we find that Altmanshofer does not teach all the
limitations of claim 1, nor claims 2 and 3 dependent therefrom.3
Independent claims 4, 7, and 8 each also recite a “threshold circuit,”
or “performing a threshold operation,” just as in claim 1. For the same
reasons expressed supra, Altmanshofer does not teach all the limitations of
these claims, nor of those claims dependent therefrom.
We therefore find error in the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-3 and
6-10 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).

3 Because we find that Altmanshofer does not teach the claimed threshold
circuit, we need not reach Appellants’ argument that Altmanshofer does not
teach “means for varying the value of said threshold.”
Appeal 2007-4144
Application 10/281,695

9
§ 102 rejection over Lee
The Examiner argues that Lee teaches all the features of claim 1,
equating limiter 56 to the claimed threshold circuit (FF 9). However, Lee’s
limiter, just like Altmanshofer’s limiting circuit, serves to clip the output
signal for input signals above a given threshold (Id.). In our construction of
the phrase “threshold circuit,” supra, we found it to mean a circuit that
accentuates transitions in the output signal only when the input signal
exceeds (in magnitude) a given threshold, and sets transitions below that
threshold to zero. Because Lee’s limiter operates in a manner “inverse” to
that construction, inhibiting amplification of a signal above a given
threshold, we find that Lee does not teach all the limitations of claim 1, nor
claims 2 and 3 dependent therefrom.4
Independent claims 4, 7, and 8 each also recite a “threshold circuit,”
or “performing a threshold operation,” just as in claim 1. For the same
reasons expressed supra, Lee does not teach all the limitations of these
claims, nor of those claims dependent therefrom.
We therefore find error in the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-3 and
7-10 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).

CONCLUSION OF LAW
We conclude that Appellants have shown that the Examiner erred in
rejecting claims 1-3 and 6-10. On the record before us, claims 1-3 and 6-10
have not been shown to be unpatentable.

4 Because we find that Lee does not teach the claimed threshold circuit, we
need not reach Appellants’ argument that Lee does not teach “means for
varying the value of said threshold.”
Appeal 2007-4144
Application 10/281,695

10
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-3 and 6-10 is reversed.

REVERSED

KIS

PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS
P. O. BOX 3001
BRIARCLIFF MANOR, NY 10510