Ex Parte Wyman et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 28, 2013

11051415 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 28, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________
Ex parte RICHARD H. WYMAN and
KEVIN (JEAN-HUANG) CHEN
____________________

Appeal 2010-010773
Application 11/051,415
Technology Center 2400
____________________

Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, and
CARLA M. KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judges.

DIXON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-010773
Application 11/051,415

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1-20.1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

INVENTION
Appellants’ claimed invention is directed to repeating video images in
a deinterlacer (Spec. ¶ [0013]). Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is
representative of the subject matter on appeal:
1. A method that repeats video images in a deinterlacer, the
method comprising:

detecting a request to repeat a first video image input into
the deinterlacer;

processing the first video image to produce a
corresponding output video image;

1 Appellants state in the “Status of Claims” section of the Appeal Brief (filed
September 16, 2009) that “[t]he rejection of claims 1, 10, 19, and 20 are
appealed” (App. Br. 3), thus excluding claims 2-9 and 11-18. However, the
Notice of Appeal does not limit the appeal to certain claims, and the Appeal
Brief is not clear in its intent to withdraw claims 2-9 and 11-18 from the
appeal because it also states that “for at least the foregoing reasons, Assignee
respectfully requests that the rejection to claim 1, and dependent claims 2-9,
and 19 be REVERSED” and “for at least the foregoing reasons, Assignee
respectfully requests that the rejection to claim 10 and dependent claims 11-
18, a[n]d 20 be REVERSED” (App. Br. 8). We therefore consider claims 1-
20 to be before us on appeal. Cf. Ex parte Ghuman, 88 USPQ2d 1478
(BPAI 2008) (“Precedential”) (claims considered withdrawn from appeal
where Notice of Appeal was silent as to claims appealed but Appeal Brief
was consistent throughout in demonstrating intent not to pursue certain
claims).
Appeal 2010-010773
Application 11/051,415

3
holding input video images following the first video
image in the deinterlacer, wherein the input images following
the first video image are after the first video image in decoding
order;

displaying the output video image according to the
request to repeat; and

processing and displaying the video images following the
first video image.

REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Glennon

Rodriguez

Wredenhagen

US 5,805,173

US 2006/0013568 A1

US 7,129,990 B2

Sept. 8, 1998

Jan. 19, 2006
(filed July 14, 2004)

Oct. 31, 2006
(filed Dec. 21, 2001)

REJECTIONS
Claims 1-18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Rodriguez and Glennon. (Ans. 3-6).
Claims 19 and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Rodriguez, Glennon, and Wredenhagen. (Ans. 6-7).

ANALYSIS
Claims 1-18
Appellants contend that Rodriguez does not disclose “holding input
video images following the first video image in the deinterlacer, wherein the
Appeal 2010-010773
Application 11/051,415

4
input images following the first video image are after the first video image in
decoding order,” as recited in representative independent claim 1 (App. Br.
6). We disagree.
We begin by broadly but reasonably construing the term “input video
image.” Based on the plain meaning of the claim language “holding input
video images following the first video image in the deinterlacer,” the term
“input video image” encompasses video data in a format that can be input to
the deinterlacer. We look to Appellants’ Specification for context regarding
this claim language. The Specification only uses the term “input video
image” in the “Brief Summary of the Invention,” and this section does not
provide a definition for “input video image.” The Specification, however,
describes performing either a pause or slow motion trick mode by using a
“FIELD_FREEZE” command (Spec. ¶¶ [0033]-[0034]). Appellants cite to
the Specification’s description of the FIELD_FREEZE command as
supporting disclosure for claim 1, and in particular, cite paragraph [0038] as
supporting the limitation “holding input video images following the first
video image in the deinterlacer, wherein the input images following the first
video image are after the first video image in decoding order” (App. Br. 4):
In an embodiment of the present invention, FIELD_FREEZE
may be specified to the deinterlacer and the input field to the
deinterlacer may be an identical repeat. As a result, the same
picture may be maintained at the output of the deinterlacer.
Since the deinterlacer may maintain a large amount of state
information temporally located both before and after the current
output picture, maintenance of the state may be necessary to
maintain an identical output picture at the output. Any changes
in the state may change the output picture, so once the
FIELD_FREEZE condition is removed and subsequent fields
start getting fed into the deinterlacer, the output pictures may
continue exactly as if nothing had happened (i.e. the output
Appeal 2010-010773
Application 11/051,415

5
pictures compared against those generated if no trick-mode
pause had been issued would be identical).

(Spec. ¶ [0038]). As the only video data described as input to the
deinterlacer during the operation of a FIELD_FREEZE command is an input
field, we find that the claimed “input video image” is an input field, where
an input field is either the TOP or BOTTOM field in some interlaced input
format (see Spec. ¶ [0032]). Further, the claim language “holding input
video images following the first video image in the deinterlacer” (claim 1)
does not specify where the “input video images” are held because we find
that the language “in the deinterlacer” describes the position of the “first
video image.” This interpretation is consistent with the Specification which
describes that “subsequent fields start getting fed into the deinterlacer” after
“the FIELD_FREEZE condition is removed” (Spec. ¶ [0038]).
The subsequent fields—the fields subsequent to the field repeatedly
input to the deinterlacer during the FIELD_FREEZE condition—could not
have been held in the deinterlacer if they are only fed into the deinterlacer
after the FIELD_FREEZE condition is removed. Accordingly, the disputed
limitation “holding input video images following the first video image in the
deinterlacer, wherein the input images following the first video image are
after the first video image in decoding order” (claim 1) means holding input
fields ahead of a deinterlacer while a particular field is repeatedly input to
the deinterlacer, where the held input fields are subsequent to the repeatedly
input field in decoding order.
Within the scope of the above construction, we find that Rodriguez
discloses the disputed claim 1 limitation. Specifically, Rodriguez describes
that a user may invoke a trick mode at a set top terminal (STT) where:
Appeal 2010-010773
Application 11/051,415

6
a trick mode flag further allows the STT 510 to enter an output
operation mode in which the last fully reconstructed picture for
display in memory, possibly composed form multiple pictures
and/or processed through a deinterlacer (not shown), continues
to be retained in memory (again the memory that is local to the
video decoder 523) and fed repeatedly for output over
consecutive picture display intervals.

(Rodriguez, ¶ [0080]). In an embodiment where an interlaced source is
input to the video decoder, Rodriguez accomplishes a trick mode by:
invok[ing] a deinterlacer mechanism that employs using the
information in one or more fields from past pictures in display
order and/or one or more fields from future pictures in display
order, to compose the fields of the picture to be output. Thus,
the video decoder 523 decodes and reconstructs at least one
field from a set of past and future pictures and also decodes
both fields of the required picture to be displayed repeatedly
over consecutive picture display intervals. From the multiple
decoded fields, the video decoder 523, or a deinterlacer (not
shown), generates a de-interlaced (or progressive picture
approximation) version of the pictures to be output during the
trick modes.

(Rodriguez, ¶ [0089]). Thus, Rodriguez discloses deinterlacing two fields to
repeatedly output a reconstructed picture from the same two fields. The two
fields used to reconstruct the repeated picture may need to be from different
pictures—a field from a past picture and a field from a future picture, as
cited above—depending on the nature of the interlaced source, such as the
“3:2 pull-down” interlaced pictures in Rodriguez’s Figure 6:
For instance, in the case that the compressed (or coded)
interlaced picture corresponds to A1/A2, C1/C2, or D1/D2 in
606, and the video decoder ascertains so, either via a scan
detection method or from the scan mode flag, both fields of the
picture are output. Otherwise two pictures (i.e., an additional
picture) are decoded by the video decoder 523 to obtain a
Appeal 2010-010773
Application 11/051,415

7
respective field from each and composite the progressive
picture that was captured at the time of picture creation. This
is the case when the first picture decoded is either A1/B2 or
B1/C2 in 606. Even when outputting to a progressive display
or television, detection of the two corresponding fields of a
picture is performed to avoid displaying a picture with
respective field equivalent portions that were from two
different capture times. Otherwise, a picture displayed
repeatedly over multiple consecutive picture display intervals
could exhibit discontinuities between alternate lines (since it is
composed from two different captured pictures). . . .

(Rodriguez, ¶ [0087]; see also Fig. 6). Accordingly, Rodriguez may require
deinterlacing fields from one or two interlaced pictures depending on the
state of the stream of interlaced pictures when trick mode is invoked. In
either case, however, Rodriguez discloses “holding input video images
following the first video image in the deinterlacer” as recited in claim 1
because either of the two fields required for the reconstructed picture can be
deemed “the first video image.” Further, Rodriguez discloses that
subsequent fields are held in memory while trick mode is being
implemented. Specifically, Rodriguez discloses “the video decoder 523
allows the compressed video buffer 562 (which although shown in memory
549 may preferably be in a memory that is directly connect to video decoder
523) to violate its fullness requirements (i.e., to underflow or to overflow
according to certain timing specifications)” (Rodriguez, ¶ [0080]).
Appellants’ argument that Rodriguez does not disclose that “the input
images following the first video image are after the first video image in
decoding order” as recited in claim 1 (App. Br. 6-7), is not persuasive. At
least some of the fields of the pictures held in the compressed video buffer
during trick mode in Rodriguez (see ¶ [0080]) will be after the two fields of
Appeal 2010-010773
Application 11/051,415

8
the reconstructed picture in decoding order, whether the two fields are from
the same picture or different pictures. That is, the fields held in the
compressed video buffer while the two fields for the reconstructed picture
are decoded and deinterlaced are after the two fields in decoding order by
virtue of being held in a compressed, i.e., not decoded, video buffer.
Appellants’ additional arguments concerning Rodriguez’s paragraphs
[0091]-[0094] (App. Br. 7-8; Reply Br. 6-10) are unavailing as we find the
Examiner’s citation to Rodriguez’s paragraphs [0080] and [0089] (Ans. 3, 7-
8) sufficient for teaching or suggesting the disputed limitation under §103,
as discussed above.
We are therefore not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 1, and claims 2-18 not separately argued.

Claims 19 and 20
Appellants contend that “Wredenhagen does not even contemplate
‘displaying the output video image according to the request to repeat’, trick
modes, pause, or freeze-framing” (App. Br. 9). However, this argument
does not appreciate the collective teachings of the references relied upon to
reject claims 19 and 20. For instance, as cited above, Rodriguez discloses:
a trick mode flag further allows the STT 510 to enter an output
operation mode in which the last fully reconstructed picture for
display in memory, possibly composed form multiple pictures
and/or processed through a deinterlacer (not shown), continues
to be retained in memory (again the memory that is local to the
video decoder 523) and fed repeatedly for output over
consecutive picture display intervals.

(Rodriguez, ¶ [0080]). As shown here, Rodriguez discloses repeatedly
displaying an output picture during a trick mode. Appellants present no
Appeal 2010-010773
Application 11/051,415

9
arguments in the Briefs regarding Rodriguez paragraph [0080] (see App. Br.
5-9; Reply Br. 5-11).
We are therefore not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claims 19 and 20.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a).

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-20 is 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)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

llw