12117927 (P.T.A.B. May. 12, 2015)

Ex Parte Yin et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 12, 2015

12117927 (P.T.A.B. May. 12, 2015)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE 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 APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 12/117,927 05/09/2008 Jianfeng Yin 14233.181 9983 21999 7590 05/13/2015 KIRTON MCCONKIE 60 EAST SOUTH TEMPLE SUITE 1800 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84111 EXAMINER RICHER, AARON M ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2614 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/13/2015 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte JIANFENG YIN and JIAN WANG ____________________ Appeal 2013-003705 Application 12/117,927 Technology Center 2600 ____________________ Before WILLIAM M. FINK, DANIEL J. GALLIGAN, and MELISSA A. HAAPALA, Administrative Patent Judges. FINK, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1–13 and 15. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). Claim 14 is cancelled. We affirm. 1 The real party in interest is identified as VIA Technologies, Inc. App. Br. 3. Appeal 2013-003705 Application 12/117,927 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants’ invention relates to “adjusting color values of a video signal.” Spec., Abstract.2 Claims 1 and 15 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1 is illustrative of Appellants’ invention and is reproduced below: 1. A method for adjusting color values of a video signal including a first frame and a second frame prior to the first frame, and the method comprising steps of: determining a motion-level value of a first pixel in the first frame according to color values of the first pixel and a second pixel in the second frame, wherein the first frame is a current frame, and the second frame is a preceding frame immediately prior to the first frame; performing a first filtering operation to obtain an adjusted color value of the first pixel if the motion-level value is smaller than a first threshold; performing a second filtering operation to obtain the adjusted color value of the first pixel if the motion-level value is greater than a second threshold; and performing a third filtering operation to obtain the adjusted color value of the first pixel if the motion-level value lies between the first threshold and the second threshold. Claims 1–6, 10–13, and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Jiang (US 6,459,455 B1; October 1, 2002). Final Act. 5–10. 2 Our decision refers to Appellants’ Appeal Brief filed August 31, 2012 (“App. Br.”); the Examiner’s Answer mailed November 26, 2012 (“Ans.”); Appellants’ Reply Brief filed January 18, 2013 (“Reply Br.”); the Final Office Action mailed March 8, 2012 (“Final Act.”); and the original Specification filed May 9, 2008 (“Spec.”). Appeal 2013-003705 Application 12/117,927 3 Claims 7 and 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Jiang and Zhou (US 7,542,095 B2; June 2, 2009). Final Act. 11–12. Claim 9 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Jiang and Harvey (US 5,543,939; August 6, 1996). Final Act. 12–14. Based on Appellants’ arguments, the issues on appeal are whether Jiang discloses the limitations of claims 1 and 5. ANALYSIS Claims 1–4, 6–13, and 15 Issue 1: Does Jiang disclose a “first . . .; second . . .; [and] third filtering operation to obtain the adjusted color value,” as recited in claim 1? In disputing the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1, Appellants argue that “filtering operation[s]” “as recited in claim 1 and disclosed in the Specification are operations substantially for filtering off noises.” App. Br. 14 (citing Spec., Fig. 5, S18); see also Reply Br. 2. By contrast, Appellants argue, “Jiang’s filtering operation disclosed in the cited paragraphs is motion filtering, which uses one or more motion threshold values in choosing a deinterlacing algorithm (col. 3 lines 30-32).” App. Br. 14. We are not persuaded by this argument. First, we point out that, during examination, claim terms are given their broadest reasonable construction consistent with the specification. In re ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Here, the claim term at issue is “filtering operation[s],” not “operations substantially for filtering off noises.” Appellants do not persuasively argue the described deinterlacing Appeal 2013-003705 Application 12/117,927 4 methods (i.e., “motion filtering”) are not filtering. Second, we disagree with the distinction between deinterlacing algorithms and noise filtering that Appellants attempt to draw. As the Examiner points out, and we agree, the portion of Jiang cited by Appellant (col. 2, ll. 15–25) describes deinterlacing methods as including temporal and vertical interpolation, all of which read on filtering existing color values. Ans. 4. Appellants also argue deinterlacing is used to create values for a pixel that “does not really exist” in a field when displaying an output field. App. Br. 14. Thus, Appellants contend, deinterlacing does not “adjust[] color values,” as claim 1 requires. Id. We disagree. As the Examiner points out, even the simplest form of deinterlacing—“duplication”—would require adjusting a color value from an undefined state to a particular value. Ans. 4. Accordingly, we are not persuaded Jiang does not disclose a “filtering operation to obtain the adjusted color value,” as required by claim 1. Issue 2: Does Jiang disclose “first frame” and “second frame,” as recited in claim 1? Appellants also argue Jiang fails to disclose a “first frame” and a “second frame” “immediately prior to the first frame,” as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 15. According to Appellants: Jiang’s description in col. 3 lines 17-29, which is cited by the Examiner as anticipating this feature, discloses, “Such motion might be defined as, but not limited to, the absolute value of the difference in the values of the pixel at location 20 between sequential fields 12 and 16.” As understood to those having ordinary skill in the art, a field cannot be considered equivalent to a frame. Appeal 2013-003705 Application 12/117,927 5 . . . If, as asserted by the Examiner, fields t(n-1) and t(n) have been combined into a first frame and fields t(n) and t(n+1) have been combined into a second frame, there would be no need to do motion filtering since the output frames have been obtained. Id. We are not persuaded. Initially, we note the Examiner does not equate a field to a frame, but instead finds “Jiang explicitly states that an NTSC [television] signal uses the combination of two fields to be equivalent to an entire frame. This is the typical frame/field relationship known in the art . . . .” Ans. 5–6 (citing Jiang, col. 1, ll. 20–21). This finding is not persuasively rebutted. Consequently, we also find no error in the Examiner’s finding that fields t(n-1) and t(n) are combined into a first frame, and fields t(n) and t(n+1) are combined into a second frame. See Advisory Action, mailed June 1, 2012, at 2. Appellants argue that if this finding were correct, there would be no need to do motion filtering (i.e., deinterlacing) because the output frames are already obtained. App. Br. 15. However, we disagree. As the Examiner points out, the purpose of Jiang is to go from an interlaced system to a non-interlaced system by providing an algorithm for interleaving the two fields (i.e., deinterlacing). Ans. 6 (citing Jiang, col. 1, ll. 44–46). Thus, there would still be a need for “motion filtering.” Therefore, we disagree Jiang does not disclose the first and second frames required by claim 1. To the extent Appellants contend Jiang does not disclose the limitations of claim 1 because the “input source in Jiang must be interlaced image fields,” whereas “the claimed invention can be applied to any format Appeal 2013-003705 Application 12/117,927 6 of the input source” (App. Br. 15), we note that claim 1 is silent on the format of the input. Accordingly, this argument is not persuasive. Because we are not persuaded Jiang does not disclose the limitations of claim 1, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection. Regarding independent claim 15 and dependent claims 2–4, 6, 10–13, and 15, Appellants present no separate patentability arguments. App. Br. 15. Accordingly, we sustain the rejections of these claims as well. Similarly, regarding claims 7–9, rejected separately, Appellants merely contend the additional references, Zhou and Harvey do not make up for the deficiencies in the base rejection. Id. at 16. However, because we disagree that the base rejection is deficient, we sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejections of these claims for the foregoing reasons. Claim 5 In disputing the Examiner’s finding that Jiang discloses the additional limitation of claim 5, Appellants argue: It is clear that the definitions of B(x,y) and W(x,y) [in function Fn(x,y)] are totally different from the constant 0 and w used in claim 5. The Examiner failed to explain why persons having ordinary skill in the art would have interpreted the function W(x,y) and B(x,y) to be the constant value 0 and w as recited in claim 5. App. Br. 16. We have reviewed the Examiner’s findings as set forth in the Final Action and response to Appellants’ argument as set forth in the Answer (see Ans. 7–10). The Examiner has provided a comprehensive response supported by the evidence of record, explaining how the equation Fn(x,y) and corresponding description disclose the saturation function recited in Appeal 2013-003705 Application 12/117,927 7 claim 5. We adopt the Examiner’s findings and reasoning as our own and therefore sustain the Examiner’s rejection. DECISION We affirm the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1–13 and 15. 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 ACP