Jeroen Gerard. Scheepens et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Oct 30, 2019

15022593 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Oct. 30, 2019)

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.
15/022,593 03/17/2016 JEROEN GERARD SCHEEPENS 2013P01282WOUS 2168
24737 7590 10/30/2019
PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS
465 Columbus Avenue
Suite 340
Valhalla, NY 10595
EXAMINER
YENKE, BRIAN P
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2422
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/30/2019 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):
katelyn.mulroy@philips.com
marianne.fox@philips.com
patti.demichele@Philips.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte JEROEN GERARD SCHEEPENS, IVO DON STUYFZAND,
HENDRIKUS BERNARDUS VAN DEN BRINK,
JURGEN JEAN LOUIS HOPPENBROUWERS,
and
PETRUS JOHANNES GERARDUS MENTJOX
____________________

Appeal 2018-005671
Application 15/022,5931
Technology Center 2400
____________________

Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, HUNG H. BUI, and JON M. JURGOVAN,
Administrative Patent Judges.

JURGOVAN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant seeks review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final
Rejection of claims 1–8, 10–13, and 15–20.2 We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.3

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “Applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V.,
as the real party in interest. (App. Br. 2.)
2 Claims 9, 14, and 21 have been cancelled. (App. Br. 14–17 (Claims
App.).)
3 Our Decision refers to the Specification (“Spec.”) filed March 17, 2016,
the Final Office Action (“Final Act.”) mailed August 30, 2017, the Appeal
Appeal 2018-005671
Application 15/022,593

2
CLAIMED INVENTION
The claims are directed to a system and a method “for simultaneously
displaying video data of multiple video sources on a display.” (Spec. 1:2–3;
Abstract.) Appellant’s invention spatially scales the video data of one or
more of multiple video sources to fit respective display viewports, and
generates a visual indicator for visually indicating whether the video data in
one of the viewports has been spatially scaled from its native spatial
resolution, thereby “warn[ing] the user that the video data in one of the
viewports may comprise undesirable artifacts which may hinder
interpretation of the video data.” (Abstract.)
Claims 1, 13, and 15 are independent. Claim 1, reproduced below, is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A system for simultaneously displaying video data of
multiple video sources on a display, the system comprising:
a video input circuit for receiving the video data of the
multiple video sources, wherein the video data of at least one of
the multiple video sources is explicitly marked as being scaling-
sensitive;
a display processor for generating display data to display
the video data of the multiple video sources in respective
viewports on a display, the viewports being sized and positioned
to simultaneously fit a display area on the display;
wherein the display processor is arranged for:
if needed to fit the size of respective ones of the
viewports, automatically spatially scaling the video data
of one or more of the multiple video sources to fit said
respective viewports, and

Brief (“App. Br.”) filed February 16, 2018, the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.”)
mailed March 16, 2018, and the Reply Brief (“Reply Br.”) filed May 10,
2018.
Appeal 2018-005671
Application 15/022,593

3
only for each video data that is explicitly marked as
being scaling-sensitive and has been spatially scaled4,
generating a visual indicator for visually indicating that
the scaling-sensitive video data has been spatially scaled
from its native spatial resolution; and
concurrently displaying the visual indicator while
displaying the scaling-sensitive video data that has been
spatially scaled.

(App. Br. 13–17 (Claims App.).)

REJECTION & REFERENCES
Claims 1–8, 10–13, and 15–20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
based on Applicants’ Admitted Prior Art (AAPA) and Haj-khalil et al. (US

4 In our analysis, we assume the “spatially scaled” video data mentioned
here is the result of “automatically spatially scaling” in the preceding “if”
conditional limitation. The conditional limitation is thus necessarily carried
out by claim 1’s display processor and in the performance of the claimed
method in claim 13, and may be given patentable weight. See In re
Schulhauser, Appeal No. 2013-007847 (PTAB) (April 28, 2016)
(precedential). For example, method claim 13 recites that “only for each
video data that is explicitly marked as being scaling-sensitive and has been
spatially scaled, generating a visual indicator for visually indicating that the
scaling-sensitive video data has been spatially scaled,” which necessitates
the performance of the preceding “if” limitation (i.e., performance of
“automatically spatially scaling the video data of one or more of the multiple
video sources to fit said respective viewports”). Thus, the broadest
reasonable interpretation of independent claim 13 (and system claim 1)
requires both “automatically spatially scaling the video data of one or more
of the multiple video sources to fit said respective viewports” and “only for
each video data that is explicitly marked as being scaling-sensitive and has
been spatially scaled, generating [the] visual indicator.” The Examiner
should therefore consider whether the conditionality of the preceding “if”
limitation should be eliminated and the word “automatically” added before
“spatially scaled” here in claim 1 (and similarly in claim 13), to make the
claim language clearer.
Appeal 2018-005671
Application 15/022,593

4
2009/0228922 A1, published Sept. 10, 2009) (“Haj-khalil”) further in view
of Examiner’s Evidenced Prior Art.5 (Final Act. 8–22.)

ANALYSIS
With respect to independent claim 1, the Examiner finds the claimed
“scaling-sensitive could include any image content which is resized to a
different format/resolution/size then[sic] it was created,” and the AAPA,
Haj-khalil, and the Examiner’s Evidenced Prior Art teach video data
including additional imaging information such as “metadata, resolution,
aspect-ratio, frequency etc.[] in the signal which is then used by the
receiving device/display in order to convert (or not) or scale (or not) when
needed/desired,” thereby teaching and suggesting the claimed “video data

5 As the “Examiner’s Evidenced Prior Art,” the Examiner cites: Imai et al.
(US 2013/0207942 A1, published Aug. 15, 2013) (“Imai”); Itani (US
2007/0248324 A1, published Oct. 25, 2007); Cherna et al. (US
2007/0201833 A1, published Aug. 30, 2007) (“Cherna”); Sie et al. (US
2004/0212731 A1, published Oct. 28, 2004) (“Sie”); Masukura et al. (US
2004/0148640 A1, published July 29, 2004) (“Masukura”); Sugiyama et al.
(US 2003/0009722 A1, published Jan. 9, 2003) (“Sugiyama”); Unemura (US
6,798,458 B1, issued Sept. 28, 2004); An et al. (US 7,224,404 B2, issued
May 29, 2007) (“An”); Yoo et al. (US 6,738,559 B1, issued May 18, 2004)
(“Yoo”); Kim et al. (US 6,714,253 B2, issued Mar. 30, 2004) (“Kim ’253”);
Suh (US 5,815,216, issued Sept. 29, 1998) (“Suh ’216”); Lownes et al. (US
6,137,539, issued Oct. 24, 2000) (“Lownes”); Suh et al. (US 8,229,272 B2,
issued July 24, 2012) (“Suh ’272”); Gotanda et al. (US 7,596,188 B2, issued
Sept. 29, 2009) (“Gotanda”); Kim (US 2008/0309821 A1, published Dec.
18, 2008) (“Kim ’821”); Cohen-Solal (US 7,206,029 B2, issued Apr. 17,
2007); Rigolet (US 2007/0250788 A1, published Oct. 25, 2007); Hernandez
et al. (US 8,982,145 B2, issued Mar. 17, 2015) (“Hernandez”); DeHaan et al.
(US 2012/0075526 A1, published March 29, 2012) (“DeHaan”); and
Altmanshofer et al. (US 5,442,406, issued Aug. 15, 1995) (“Altmanshofer”).
(See Final Act. 3–4, 9–11, 13; Ans. 23, 26–34.)
Appeal 2018-005671
Application 15/022,593

5
. . . is explicitly marked as being scaling-sensitive.” (Ans. 20–21, 23, 32–
34); Final Act. 9, 15–16.) The Examiner further finds the cited art teaches
and suggests the claimed “only for each video data that is explicitly marked
as being scaling-sensitive and has been spatially scaled, generating a visual
indicator for visually indicating that the scaling-sensitive video data has
been spatially scaled from its native spatial resolution,” because “it is known
to display a visual indicator when image data has been scaled” and
it is known to display such information [(warning,
notifications)] whether it’s the only video source display or
displayed with other sources as evidenced by the prior art.
. . .
if a scaling operation was performed and the marking was
not included (exclusive to the already provided data regarding
resolution, aspect-ratio), a sensitive scaled displayed image
would not include a visual indicator (even though it has been
spatially scaled from its native resolution). This would render
the prior art invalid, since the prior art already displays a visual
indicator when resized/rescaled (indicative of scaling-sensitive).
In essence, the applicant’s invention appears to be marking a
video to display something it already displays (as shown by the
prior art where a received video has a resolution, aspect-ratio
which is adjusted/changed/converted or not by the display, and
when adjusted/changed/converted displaying such information).
In short, marking an already marked video signal to display
information which it would when converted, scaled, and/or
resized.
Another example would be equatable to including
information in signal that said if this image is displayed on the
right side of the screen, and there is a left image, display the letter
R, or if displayed on the left screen the letter L (along with a right
image).
. . .
[T]he appellant is marking an already marked video data,
where the claim only recites marking. In the event the appellant
included marking an already marked video signal, the examiner
Appeal 2018-005671
Application 15/022,593

6
notes cited US 6,714,253 (Fig 10) which includes a custom bit
for signal processing, which is including/marking additional
information to the included information (resolution . . . bit 4).

(Final Act. 15; Ans. 22, 32; see also Final Act. 9–12.) We do not agree.
We agree with Appellant that the Examiner has not shown that Haj-
khalil and the Examiner’s Evidenced Prior Art, alone or in combination,
teaches or suggests that “only for each video data that is explicitly
marked as being scaling-sensitive and has been spatially scaled, does the
display processor generate a visual indicator for visually indicating that
the scaling-sensitive video data has been spatially scaled from its native
spatial resolution” as recited in claim 1. (App. Br. 10, 13 (see claim 1).) In
other words, Appellant’s claim 1 requires that “the warning [(visual
indicator)] is generated when an explicit scaling-sensitive marking is
present in the video data and the video data is scaled,” but “the warning is
not generated when the explicit scaling-sensitive marking is not present
and the video data is scaled.” (Reply Br. 6.) The claimed selective issuance
or non-issuance of a visual indicator when a scaling-sensitive marking is
present or absent, respectively, “provides a novel and useful advantage . . .
particularly in the field of medical diagnostics” where the viewer (e.g., a
medical practitioner) should be made aware of artifacts created when scaling
the original medical video data. (Reply Br. 2–3; see also Spec. 1:24–26,
4:25–31, 13:4–5, 13:10–11, 13:28–33.)
In contrast, the Examiner’s cited “prior art may be configured to either
always display a warning when video data is scaled, or never display a
warning when video data is scaled,” but the “prior art does not teach or
suggest selectively issuing a scaling warning, or not issuing a scaling
Appeal 2018-005671
Application 15/022,593

7
warning, based on an explicit marking of the video data.” (Reply Br. 5
(emphasis added).) As Appellant explains, the display devices in the
Examiner’s cited art issue warnings or visual indicators “whenever the video
data is rescaled or resized,” but “do not exclusively display these visual
indicators only for certain video data that contains a particular marker” as in
Appellant’s claim 1. (Reply Br. 5–6; App. Br. 10.) For example, the
“custom” bit (e.g., bit4) in Figure 10 of Kim ’253 controls the signal
processing applied to an image, but Kim ’253 “is silent with regard to this
bit being used to determine whether or not to issue a warning when the
image is scaled.” (Reply Br. 6; see Kim ’253 7:12–27, Fig. 10.) As another
example, Haj-khalil displays zoomed media content without selectively
providing a visual indicator only for scaled media explicitly marked scaling-
sensitive as claimed. (See Haj-khalil Figs. 7A–7C.)
As the Examiner has not shown that the cited art teaches or suggests
the claimed generating a visual indicator for visually indicating that the
scaling-sensitive video data has been spatially scaled from its native spatial
resolution only for that video data that is explicitly marked as being scaling-
sensitive and has been spatially scaled, we do not sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of independent claim 1, and claims 2–8 and 10–12 dependent
therefrom. We also do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent
claims 13 and 15, argued for the same reasons as claim 1, and claims 16–20
dependent therefrom. (App. Br. 8, 11; Reply Br. 6.)

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–8, 10–13, and 15–20
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
Appeal 2018-005671
Application 15/022,593

8
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–8, 10–
13, 15–
20
103 Applicants’ Admitted
Prior Art, Haj-khalil,
Altmanshofer, An,
Cherna, Cohen-Solal,
DeHaan, Gotanda,
Hernandez, Imai, Itani,
Kim ‘253, Kim ’821,
Lownes, Masukura,
Rigolet, Sie, Sugiyama,
Suh ’216, Suh ’272,
Unemura, and Yoo
1–8, 10–
13, 15–20

REVERSED