Ex Parte Hanaoka et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 12, 2017

12066218 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 12, 2017)

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.
12/066,218 03/07/2008 Toshiharu Hanaoka 1248-1647PUS1 7652
127226 7590 06/14/2017
BIRCH, STEWART, KOLASCH & BIRCH, LLP
8110 Gatehouse Road
Suite 100 East
Falls Church, VA 22042-1248
EXAMINER
CASTRO, ALFONSO
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2421
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/14/2017 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):
mailroom @ bskb. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte TOSHIHARU HANAOKA, KENICHIROH YAMAMOTO,
HIROYUKI FURUKAWA, MASAFUMI UENO, and
YASUHIRO YOSHIDA
Appeal 2017-001900
Application 12/066,2181
Technology Center 2400
Before THU A. DANG, JUSTIN BUSCH, and MATTHEW J. McNEILL,
Administrative Patent Judges.
McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1—4, 14-23, 26, 30-39, and 45, which are all the claims
pending in this application.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is
SHARP KABUSHIKI KAISHA. App. Br. 1.
2 Claims 5-13, 24-25, 27-29, 40-44, and 46-51 are canceled. Adv. Act. 1;
Reply Br. 2.
Appeal 2017-001900
Application 12/066,218
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellants’ application relates to preventing image quality
deterioration due to motion-compensated rate conversion of combined image
signals. Spec. 11. Claim 1 is illustrative of the appealed subject matter and
reads as follows:
1. An image display device comprising:
a rate converting module that interpolates an image
signal after the image signal has been subjected to a motion
compensation process between frames or fields of an input
image signal to convert and output the number of frames or
fields of the input image signal to a display panel,
responsive to the input image signal being a combination
of a first image signal and a second image signal, the second
image signal being different from the first image signal, and at
least one of the first image signal and the second image signal
is a moving image; the rate converting module disabling the
motion compensation process for all pixel regions of the
combination to be displayed in the display panel by making a
motion vector zero for all pixel regions.
The Examiner’s Rejections3
Claims 1-3, 14-17, 21, 22, and 39 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Salzer et al. (US 2004/0085480 Al; May 6,
2004) (“Salzer ’480”), Salzer et al. (US 2005/0243216 Al; Nov. 3, 2005)
3 In the Final Office Action, the Examiner rejected claims 4, 23, 26, 30-33,
37, 38, and 45 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Salzer ’480,
Salzer ’216, Hentschel, and Lee and claims 34—36 under U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Salzer ’480, Salzer ’216, Hentschel, Lee, and Reider.
Final Act. 19-29. However, the Examiner withdrew this rejection in the
Answer. Ans. 2.
2
Appeal 2017-001900
Application 12/066,218
(“Salzer ’216”), Hentschel et al. (US 6,844,878 B2; Jan. 18, 2005), and Bretl
et al. (US 7,327,790 Bl; Feb. 5, 2008). Final Act. 6-15.
Claims 18-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Salzer ’480, Salzer ’216, Hentschel, and Reider et al. (US
2002/0196369 Al; Dec. 26, 2002). Final Act. 31, 33.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in consideration of
Appellants’ contentions and the evidence of record. Appellants persuade us
the Examiner fails to establish the claims are unpatentable over the cited
prior art.
The Examiner finds the combination of Salzer ’480, Salzer ’216,
Hentschel, and Bretl teaches or suggests “the rate converting module
disabling the motion compensation process for all pixel regions of the
combination to be displayed in the display panel by making a motion vector
zero for all pixel regions,” as recited in claim 1. Final Act. 7-10; Ans. 3-20.
Appellants argue the Examiner errs in so finding because although Salzer
’480 does not apply motion compensation to a portion of the image signal
(regions 80 and 81 in Figure 15), Salzer ’480 applies motion compensation
to another portion of the image signal (image area 82 in Figure 15). App.
Br. 11. Appellants argue Salzer ’480, therefore, does not teach disabling the
motion compensation process for all pixel regions, wherein the first and
second image signals are different and at least one of the image signals is a
moving image. Id.
The Examiner disagrees, stating Appellants’ argument only addresses
one of the plurality of embodiments taught by Salzer’480. Ans. 3. The
Examiner notes that claim 1 recites that at least one of the first signal and the
3
Appeal 2017-001900
Application 12/066,218
second signal is a moving image, which implies that one is not. Ans. 5-6.
The Examiner construes “moving image” to include a slow moving or slow
motion image that does not necessarily require motion compensation
processing. Ans. 6. The Examiner finds Salzer ’480 teaches that in the case
of a slow motion image, image area 82 would not be subject to motion
compensation and, therefore, motion compensation is disabled for all image
areas. Ans. 8.
In the Reply Brief, Appellants argue the Examiner’s finding regarding
slow motion images is incorrect. Reply Br. 5-8. Claim 1 recites, in part, “a
rate converting module that interpolates an image signal after the image
signal has been subjected to a motion compensation process” and
“responsive to the input image signal being a combination of a first image
signal and a second image signal, the second image signal being different
from the first image signal, and at least one of the first image signal and the
second image signal is a moving image.” Appellants argue the Examiner’s
interpretation of “moving image” as including a slow motion image that is
not subjected to motion compensation is inconsistent with the claim
language, which requires the image signal to be subjected to a motion
compensation process. Reply Br. 5-6.
We agree with Appellants that if Salzer ’480’s teachings as referenced
by the Examiner are applied to a slow motion image that is not subjected to
motion compensation (see Salzer 19), that signal would not constitute an
“image signal [that] has been subjected to a motion compensation process.”
If, on the other hand, Salzer ’480 ’s referenced teachings are applied to an
image signal at regular speed that is subjected to motion compensation,
Salzer ’480 teaches motion compensation is not disabled for image area 82.
4
Appeal 2017-001900
Application 12/066,218
Salzer || 79-83. In other words, as set forth in the sections referenced by
the Examiner, Salzer ’480 teaches either applying motion compensation to
image area 82 (regular image signal) or not applying motion compensation
at all (slow motion image signal), but does not teach disabling motion
compensation for all pixel regions of a signal that was subject to motion
compensation, as claimed.
Accordingly, on this record, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1.
We also do not sustain the rejections of independent claims 39 and 45,
which recite similar limitations, or dependent claims 2—4, 14-26, 30-33, and
38, which depend directly or indirectly from claim 1.
DECISION
We reverse the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1—4, 14-26,
30-33, 38, 39, and 45.
REVERSED
5