Ex Parte Hanaoka et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJun 12, 201712066218 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 12, 2017) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation