Ex Parte Janko et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Feb 27, 2007

10418405 (B.P.A.I. Feb. 27, 2007)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written
for publication in a law journal and is not binding precedent of the Board.

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte BOZIDAR JANKO and KAMALESH PATEL
____________

Appeal 2006-3266
Application 10/418,405
Technology Center 3600
____________

ON BRIEF
____________

Before ANITA PELLMAN GROSS, LINDA E. HORNER, and ANTON W.
FETTING, Administrative Patent Judges.

GROSS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Janko and Patel (Appellants) appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the
Examiner's final rejection of claim 1. Claim 2 has been objected to by the
Examiner.
Appellants' invention relates to a method of displaying video signal
errors in the area of viewer significance in a picture representing the video
Appeal 2006-3266
Application 10/418,405

signal. Claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed invention, and it reads as
follows:
1. A method of displaying problem areas in a picture represented by a
video signal comprising the steps of:

analyzing the video signal for out-of-limit conditions to determine
problem areas;

determining from the picture according to an attention model an area
of viewer significance; and

highlighting the problem areas in the picture that are within the area of
viewer significance.

The prior art references of record relied upon by the Examiner in
rejecting the appealed claims are:
Edelson US 2002/0054211 A1 May 09, 2002
Osberger US 6,670,963 B2 Dec. 30, 2003
(filed Jan. 17, 2001)
Appellants' Admitted Prior Art, Figures 1-3 and corresponding description,
Specification pages 1-2. (APA)

Claims 1 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over APA in view of Edelson or Osberger.
We refer to the Examiner's Answer (mailed December 22, 2005) and
to Appellants' Brief (filed July 10, 2006) for the respective arguments.

SUMMARY OF DECISION
As a consequence of our review, we will reverse the obviousness
rejection of claim 1.

2
Appeal 2006-3266
Application 10/418,405

OPINION
Appellants contend (Br. 6-7) that there is no teaching or suggestion to
combine the attention maps of Osberger with the out-of-limit problem areas
of the conventional waveform monitors/vectorscopes of APA to highlight
only problems that occur in high viewer interest areas. The Examiner asserts
(Answer 4-6) that it would have been obvious in view of APA, Osberger,
and Edelson to highlight signal problems that occur in areas of high viewer
interest. The issue, therefore, is whether the Examiner has provided a proper
motivation to combine and, thus, whether the Examiner has established a
prima facie case of obviousness.
Appellants disclose (APA, p. 1) that video waveform monitors and
vectorscopes for determining if a video signal meets various requirements,
such as being within a given amplitude range or within a given color space,
are known. Appellants further disclose (APA, p. 1) that displaying the
signals and highlighting the video signal errors, or the areas outside the
allowable limits, is known.
Appellants (APA, p. 1) disclose a second known concept -- attention
models. An attention model indicates content within a picture that is of
particular interest to viewers, and, thus, areas on which viewers are likely to
focus. Osberger also is directed to a visual attention model. See, for
example, the title. Edelson discloses (Abstract) a video surveillance system
that highlights areas of unexpected or exceptional motion. Edelson teaches
(para. 0007) that by highlighting only the areas of unexpected or exceptional
motion, the system "prevents overload on the operator's attention and only
brings to the operator's attention those situations in the surveilled scene
3
Appeal 2006-3266
Application 10/418,405

which require his immediate attention" (emphasis added). Thus, Edelson
also relates to an attention model.
The Examiner asserts (Answer 4) that "it would have been obvious …
that the 'cross-hatched areas' [that show the signal errors in Appellants' Fig.
1] is the claimed 'area of viewer significance' because the viewer would pay
close attention to these 'cross-hatched areas' significantly." This assertion
suggests that the Examiner does not grasp the two distinct concepts
disclosed in APA and recited in claim 1. The video signal is analyzed to
determine problems with the signal, or signal errors. The attention model
relates to portions in the content of a display that attract a viewer's attention.
For example, in a picture of a batter in a baseball game, a viewer will focus
on the batter, and more specifically on the batter's upper torso, not on the
stands in the background. Therefore, if a signal error were to occur in the
background area of the corresponding display, the viewer would not pay
close attention to that error. Accordingly, the cross-hatched area of Fig. 1
does not necessarily correspond to the area of viewer significance.
The Examiner (Answer 5) asserts that Edelson's areas of unexpected
motion are equivalent to the problem areas, or "out-of-limit conditions," and
that "Fig. 3 shows the unexpected motion picture being detected according
to an attention model an area of viewer significance." However, the areas of
unexpected motion in Edelson relate to the content of the display, and, thus,
to the areas of viewer significance. The areas of unexpected motion do not
indicate signal errors. Therefore, Edelson provides no teaching or
suggestion concerning highlighting signal errors in the areas of viewer
significance.
4
Appeal 2006-3266
Application 10/418,405

The Examiner (Answer 6) states that Osberger "discloses (Figs. 1-2)
the method of analysis [sic] the video signal. This method provides an
improved visual attention model." Again the Examiner indiscriminately
combines the two concepts of signal error and visual attention models
without any suggestion to do so in the references. Osberger analyzes the
content of a video sequence to obtain a visual attention model. We find
nothing in Osberger that would suggest highlighting signal errors in the
areas of viewer significance.
Since we find no teaching or suggestion in any of the references, and
the Examiner has pointed to none, to highlight signal errors in the areas of
viewer significance, the Examiner has not provided a proper motivation to
combine. Thus, the Examiner has failed to establish a prima facie case of
obviousness.

5
Appeal 2006-3266
Application 10/418,405

ORDER
The decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 1 and 2 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
REVERSED

ANITA PELLMAN GROSS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
LINDA E. HORNER ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
ANTON W. FETTING )
Administrative Patent Judge )
6
Appeal 2006-3266
Application 10/418,405

MATTHEW D. RABDAU
TEKTRONIX, INC.
14150 S.W. KARL BRAUN DRIVE
P.O. BOX 500 (50-LAW)
BEAVERTON, OR 97077-0001

APG/jrg
7