Ex Parte KettleDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 26, 201310765595 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 26, 2013) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte WIATT KETTLE ____________________ Appeal 2012-000764 Application 10/765,595 Technology Center 2400 ____________________ Before THU A. DANG, JAMES R. HUGHES, and GREGORY J. GONSALVES, Administrative Patent Judges. DANG, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2012-000764 Application 10/765,595 2 I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Non-Final Rejection of claims 1-31. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. A. INVENTION Appellant’s invention is directed to a display device having a process for converting a frame of a video feed to fit within its display having a horizontal to vertical resolution; wherein, at least one marker is embedded within the frame of the video feed that indicates a display region having a horizontal to vertical ratio that matches the horizontal to vertical resolution ratio of the display device (Abstract; Spec.¶¶ [0011] and [0022]). B. ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM Claim 1 is exemplary: 1. A method for fitting a frame of a video feed to a display device, the method comprising: ascertaining at least one marker defining a region of the frame, the region having a horizontal to vertical ratio matching a horizontal resolution to vertical resolution ratio of the display device; buffering at least one row of the region defined by the at least one marker and excluding rows outside the region defined by the at least one marker such that the rows outside the region defined by the at least one marker are simultaneously cropped from the video feed; and displaying, on the display device, the region of the frame defined by the at least one marker. Appeal 2012-000764 Application 10/765,595 3 C. REJECTIONS The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Sullivan US 2002/0047918 Al Apr. 25, 2002 Claims 1-4, 6-12, 14-19, 21-27, and 29-31 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Sullivan. Claims 5, 13, 20, and 28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Sullivan. II. ISSUES The dispositive issues before us are whether the Examiner has erred in determining that Sullivan teaches: 1. “ascertaining at least one marker defining a region of the frame, the region having a horizontal to vertical ratio matching a horizontal resolution to vertical resolution ratio of the display device” (claim 1, emphasis added); and 2. “parsing the at least one marker from the video feed” (claim 9, emphasis added). Appeal 2012-000764 Application 10/765,595 4 III. FINDINGS OF FACT The following Findings of Fact (FF) are shown by a preponderance of the evidence. Sullivan 1. Sullivan discloses a method and apparatus for encoding video content where an original video image 400 having a 16:9 aspect ratio is encoded with information identifying four different display regions (402, 404, 406, and 408) for displaying the original video image on a video display having a 4:3 aspect ratio (Fig. 4; ¶¶ [0034] and [0046]). 2. An identified display region is defined by data included in or transmitted with the video content and may change locations from one frame to the next (¶ [0046]). 3. Although the original video image having a 16:9 aspect ratio and display regions (402, 404, 406, and 408) for display upon a video display having a 4:3 aspect ratio, the original video image may include any number of display regions for any number of different video display types including a 4:3 aspect ratio, 2.3:1 aspect ratio, high resolution 16:9 aspect ratio, and low resolution 16:9 aspect ratio (¶ [0041]). 4. The receiving video display includes a video decoder 322 having a display region locator 324 and an active region locator 326; wherein, the display region locator 324 identifies one or more display regions encoded in the video signal and the active region locator 326 identifies an active region encoded in the video signal (¶ [0032]). Appeal 2012-000764 Application 10/765,595 5 IV. ANALYSIS Claims 1, 3, 4, 6-8, 10, 11, 14-16, 18, 19, 21-24, 26, 27, and 29-31 Appellant contends that “[a]lthough Sullivan teaches … that data is included with the video content, it is clear that no markers are ascertained in fitting a frame of a video feed to a display device within the Sullivan reference” (App. Br. 13). Appellant asserts that: [R]ather than utilizing a marker defining a region of a frame of a video feed, the system of Sullivan teaches the opposite when it teaches that a user selects a particular display region based on user preferences and that the “identified display region is defined by data included in or transmitted with the video content and may change locations from one frame to the next . . . .” (id.). Appellant then argues that “Sullivan simply teaches … that all the four display regions … present[] a different portion of the original video image on the video display with dimensions that do not match the horizontal resolution to vertical resolution ratio of the video display” (App. Br. 13-14). However, the Examiner finds that Sullivan discloses “that a region is being defined by at two parameters, such as two (x, y) coordinates” which are defined “by using input devices such as a computer keyboard, a mouse, a game pad, joystick, etc;” therefore, “the (x, y) coordinates define[] or mark[] a desired display region, [which] can be interpreted as a marker” (Ans. 7). The Examiner notes that Sullivan discloses that “a particular original video image may include any number of display regions for any number of different video display types” including a “high resolution 16:9 aspect ratio[] and a low resolution 16:9 aspect ratio” display type for “original video Appeal 2012-000764 Application 10/765,595 6 image with a 16:9 aspect ratio” (Ans. 8). Thus, “Sullivan basically states the horizontal to vertical ratio of a defined video image region matches the horizontal to vertical ratio of a display device or devices” (id.). We give the claim its broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the Specification. See In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Claim 1 does not define “marker” other than it defines the region of the frame which has a horizontal to vertical ratio that matches the horizontal to vertical resolution of the display device. Thus, we give “ascertaining at least one marker defining a region of the frame, the region having a horizontal to vertical ratio matching a horizontal resolution to vertical resolution ratio of the display device” its broadest reasonable interpretation as data that defines a region of a frame having a horizontal to vertical ratio that equals the horizontal to vertical resolution of a display device. Sullivan discloses a method and apparatus for encoding video content having 16:9 aspect ratio with information identifying four different display regions for video displays of 4:3 aspect ratio, 2.3:1 aspect ratio, high resolution 16:9 aspect ratio, and low resolution 16:9 aspect ratio (FF1 and 3). The display region is identified by data encoded in the video content or transmitted with the video content (FF 2). We find that the data defining the display region comprises data that defines a region of a frame having a horizontal to vertical ratio that equals the horizontal to vertical resolution of a display device. In view of our claim construction above, we find that Sullivan discloses “ascertaining at least one marker defining a region of the frame, the region having a horizontal to vertical ratio matching a horizontal Appeal 2012-000764 Application 10/765,595 7 resolution to vertical resolution ratio of the display device,” as required by claim 1. Accordingly, we find that Appellant has not shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) over Sullivan. Further, independent claims 16 and 24 having similar claim language and claims 1, 3, 4, 6-8, 10, 11, 14-16, 18, 19, 21-24, 26, 27, and 29-31 (depending from claims 1, 16, and 24), which have not been argued separately, fall with claim 1. Claims 2, 9, 12, 17, and 25 As to claim 9, Appellant contends that “Sullivan simply teaches that a user can select a particular predefined display region for viewing, and is silent regarding parsing video content for a marker” (App. Br. 15). Appellant argues that “because the system of Sullivan provides for user- selection of a particular display region, and because the Sullivan device only provides predefined display regions, Sullivan teaches away from parsing a video feed for a marker” (id.). Appellant contends further that “Sullivan fails to teach or suggest, ‘at least one marker defining a region of the frame, the region having a horizontal to vertical ratio matching a horizontal resolution to vertical resolution ratio of the display device’” (App. Br. 16). However, the Examiner finds that “Sullivan basically indicates that the display region information and the active region information are transmitted along with the video data, and identified and separated from the video packet by the display region locator 324 and active region locator 326, respectively;” wherein, the “locators are essentially data parsers because they parse location data from a video data stream” (Ans. 10). Appeal 2012-000764 Application 10/765,595 8 Claim 9 does not define “parsing;” thus, we give “parsing the at least one marker from the video feed” its broadest reasonable interpretation as any extraction of data from the video content. As noted supra, Sullivan discloses that data is included within the video content or transmitted with the video content which defines the display region (FF 2). The video display includes a video decoder having a display region locator and an active region locator, which both identify the display region in the video content (FF 4). Similar to that noted above, we find that adding data to the video content comprises the step of adding to the video feed at least one marker defining a region of the frame having a horizontal to vertical ratio matching a horizontal to vertical resolution of the display device. We find further that the method of extracting the display region from the video content by the display region and the active region locators comprises extraction of the data from the video content. Accordingly, we find that Appellant has not shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) over Sullivan. Further, independent claim 12 having similar claim language and claims 2, 17, and 25 (depending from claims 1 and 16), which have similar arguments, fall with claim 1. Claims 5, 13, 20, and 28 Appellant argues that claims 5, 13, 20, and 28 are patentable over the cited prior art for the same reasons asserted with respect to parent claims 1, 12, 16, and 24 (App. Br. 25). As noted supra, however, we find that Sullivan teaches all the features of claim 1. We therefore affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 5, 13, 20, Appeal 2012-000764 Application 10/765,595 9 and 28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 for the same reasons expressed with respect to claim 1, supra. V. CONCLUSION AND DECISION The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-4, 6-12, 14-19, 21-27, and 29-31 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) and claims 5, 13, 20, and 28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is affirmed. 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 peb Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation