Ex Parte VAN DIJK et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jun 30, 2004

09365209 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 30, 2004)

-1-
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and is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 19
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES

Ex parte ROY VAN DIJK and JEFFREY A. SHIMIZU

Appeal No. 2003-1550
Application No. 09/365,209

ON BRIEF

Before KRASS, FLEMING and RUGGIERO, Administrative Patent Judges.
KRASS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal from the final rejection of
claims 1-15.
The invention is directed to compensating for motion of
image planes in color sequential displays. In certain types of
color image displays, color image planes are displayed
sequentially, wherein light of various colors sequentially
illuminates a common spatial light modulator so that the
modulator modulates the intensity of each respective color
Appeal No. 2003-1550
Application No. 09/365,209
-2-
component of a pixel sequentially and independently, which is
perceived as a color motion image. When a user’s eyes are
focused on a moving object, the eyes track the motion. The
tracking motion of the eyes causes a color breakup artifact that
an observer notices.
The instant invention addresses the perceived artifacts in a
color sequential display producing an image of a moving object,
by separately motion compensating the objects represented within
the respective color planes based on the time of display.
Representative independent claim 1 is reproduced as follows:
1. A method for motion compensation of displays,
comprising:
(a) processing received image data comprising frames (2),
each frame defining a plurality of subframes (4, R, G, B ), each
subframe representing a different component of the image frame
(R, G, B) for display at different respective times (TR, TG, TB)
within a frame period;
(b) estimating a motion of an image portion represented in
said frames of image data input (3); and
(c) motion compensating the image portion based on the
estimated motion, with respect to a respective time instance of
display of at least one of said subframes thereof (5), thereby
reducing display artifacts.
The examiner relies on the following reference:
Gillard et al. (Gillard) 4,862,267 Aug. 29, 1989
Claims 1-15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Gillard.
Appeal No. 2003-1550
Application No. 09/365,209
-3-
Reference is made to the briefs and answer for the
respective positions of appellants and the examiner.
OPINION
At the outset, we note that, in accordance with appellants’
grouping at page 8 of the principal brief, all claims will stand
or fall together. Accordingly, we will focus on independent
claim 1.
A rejection for anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102 requires
that the four corners of a single prior art document describe
every element of the claimed invention, either expressly or
inherently, such that a person of ordinary skill in the art could
practice the invention without undue experimentation. See Atlas
Powder Co. v. Ireco Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1347, 51 USPQ2d 1943,
1946-47 (Fed. Cir. 1999); In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1478-79,
31 USPQ2d 1671, 1673 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
It is the examiner’s view that Gillard discloses, in Figures
1-3 and 11-13, a motion compensated interpolation of digital
television images which is the same as motion compensation of
displays, as set forth in the instant claims. The examiner
contends that the reference processes received image data
comprising frames 31, each frame defining a plurality of
Appeal No. 2003-1550
Application No. 09/365,209
-4-
subframes 11, each subframe 11 representing a different component
of the image frame for display at different respective times
within a frame period; that it estimates a motion of an image
portion represented in the frames of image data input (35-47);
that it motion compensates the image portion based on the
estimated motion, with respect to a respective time instance of
display of at least one of the subframes, thereby reducing
display artifacts (1-34), and wherein each respective subframe
corresponds to a different color plane (UV), of a respective
frame, for display in a color-sequential manner at different
times within the frame period. The subframe of the motion
compensated image portion is translated into a corrected subframe
having modified pixel values by bilinear interpolation, defining
a portion boundary at a closest color pixel plane (Figure 11).
For their part, appellants argue that while Gillard teaches
motion compensated interpolation of digital television images by
a combination of motion compensation and interpolation of
successive image frames (with the motion compensation being
carried out in order to eliminate image artifacts such as
multiple imaging, judder and blurring, and carried out on
successive frames of video information), appellants are concerned
with color artifacts caused by the depiction of motion in a color
Appeal No. 2003-1550
Application No. 09/365,209
-5-
frame-sequential system, i.e., a full color display represented
by the sequential display of color component sub-fields.
Moreover, appellants argue, the instant claimed invention
applies motion compensation to the component color subframes, not
to conventional video frames containing all luminance and
chrominance information for a color image frame. Gillard, allege
appellants, does not teach or suggest motion compensation based
on component subframes.
With regard to appellants’ first arguments relative to
“color artifacts,” the examiner has indicated, appellants have
admitted, and we agree, that instant claim 1 is not limited to
different color subframes exhibited in a color-sequential manner
(though other claims, e.g., claim 2, appear to be so limited).
However, we do agree with appellants that claim 1 is limited
to the application of motion compensation to subframes
representing different components of an image frame for display
at different respective times within a frame period. Gillard
does not appear to teach such a limitation.
The examiner’s response is that appellants already admit “on
page 8 of the Brief that Gillard . . . teaches motion
compensation” (answer, page 3). In addressing the “components
subframes”(as argued by appellants at page 9 of the principal
Appeal No. 2003-1550
Application No. 09/365,209
-6-
brief) feature, the examiner points to Figure 2 of Gillard for an
illustration that the color frames U and V (i.e., color
components in a TV signal) are divided (11C) into subframes,
i.e., fields within a frame, prior to motion compensation
processing. We are not convinced, by the examiner’s explanation,
that Gillard teaches the invention described by instant claim 1.
Looking at Figure 2 of Gillard, and the attendant
description thereof, at column 3, lines 10-11, and at column 8,
line 66 through column 12, line 34, it appears that Figure 2
describes a television standards converter for converting a 625
line 50 fps standard (input into demultiplexer 31) to a 525 line
60 fps standard (output at multiplexer 34). This is performed by
separating the input video signal into Y (luminance), SYNC (synch
signals) and UV (chrominance) components (see output of
demultiplexer 31). The Y and UV components are later recombined
to provide a new video signal and this new video signal displays
all image components simultaneously in each field or frame. The
Y and UV components might be considered to be different
components of an image frame, and this is admitted by appellants
at page 3 of the reply brief, but these components are still not
displayed at different times within a frame period, as required
by claim 1.
Appeal No. 2003-1550
Application No. 09/365,209
-7-
The best that the examiner can muster to respond to the
“different times” argument is to allege that Gillard “never
discloses displaying the components YUV simultaneously” (answer,
page 4) and that the multiplexer of Figure 2 “shows that the
image components are transmitted through a single video output
channel. It is noted that Gillard . . . does not illustrate 3
parallel output channels for Y, U, and V to be simultaneously
outputted because these image components are outputted at
different respective times within a frame period . . .” (answer,
pages 4-5).
We are in agreement with appellants that there “is no
support whatsoever in the disclosure of Gillard . . . for the
Examiner’s contention that the Y, U and V components are
separately outputted during different times within a frame
period” (reply brief, page 5).
While Gillard may not specifically state that components Y,
U and V are displayed “simultaneously,” it is clear that the Y
and UV components in Gillard are multiplexed in multiplexer 34 to
form a new TV video signal which is a conventional television
signal in which each frame carries all of the luminance (Y) and
chrominance (UV) information of the display image. Further,
merely because a reference does not specifically state certain
Appeal No. 2003-1550
Application No. 09/365,209
-8-
components of a signal to be displayed “simultaneously,” does not
unequivocally lead to the conclusion that the components are
displayed at different respective times. Thus, we find nothing
in Gillard, and the examiner has not convinced us of any teaching
in Gillard, that indicates the receipt of image data comprising
frames, with each frame having a plurality of subframes, “each
subframe representing a different component of the image frame
for display at different respective times . . . within a frame
period,” as required by claim 1.
The problem with the examiner’s attempt to force the
disclosure of Gillard to “fit” the instant claimed invention
appears to lie in appellants’ R, G and B subframes (though these
are not specifically claimed in claim 1, the claim does recite
time periods TR, TG, TB), which are quite different from YUV
components. It is the R, G and B subframes, not YUV components,
which receive motion compensation in the instant invention. The
artisan would have understood, as appellants point out, at page 4
of the reply brief, that “YUV components in the conventional
sense are not for display at different respective times within a
frame period.”
Appeal No. 2003-1550
Application No. 09/365,209
-9-
Since each and every claim limitation is not taught by the
applied reference, we will not sustain the examiner’s rejection
of claims 1-15 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
The examiner’s decision is reversed.
REVERSED
ERROL A. KRASS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
)
MICHAEL R. FLEMING ) BOARD OF PATENT
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO )
Administrative Patent Judge )
EAK:clm
Appeal No. 2003-1550
Application No. 09/365,209
-10-
Philips Intellectual Property
& Standards
P.O. Box 3001
Briarcliff Manor, NY 10510