Ex Parte Chaudhri

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 29, 2016

11849987 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 29, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
111849,987 0910412007 Imran A. Chaudhri
45833 7590 08/02/2016
SCHWEGMAN LUNDBERG & WOESSNER/APPLE
POBOX2938
SUITE 300
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
772.295US1 6661
EXAMINER
JONES, HEATHER RAE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2481
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/02/2016 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):
uspto@slwip.com
SLW@blackhillsip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte IMRAN A. CHAUDHRI
Appeal2015-001316
Application 11/849,987
Technology Center 2400
Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, and
DENISE M. POTHIER, Administrative Patent Judges.
POTHIER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
rejection of claims 1-21and23-26. App. Br. 1. 1 Claim 22 has been
canceled. May 15, 2013 Amendment 7. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse.
1 Throughout this opinion, we refer to (1) the Appeal Brief (App. Br.) filed
April 18, 2014; (2) the Examiner's Answer (Ans.) mailed August 15, 2014;
and (3) the Reply Brief (Reply Br.) filed October 15, 2014.
Appeal2015-001316
Application 11/849,987
INVENTION
Appellant's invention detects a video's display mode and selects a
subtitle's presentation format based on the detected display mode. Spec. i-f 4.
Subtitles can obscure displayed video content, and when the video screen is
small, allocating screen space is a challenge. Id. i-fi-12-3. To address this
challenge, Appellant's invention associates the subtitle's presentation format
with a display mode. Id. i-f 91. Claim 1, reproduced below with our
emphasis, is illustrative:
1. A method, comprising:
selecting a video for display on a display of a device;
detecting a display mode for the video, wherein the display
mode is based on an aspect ratio of the video, an aspect ratio of
the display of the device, and a user preference;
selecting one of a plurality of presentation formats for
presenting subtitles, wherein the presentation format is selected
in response to the detected display mode; and
presenting subtitles in the selected presentation format;
wherein the method is performed by one or more
processors.
The Examiner relies on the following as evidence of unpatentability:
Kawamura
Champ el
Tseng
Naganuma
US 6,535,688B1
US 2006/0002684 Al
US 2006/0251406 Al
US 2006/0274203 Al
THE REJECTIONS
Mar. 18,2003
Jan. 5,2006
Nov. 9, 2006
Dec. 7, 2006
Claims 1---6, 8, 10-15, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
over Kawamura and Naganuma. Ans. 2-9.
Claims 7, 16, 19-21, and 23-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
over Kawamura, Naganuma, and Champel. Ans. 10-14, 16-26.
2
Appeal2015-001316
Application 11/849,987
Claims 9 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
Kawamura, Naganuma, and Tseng. Ans. 14--16.
THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OVER KAWAMURA AND
NAGANUMA
Contentions
The Examiner finds that Kawamura discloses every recited element of
claim 1, except for the "wherein" limitations that follow the recited
"detecting a display mode" and "selecting one of a plurality of presentation
formats." Ans. 2-3. The Examiner relies on Naganuma to teach these
features in concluding the claim would have been obvious. Id. at 3. Of
particular relevance, the Examiner finds that Kawamura selects a
presentation format for presenting subtitles, as shown in Figure 10. Id. at
2-3. The Examiner, however, finds that Kawamura lacks selecting the
presentation format "in response to the detected display mode." Id. at 3.
According to the Examiner, Naganuma selects a presentation format in
response to the detected display mode when priority is given to a specified
setting. Id. at 3 (citing Naganuma i-fi-126-27, Fig. 5).
In responding to Appellant's arguments, the Examiner also finds that
other figures in Kawamura show presenting subtitles according to the
detected display mode. Ans. 29 (citing Kawamura Figs. 10-11 ).
Among other arguments, Appellant contends that the proposed
combination lacks the recited selecting a presentation format. App. Br. 17;
Reply Br. 4--5. First, Appellant argues that the recited "presentation format"
is distinct from the recited "detected display mode." App. Br. 17. Second,
according to Appellant, Kawamura selects the recited presentation format in
response to data added to the image signal, not according to the detected
3
Appeal2015-001316
Application 11/849,987
display mode, as recited. See App. Br. 17 and Reply Br. 4--5. Third,
Appellant further argues that Naganuma does not cure this deficiency
because Naganuma lacks any subtitle's presentation format. Id.
Issue
Under§ 103, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 by finding
that Kawamura and Naganuma collectively would have taught or suggested
selecting the presentation format "in response to the detected display
mode"?
Analysis
Claim 1 recites, in part, a step of "selecting one of a plurality of
presentation formats for presenting subtitles, wherein the presentation format
is selected in response to the detected display mode." For example,
Appellant's presentation format for subtitles includes overlaying a subtitle
bar or, alternatively, displaying a subtitle in a matte region of the display.
Spec. i-f 91. These presentation formats can be associated with display
modes, such as associating a matte-region presentation format with the
letterbox and windowbox display modes. Id. Although these examples (id.)
inform our construction of the recited "presentation format," we are mindful
not to import these examples into the claim.
Notably, the Examiner appears to shift positions regarding how
Kawamura selects the presentation format. Compare Ans. 3 with id. at 29.
In the Final Rejection, the Examiner finds that Kawamura does not teach the
disputed limitation. Final Act. 3 ("Kawamura et al. fails to disclose ...
[that] the presentation format is selected in response to the detected display
mode"); see also Ans. 3. By contrast, in responding to Appellant's
arguments, the Examiner finds that Kawamura does present subtitles
4
Appeal2015-001316
Application 11/849,987
according to the display mode. Ans. 29 (citing Kawamura Figs. 10-11 ).
Adding to the confusion, the Examiner cites Figures 10 and 11 and the
accompanying description to teach both the recited (1) detected display
mode and (2) presentation format. See Ans. 2 (citing Kawamura 7:57-8:14,
Fig. 10); Ans. 28-29 (citing Kawamura Figs. 10-11).
In any event, the Examiner's position (Ans. 3, 29) contains errors. In
particular, Kawamura transmits image data accompanied by additional data
for correcting the image's aspect ratio and other presentation-related
information. Kawamura 6:44--51. That is, Kawamura selects the recited
presentation format in response to data being added to the image signal (e.g.,
bits embedded within the television signal), not in response to detecting the
display mode, as claimed. Kawamura 7:50-8:14, Figs. 10-11, cited in
Reply Br. 4--5 n.4--5.
Kawamura describes a 14-bit identification signal encoded and
transmitted with the Phase Alternating Line (PAL) signal. Kawamura
7:50-52. The additional information contains bit groups as shown below in
Figure 10. Id. Fig. 10, cited in Ans. 29.
: """""""""' "'1"'"-~~---~-".___. _ __. _ __._._._._._._._._._._._._. __________ -"""·------.
· . . Group 1 t Group 2 . . .. C,.roop 3 Grmip 4 ·
Af>Pett t At Piu:.::~:~-~-· ili_llt_.~ _4lli_·n_,,.__s_uti_: ti_t!e~· oota (3Mt) To M sssignee (3tiit)
moo N:rmMt
~ 000 l L\!tti:r~ol\ ~~:9: CO?;~tter
00 Hl Letti:rb-ol\ ;.~ :9: fop
I(} l ! Letterb-(lX l6:g Cfrtlt M
o 100 Letti:rt-o~ 1:6:9: Tr.p
1101 Letterbox )ffi;9 Ce-~ter
! 1 H) F uH m12tle it.:fl
~it~ Cmnero/Vilm m~~~
M 5~ l R~s!lr\ied
. (C1Jl0t ri!t<::<)
(il~lp11r)
(8{15!l~and ~l~per)
c. 1 ! !._Fut\ mo~ll 1€:9-
''\'"i"""--------~~~~
,. : t \ __ 't 0
/ / '·" 01 ~·
i \ ~it 1
\ M?
~it :i
Kawamura Figure 10 showing the bits transmitted in signals.
5
Appeal2015-001316
Application 11/849,987
Id. at 5:21-22. As shown above, Kawanmra's specifies the subtitle data in
"Group 3." Id. at 7:60-62. For example, Group 3's bits specify whether
subtitles are in screen (bit combination "1 O") or in the dark portion (bit
combination "O 1 "), among other options. See id. Fig. 10. Thus, apart from
using Group 3 's bits to select the presentation, Kawamura does not discuss
details of how the presentation is selected. Figure 11 shows "letterbox" and
"full format" display modes, but only relates to Group 1-not to Group 3
(e.g., the mapped presentation format). See Kawamura 5:24--25.
The above Figure 10 shows the display mode (e.g., Group 1) and the
presentation format (e.g., Group 3) are independent of each other. See
Kawamura, Fig. 10. The Examiner has not shown how Group 3 (e.g.,
Kawamura's subtitle presentation format) relates to Group 1 (e.g.,
Kawamura's display mode). See Ans. 2-3. On the contrary, Group 1 's bits
specify a different number of categories, demonstrating no correspondence
to Group 3. See Kawamura, Fig. 10 (showing eight options for aspect ratio
and four options for subtitle data using different bits). So even assuming,
without deciding, that Kawamura detects a display mode, as the Examiner
finds (Ans. 2), the Examiner has not established how the presentation format
is "selected in response to" that display mode.
Furthermore, the Examiner cites Kawamura's display processing and
control circuit 6 when discussing selecting a presentation format.
Ans. 28-29 (citing Kawamura 18:17-20, Fig. 46). Here, Kawamura
describes that the display-mode data controls the displayed output Program
Stream Map (PSM) data using filters. Kawamura 18: 17-20. But Kawamura
does not mention subtitles in this regard, and the Examiner does not
sufficiently explain the connection between the PSM data and the
6
Appeal2015-001316
Application 11/849,987
presentation format for subtitles such that the presentation format is selected
in response to detecting the display mode. See id.; Ans. 2, 28-29.
Accordingly, the record does not demonstrate adequately that Kawamura's
control processing (id. 18: 17-20) selects a subtitle's presentation format
based on the detected display mode, as recited.
We also agree that Naganuma does not cure this deficiency.
App. Br. 17; Reply Br. 4--5. Naganuma determines a resolution for a video
signal before its display. Naganuma i-f 26, cited in Ans. 3. To accomplish
this, Naganuma obtains "specification information." Naganuma i-f 26.
N aganuma' s specification information contains the monitor's resolution and
aspect ratio. Id. i-f 4. That is, Naganuma determines its resolution, in part,
from the monitor's characteristics. Id.; see also id. Fig. 5 (showing
resolution-determining process), cited in Ans. 3.
But the Examiner has not shown this process is related to a
presentation format for subtitles. See Ans. 3. As noted previously, the
Examiner cites the same passages for the recited detecting display modes as
for the recited selecting a presentation format. Id. (citing Naganuma i-fi-126-
27, Fig. 5). Yet, the record is not clear concerning which aspects of
Naganuma allegedly teach the separately recited steps of "detecting a
display mode" and "selecting" a presentation format. See id. Moreover,
even assuming that the Naganuma-Kawamura combination teaches the
recited detecting step, the Examiner has not shown that any display mode
output ofNaganuma's resolution determination is used to select a subtitle's
presentation format. See Ans. 3.
Nor has the Examiner shown why it would have been obvious to
modify Kawamura to use Naganuma's resolution-determining process rather
7
Appeal2015-001316
Application 11/849,987
than use Kawanmra's bits in Group 3 to arrive at the claimed presentation
format. See id. For example, the output of the cited process is a video's
resolution. See Naganuma Fig. 5. But the Examiner does not explain
sufficiently how the recited subtitle's presentation format "is selected in
response to" this resolution. See Ans. 3. On this record, we agree with
Appellant that the Kawamura-Naganuma combination lacks the recited
selecting a presentation format. App. Br. 17; Reply Br. 4--5.
Because Appellant's arguments regarding the recited claim limitation
of selecting a presentation format (App. Br. 17; Reply Br. 4--5) are
dispositive, we need not reach Appellant's additional arguments
(App. Br. 10-16; Reply Br. 2-3).
For the foregoing reasons, Appellant has persuaded us of error in the
rejection of (1) independent claim 1, (2) independent claim 10, which recites
commensurate limitations, and (3) dependent claims 2---6, 8, 11-15, and 17
for similar reasons.
THE OTHER OBVIOUSNESS REJECTIONS
We also do not sustain the Examiner's rejections of claims 7, 9, 16,
18-21, and 23-26 for the same reasons discussed above in connection with
claim 1. The additional references, Champel and Tseng, were not relied
upon to teach the recited selecting a presentation format, which is missing
from Kawamura-Naganuma combination, and, thus, do not cure the
deficiency explained previously given the record. See Ans. 10-26.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-21 and 23-26 is reversed.
8
Appeal2015-001316
Application 11/849,987
REVERSED
9