Ex Parte Cooper et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 14, 2014

11252320 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 14, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte JEFFREY ALLEN COOPER, JOAN LLACH, and
CRISTINA GOMILA
____________

Appeal 2012-007250
Application 11/252,320
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, JAMES R. HUGHES, and
ERIC S. FRAHM, Administrative Patent Judges.

HUGHES, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner’s final decision rejecting claims 1–8. (Br. 3.)1 We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

1 We refer to Appellants’ Specification (“Spec.”) filed October 17, 2005,
claiming benefit of 60/619,632, filed October 18, 2004 and Appeal Brief
(“Br.”) filed August 3, 2011. We also refer to the Examiner’s Answer
(“Ans.”) mailed January 9, 2012.
Appeal 2012-007250
Application 11/252,320

2

Appellants’ Invention
The invention at issue on appeal concerns methods for generating a
film grain simulation by determining block averages for a decoded picture in
a display pipeline and selecting a film grain pattern based on the block
averages. (Spec. 1:10–11; 2:16–26; Abstract.)
Representative Claim
Independent claim 1, reproduced below with the key disputed
limitations emphasized, further illustrates the invention:
1. A method for determining block averages of a decoded
picture in a film grain simulation process, comprising:
determining a block average for said decoded picture in
a display pipeline,
avoiding external memory usage for said block average,
and
selecting at least one film grain pattern for combination
with said decoded picture, wherein the selecting is based, at
least in part, on said determined block average.
Rejection on Appeal
The Examiner rejects claims 1–8 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being
anticipated by US Patent App. Pub. No. 2006/0256853 A1, published Nov.
16, 2006 (filed Aug. 27, 2004) (“Schlockermann”).

ISSUE
Based upon our review of the administrative record, Appellants’
contentions, and the Examiner’s findings and conclusions, the pivotal issue
before us follows:
Appeal 2012-007250
Application 11/252,320

3

Does the Examiner err in finding that Schlockermann discloses
“determining a block average for said decoded picture in a display pipeline”
and “selecting at least one film grain pattern for combination with said
decoded picture, wherein the selecting is based, at least in part, on said
determined block average” within the meaning of Appellants’ claim 1 and
the commensurate limitations of claim 5?

ANALYSIS
The Examiner rejects independent claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as
anticipated by Schlockermann. (Ans. 4–5, 6–7.) Appellants contend, inter
alia, that Schlockermann does not disclose the disputed features of claim 1.
(Br. 5–9.)
We agree with Appellants that the portions of Schlockermann
identified by the Examiner do not disclose the disputed features of
independent claim 1, and we cannot sustain the Examiner’s obviousness
rejection for essentially the reasons set forth by Appellants. (Br. 5–9.)
In particular, as pointed out by Appellants, Schlockermann does not
describe block averaging, much less block averaging of a decoded
image/picture in a display pipeline (Br. 7–8) or during a decode process (Br.
9). Instead, Schlockermann at most describes calculating differentials
between macro blocks (¶ 139) and/or image data (Br. 7; Schlockermann, ¶
81). Further, Schlockermann does not determine the differential for an
image in the display pipeline (Br. 8) or during a decode process (Br. 9).
Rather, Schlockermann’s selection unit 132 determines the differential in the
film grain coding unit 130 of the moving picture coding apparatus 100 (Br.
8; Schlockermann, ¶¶ 69, 80; Figs. 3, 5).
Appeal 2012-007250
Application 11/252,320

4

Consequently, we are constrained by the record before us to find that
the Examiner erred in finding that Schlockermann discloses the recited
features of Appellants’ claim 1 or claim 5. Appellants’ dependent claims 2–
4 and 6–8 depend on and stand with claims 1 and 5, respectively.
Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of claims 1–
8.

CONCLUSION
Appellants have shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1–
8 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).

DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1–8.

REVERSED

lv