Ex Parte Davis

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 27, 2017

12598522 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 27, 2017)

United States Patent and Trademark Office
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
12/598,522 11/02/2009 Andrew Gordon Davis LSN-36-2288 1936
23117 7590 05/01/2017
NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC
901 NORTH GLEBE ROAD, 11TH FLOOR
ARLINGTON, VA 22203
EXAMINER
CARTER, RICHARD BRUCE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2485
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/01/2017 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):
PTOMAIL@nixonvan.com
pair_nixon @ firsttofile. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ANDREW GORDON DAVIS
Appeal 2017-002084
Application 12/598,522
Technology Center 2400
Before BRUCE R. WINSOR, LINZY T. McCARTNEY, and
NATHAN A. ENGELS, Administrative Patent Judges.
PER CURIAM.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims
1—12. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
Appeal 2017-002084
Application 12/598,522
CLAIMED INVENTION
Claim 1 recites the following:
1. A method of detecting field order of a video signal,
comprising:
receiving successive digitally coded frames, each frame
comprising data for a field of a first type and data for a field of a
second type; where the field of the first type is one of a top field
or a bottom field, and the field of the second type is the other one
of the top field or the bottom field;
generating for each field of the first type:
- a first difference signal representative of the
difference between the field of the first type field of the
current frame and the second-type field of the previous
frame;
- a second difference signal representative of the
difference between the field of the first type field of the
current frame and the second-type field of the current
frame; and
- a third difference signal representative of the
difference between the field of the first type field of the
current frame and the second-type field of the following
frame;
in dependence of a relationship between the values of all
three of said difference signals, generating a decision signal
indicating an estimated temporal relationship of the field of the
first type field of the current frame to the second-type field of the
current frame; and
detecting the field order of the video signal from said
decision signal.
App. Br. 18.
2
Appeal 2017-002084
Application 12/598,522
REFERENCES AND REJECTION
The Examiner rejected claims 1—12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Iwasaki,1 Tanaka,2 and Baylon3. Ans. 2—10; see Final
Act. 4.
ANALYSIS
Appellant contends the Examiner errs in finding that the combination
of Iwasaki, Tanaka, and Baylon teaches or suggests “a third difference signal
representative of the difference between the field of the first type field of the
current frame and the second-type field of the following frame” as recited in
claim 1. See App. Br. 9-14. In particular, Appellant argues “the Examiner
is not considering all the limitations of claim 1, but instead just identifying
three difference signals which do not have the claimed characteristics.”
App. Br. 11. Appellant further argues the Examiner’s Answer improperly
maps “the field of the first type field of the current frame” to different
elements of Iwasaki in order to arrive at the first, second, and third
difference signals. See Reply Br. 2—3.
We agree with Appellants. In the Final Rejection, the Examiner finds
that Iwasaki discloses
a plurality of FM frames (i.e. “3FM frames”) have top and
bottom fields in which a difference between the current field F(t)
and the field F(t-l) that is one field before or the field F(t-2) that
is two fields before having different time points implies that three
difference signals [are] implemented.
Final Act. 2 (citing Iwasaki 1125, Fig. 15).
1 Iwasaki et al. (US 2008/0122973 Al; published May 29, 2008).
2 Tanaka (US 2006/0215057 Al; published Sept. 28, 2006).
3 Baylon et al. (US 2006/0139491 Al; published June 29, 2006).
3
Appeal 2017-002084
Application 12/598,522
The Examiner’s findings do not adequately address the particular
elements of the recited difference signals. For example, the Examiner does
not explain how the cited disclosures teach or suggest three separate
difference signals, each of which represents a difference measured from the
“field of the first type field of the current frame.” Moreover, the claims
require that each signal represent the difference between top and bottom
elements of particular frames. See Ans. 18. The Examiner’s conclusory
analysis does address why the cited disclosures teach or suggest such
signals.
The Examiner’s findings in the Answer do not remedy these
deficiencies. As noted above, the recited first and third difference signals
each represent a difference measured relative to “the field of the first type of
the current frame.” App. Br. 18 (emphasis added). But in the Answer, the
Examiner appears to map the difference between fields FD1 and FD2 in
different frames to the recited first and third difference signals. See Ans. 3
(citing Iwasaki Figs. 3—4, 10-13; Tflf 8, 67). Specifically, the Examiner maps
F(t) and its associated difference (B-l) to the “first difference signal” and
F(t-2) and its difference (B-3) to the “third difference signal.” See id. (citing
Iwasaki H 8, 67; Figs. 3, 4, 10—12); see also Iwasaki 1104 (“Here, the
differences (B-l), (B-2) and (B-3) are one-time statistic values of the fields
F(t), F(t-l) and F(t-2), respectively.”), Figs. 10-12 (illustrating differences
(B-l), (B-2), and B-3)). As shown in Iwasaki’s figures, differences (B-l)
and (B-3) do not share the same “field of the first type field of the current
frame.” See Iwasaki Figs. 10-12.
The Examiner also maps “the field of the first type field of the current
frame” to Iwasaki’s field FD1 of frame FM1 for the “first difference signal,”
4
Appeal 2017-002084
Application 12/598,522
and later changes the mapping of this element to field FD2 of frame FM2 for
the “third difference signal.” See Ans. 11—12 (citing Iwasaki Figs. 10, 15; 1
125). This mapping is erroneous because the claims require that the first and
third signals represent a difference measured from the same element of the
same field—“the field of the first type field of the current frame.” See App.
Br. 18.
For the above reasons, Appellant has persuaded us the Examiner errs
in the rejection of claim 1. Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 1 and the rejections of independent claim 7 and dependent
claims 2—6 and 8—12, which include the same deficiencies as discussed
above with respect to claim 1. See App. Br. 18—21; Ans. 2—10.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—12.
REVERSED
5