Ex Parte Deschamp et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 8, 2015

12021428 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 8, 2015)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/021,428 01129/2008 Joseph Deschamp
89023 7590 12/10/2015
Tarolli, Sundheim, Covell & Tummino LLP/Imagine
Corporation
1300 East Ninth Street
Suite 1700
Cleveland, OH 44114
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.
GA-022173 US PRI 3858
EXAMINER
THOMAS, JASON M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2423
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/10/2015 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):
rkline@tarolli.com
dkinder@tarolli.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JOSEPH DESCHAMP and MIHAI PETRESCU
Appeal2013-010608
Application 12/021,428
Technology Center 2400
Before JEAN R. HOMERE, JESSICA C. KAISER, and
KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, Administrative Patent Judges.
KAISER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
final rejection of claims 1--4, 6-14, 16-20, and 22-24, all of the claims
pending in the application. 2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is HBC Solutions, Inc.
(App. Br. 1.)
2 Claims 5, 15, and 21 have been canceled. (App. Br. 2.)
Appeal2013-010608
Application 12/021,428
EXEMPLARY CLAIM
Claim 1 is illustrative of the invention and is reproduced below:
1. A video processing system comprising:
an input configured to receive interlaced video data
arranged in successive frames each comprising odd and even
fields, the interlaced video data being subject to an improper
inversion of the odd and even fields; and
a processor coupled to said input and configured to
determine an improper inversion of the odd and even fields
based upon at least one pair of successive first and second
frames each comprising successive first and second fields by at
least:
generating at least one first difference value based
upon a comparison between the first field in the first
frame and the second field in the second frame;
generating at least one second difference value
based upon a comparison between a second field in the
first frame and the first field in the second frame; and
determining an improper inversion of the odd and
even fields based upon a comparison of the at least one
first difference value and the at least one second
difference value for the at least one pair of successive
first and second frames;
said processor also being configured to determine a
freeze frame condition based upon the at least one first
difference value and the at least one second difference value
being substantially equal over a plurality of pairs of successive
first and second frames.
2
Appeal2013-010608
Application 12/021,428
REJECTIONS AT ISSUE
The Examiner has rejected claims 1--4, 7-9, 3 11-14, 16-20, 23, and
24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Baylon (US
2008/0100750 Al; published May 1, 2008) and Shah (US 7,391,468 B2;
issued June 24, 2008). (Final Act. 3-13.)
The Examiner has rejected claims 6, 10, and 22 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Baylon and Shah in combination with
additional references. (Final Act. 13-15.)
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants'
arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants'
conclusions. We adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth by the
Examiner in the Final Action from which the appeal is taken and the reasons
set forth in the Examiner's Answer in response to Appellants' Appeal Brief
(see Ans. 2-5). We highlight and address specific findings and arguments
for emphasis as follows.
Appellants argue independent claims 1, 12, and 17 together and do not
argue any dependent claim separately. (See App. Br. 7-10.) We select
claim 1 as representative.
Claim 1 recites two successive fields (a first field and a second field)
within each of two successive frames and generating two difference values
based on those fields - one between the first field in the first frame and the
second field in the second frame and another between the second field in the
3 Although omitted from the summary of the rejection (Final Act. 3), the
Examiner addresses claim 9 in this rejection (id. at 7).
3
Appeal2013-010608
Application 12/021,428
first frame and the first field in the second frame. Pursuant to claim 1, those
difference values are used to determine an improper inversion of the fields
(i.e., based on a comparison of the difference values) and to determine "a
freeze frame condition" (i.e., based on the difference values being
substantially equal over a plurality of pairs of successive frames).
Appellants do not contest the Examiner's findings that Baylon teaches
all of the limitations of claim 1, except for the limitation regarding a "freeze
frame condition," or the Examiner's finding that Shah teaches or suggests
determining such a condition. (See App. Br. 8.) Rather, Appellants argue
the Examiner's "selective combination of Shah with Baylon ... is improper,
as such a combination would impermissibly change the principle of
operation of the Baylon ... system, and render it unsatisfactory for its
intended purpose." (Id. at 9.) Specifically, Appellants argue Shah compares
the top fields of two consecutive frames which according to Appellants is
"the complete opposite of the top/bottom-bottom/top comparison approach
used by Baylon ... , and for a completely different purpose." (Id.)
Appellants also argue the Examiner's combination would change Baylon's
principle of operation ("i.e., a top/top comparison instead of top/bottom-
bottom/top comparison") and would render Baylon unsatisfactory for its
intended purpose ("i.e., determining whether a video signal was scanned
using progressive scanning or interlaced scanning, and (for interlaced
scanning) determining the field order of the frames"). (Id. at 10.)
We are unpersuaded. "The combination of familiar elements
according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more
than yield predictable results." KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,
416 (2007). The Examiner finds, and we agree, "the disclosure of Baylon
4
Appeal2013-010608
Application 12/021,428
does not preclude the extra step of identifying freeze frames (i.e. still
images) in consecutive video frames. Furthermore the Shah reference does
not change the outcome Baylon seeks to achieve." (Ans. 4.) The Examiner
further finds the modification of Baylon with Shah's teachings would have
"improv[ ed] upon the video analysis tools already provided by Baylon."
(Final Act. 5.) Appellants argue the Examiner has not adequately explained
this improvement and further argue that identification of still images would
be "completely superfluous" to Baylon. (Reply Br. 5.) We disagree with
Appellants. We understand the Examiner's finding to be that the
combination would have provided a useful additional tool in Baylon, not that
it would have been beneficial to the tools already present in Baylon (i.e.,
detection of scanning format and field order of an interlaced video signal) as
Appellants argue (Reply Br. 2). Appellants have not persuasively argued
that modifying Baylon's system to incorporate Shah's still image detection
would do more than yield the predictable result of allowing the Baylon
system to detect still images in addition to its other functions.
We further find Appellants' arguments regarding Baylon's principle
of operation unpersuasive because they focus on modifying Baylon to
perform a top-top comparison of fields. (See App. Br. 8-10; Reply Br. 2-6.)
Baylon's comparison, however, is a top/bottom-bottom/top comparison, as
Appellants acknowledge (App. Br. 9). Appellants have not presented
persuasive argument or evidence showing that modifying Baylon to use its
difference values based on the top/bottom-bottom/top comparison to
determine a freeze frame condition as taught in Shah would have been
"uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art" or
"represented an unobvious step over the prior art." See Leapfrog Enters.,
5
Appeal2013-010608
Application 12/021,428
Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007). In other
words, a person of ordinary skill would not have needed to change the type
of comparison in Baylon (and indeed doing so would be contrary to the
difference values recited in claim 1 ). Thus, we are not persuaded that the
combination on which the Examiner relied impermissibly changes the
principle of operation of Baylon.
Further, we are not persuaded that the combination would render
Baylon unsatisfactory for its intended purpose. As discussed supra,
Appellants have not persuasively explained why Baylon could not perform
the step of identifying a freeze frame in addition to its other steps (i.e.,
determining whether a video signal was scanned using progressive scanning
or interlaced scanning, and if interlaced, determining the field order of the
frames). (See App. Br. 10.)
For the reasons discussed above, Appellants have not persuaded us the
Examiner erred in combining the teachings of Baylon and Shah.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision to reject claims 1--4, 6-14, 16-20, and 22-
24 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)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
tj
6