Ex Parte Feng et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 31, 2016

13711509 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 31, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
131711,509 12/11/2012
77399 7590 04/04/2016
Leydig, Voit & Mayer, Ltd
(for Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd)
Two Prudential Plaza Suite 4900
180 North Stetson Avenue
Chicago, IL 60601
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Jinghua FENG
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.
HW711830 4545
EXAMINER
HE,WEIMING
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2612
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/04/2016 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):
Chgpatent@leydig.com
uspatent@huawei.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JINGHUA FENG, JINYONG MA, and HEYI CHEN
Appeal2014-007785
Application 13/711,509
Technology Center 2600
Before HUNG H. BUI, JON M. JURGOV AN, and AMBER L. HAGY,
Administrative Patent Judges.
JURGOV AN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 seek review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of
claims 1-14. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm. 2
1 Appellants identify Huawei Device Co. as the real party in interest. (App.
Br. 2.)
2 Our Decision refers to the Specification filed Dec. 11, 2012 ("Spec."); the
Final Office Action mailed Sept. 25, 2013 ("Final Act."); the Appeal Brief
filed Mar. 26, 2014 ("App. Br."); the Examiner's Answer mailed May 1,
2014 ("Ans."); and the Reply Brief filed June 27, 2014 ("Reply Br.").
Appeal2014-007785
Application 13/711,509
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The claims are directed to a method and apparatus for processing
current and previous images for presentation on display devices. (Spec.
Abstract.) Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A method for processing an image display, comprising:
acquiring frame images of a video source image;
identifying whether a current frame image is the same as a
previous relevant frame image of the current frame image;
buffering the current frame image and the previous
relevant frame image when the current frame image is different
from the previous relevant frame image; and
sending the buffered previous relevant frame image to a
first display device for displaying and the buffered current frame
image to a second display device for displaying, so as to
simultaneously display different frame images of the video
source image by the first display device and the second display
device.
REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, and 10-13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
based on Hochmuth (US 2009/0033670 Al; Feb. 5, 2009) and Takano (US
2006/0284786 Al; Dec. 21, 2006). (Final Act. 2--4.)
Claims 2, 5, 7-9, and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
based on Hochmuth, Takano, and Han (US 2010/0321402 Al; Dec. 23,
2010). (Final Act. 5-8.)
2
Appeal2014-007785
Application 13/711,509
ANALYSIS
Claims 1 and 6
Issue 1: Buffering of Current and Previous Image Frames
Appellants argue the Examiner erred by finding Hochmuth and
Takano teach or suggest "buffering the current frame image and the previous
relevant frame image when the current frame image is different from the
previous relevant frame image." (App. Br. 8-9; Reply Br. 2.) Specifically,
Appellants argue Hochmuth teaches replacing the previous relevant frame
image by the current frame image if the current frame image differs from the
previous relevant frame image. (Id.)
The Examiner finds that Hochmuth teaches an embodiment in which
one pair of update and delta buffers is designated "Current" and the other
buffer pair is designated "Previous." (Ans. 2 citing Hochmuth i-fi-123, 24;
Fig. 5.) As pixel data is written into the current update buffer 58, such pixel
data is compared by the comparison unit 66 with the corresponding pixel
data in the previous update buffer 58. (Hochmuth i124.) If a difference is
found, the current delta buffer 60 is updated for that particular pixel or
region of pixels. (Id.)
We agree with the Examiner's finding that Hochmuth teaches the
claimed limitation because its system buffers both the current and previous
frames at a time when the current frame image is different from the previous
frame image. Accordingly, the Examiner is correct that Hochmuth teaches
the argued limitation.
3
Appeal2014-007785
Application 13/711,509
Issue 2: Sending the Buffered Current and Previous Frame Images to
First and Second Displays
Appellants argue Hochmuth and Takano fail to teach or suggest
"sending the buffered previous relevant frame image to a first display device
... and the buffered currentframe image to a second display device ... so
as to simultaneously display different frame images of the video source
image by the first display device and the second display device." (App. Br.
10.) Appellants state Takano describes display conversion between a site
system and a display system when there are different numbers of display
devices so as to ensure a "noteworthy image" is displayed (App. Br. 10
citing Figs. 14A and 14B; i-fi-148, 50, 67). The Examiner notes that Takano,
Figure 14A, discloses two different displays (231 and 232) showing different
slides in a series. (Id.)
We agree with the Examiner that the combination of Hochmuth and
Takano teaches the claimed feature. Takano teaches different slides are
1• 1 1. • ,• 1• 1 1 • /rY T""'I. -1 Al A. 1 msprnyea m success10n on respecuve msprny aev1ces. ~L)ee t<1gs. l<+A ana
14B; i167.) If a slide is added to the first display, the slides on respective
display devices shift over to the next display device. Thus, when Takano is
combined with Hochmuth's teaching of current and previous update buffers
and comparison of their respective buffered frames, the resulting
combination teaches sending buffered current and previous frame images to
respective display devices to simultaneously display them, as claimed.
Appellants argue Takano teaches slides of a presentation whereas
Appellants' claims are directed to video frame images from one video
source. (App. Br. 10.) Takano contemplates the use of both still and
moving images, which are effectively video. (See, e.g., Takano i16.) In
4
Appeal2014-007785
Application 13/711,509
addition, Hochmuth's system applies to video. (See, e.g., Hochmuth i-f 14.)
Thus, we do not find this argument persuasive.
Appellants further argue Takano's slides, by their nature, are not
provided from a buffer wherein two slides are stored as the result of a
comparison between the two slide images. (App. Br. 10.) We disagree. The
claims do not recite images are stored as a result of a comparison between
images; instead, the claims merely recite that the images are buffered at a
time when images are different. As such, Appellants' arguments are not
commensurate with the scope of the claims as written.
Issue 3: Motivation to Combine
Appellants argue Takano' s display of two or more different images at
the respective display devices runs counter to Hochmuth's providing an
identical image on a receiving system as displayed on the sending system.
(Reply Br. 2-3.) We remain unpersuaded because Appellants' argument
does not address the reason the Examiner combined the references,
specifically, that the combination provides "easily viewable images to
viewers in order to share the information between teleconferencing sites
(Takano, [0009])." Moreover, Hochmuth's teaching of buffering previous
and current image frames when they are different, combined with Takano 's
teaching of displaying sequential slides on respective display devices, do not
run counter to one another, but instead can be used together, as the Examiner
demonstrates. Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in
finding motivation to combine Hochmuth and Takano.
5
Appeal2014-007785
Application 13/711,509
Remaining Claims
No separate arguments are provided for the remaining dependent
claims. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection for the reasons stated with
respect to independent claims 1 and 6. In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1325
(Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Sernaker, 702 F.2d 989, 991 (Fed. Cir. 1983); 37
C.F .R. § 41.3 7 ( c )(1 )(iv).
CONCLUSION
To support a rejection under§ 103(a), "there must be some articulated
reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of
obviousness." KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007)
(quoting In re Kahn, 441F.3d977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)). On this record,
we find the Examiner's reasoning and underpinning adequate to support the
conclusion of obviousness.
DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-14 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
6