Ex Parte Frensch et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 20, 2013

11441838 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 20, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE
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.
11/441,838 05/26/2006 Jochen Frensch HARM0147PUSA 8044
109676 7590 11/21/2013
Brooks Kushman P.C./Harman
1000 Town Center
Twenty Second Floor
Southfield, MI 48075
EXAMINER
MA, TIZE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2613
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/21/2013 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte JOCHEN FRENSCH and KARL BUHLER
____________________

Appeal 2011-006208
Application 11/441,838
Technology Center 2600
____________________

Before JEAN R. HOMERE, MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, and
IRVIN E. BRANCH, Administrative Patent Judges.

STRAUSS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-006208
Application 11/441,838

2
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims
1-44. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
INVENTION

The claims are directed to an image processor. Abstract. Claim 1,
reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. An image processing system that computes blended pixel
data from pixel data of two image layers based on α-layer data
from an α-layer, where the α-layer data indicates a transparency
of one of the two image layers comprising:
a plurality of memories, where each memory comprises a
storage capacity for two pixels of data;
a processor configured to apply a different processing to
pixel data stored in different addresses of the plurality of
memories to compute blended pixel data; and
a selector that selects one of the plurality of memories
based on the α-layer data, and sends the pixel data, with one
pixel from each of the first layer and the second layer, to the
selected memory.

REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Carlsen US 6,466,210 B1 Oct. 15, 2002
MacInnis
Komagata
Hamburg
Maier

US 2003/0189571 A1
US 2003/0193512 A1
US 7,136, 075 B1
WO 2004/066319 A1
Oct. 9, 2003
Oct. 16, 2003
Nov. 14, 2006
Aug. 5, 2002
Appeal 2011-006208
Application 11/441,838

3

REJECTIONS
The Examiner made the following rejections:
Claims 1-4, 7-11, 13, 15, 16, 18-20, 24-28, 30, and 32 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Carlsen. Ans. 3.
Claims 5, 6, 14, 21-23, and 31 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Carlsen and MacInnis. Ans. 8.
Claims 12 and 29 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Carlsen and Hamburg. Ans. 10.
Claim 17 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Carlsen and Maier. Ans. 11.
Claim 33 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Carlsen and Maier. Ans. 12.
Claims 34-37, and 40-44 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Carlsen and Komagata. Ans. 13.
Claim 38 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Carlsen, Komagata, and Hamburg. Ans. 17.
Claim 39 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Carlsen, Komagata, and Maier. Ans. 18.

APPELLANTS’ CONTENTION1
“[T]he layer stack of Carlsen et al. differs from the selector and
memory of claim 1, in that the two image layers of Carlsen et al. are stored
in two different layer buffers, not together in a single memory.” App. Br. 12.

1 We note Appellants raise additional contentions of error but we do not
reach them as our resolution of this contention is dispositive of the appealed
rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Appeal 2011-006208
Application 11/441,838

4

ISSUE ON APPEAL
Based on Appellants’ arguments in the Appeal Brief (App. Br. 9-13)
the dispositive issue presented on appeal is whether Carlsen teaches or
suggests the disputed claim limitation of a selector that selects one of the
plurality of memories based on the α-layer data, and sends the pixel data,
with one pixel from each of the first layer and the second layer, to the
selected memory.

ANALYSIS
Appellants contend “Carlsen et al. does not teach or disclose a selector
that selects one of a plurality of memories based on a data value of the α-
layer and sends the pixel data to the selected memory.” App. Br. 15. The
Examiner responds, finding that Carlsen’s interpreter selects a buffer for
each image layer based on layer blending data, sending data associated with
the first and second layers to respective first and second buffers. Ans. 25-26.
The Examiner concludes that Carlsen discloses the disputed claim language.
Ans. 26. We disagree with the Examiner.
We agree with the Examiner that Carlsen describes sending data of the
first and second layers to respective first and second buffers and teaches or
suggests a selector that selects one of the plurality of memories based on the
α-layer data. However, the Examiner has failed to provide sufficient
evidence that Carlsen teaches or suggests sending the pixel data, with one
pixel from each of the first layer and second layer, to the selected memory.
Therefore, on the record before us, we will not sustain the rejection of
independent claim 1 or, for the same reasons, the rejections of independent
Appeal 2011-006208
Application 11/441,838

5
claim 18 or the rejections of dependent claims 2-4, 7-11, 13, 15, 16, 19, 20,
24-28, 30, and 32 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Carlsen. Furthermore, we
do not sustain the rejection of claims 5, 6, 12, 14, 17, 21-23, 29, 31, and 33-
44 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as the additional MacInnis, Komagata, Maier,
and Hamburg references were not cited to teach or suggest the disputed
limitation.

CONCLUSION
We find the combination of Carlsen fails to teach or suggest the
disputed claim limitation of a selector that selects one of the plurality of
memories based on the α-layer data, and sends the pixel data, with one pixel
from each of the first layer and the second layer, to the selected memory and,
therefore, the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-44 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a).

DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-44 is reversed.

REVERSED

gvw