Ex Parte Kuno

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 10, 2013

11326105 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 10, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte SHINJI KUNO
____________________

Appeal 2010-011648
Application 11/326,105
Technology Center 2600
____________________

Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, ROBERT E. NAPPI and
ERIC B. CHEN, Administrative Patent Judges.

MacDONALD, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-011648
Application 11/326,105

2
STATEMENT OF CASE
Introduction
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1-6, 8-14, 16-19, and 21-23.
1
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).

Exemplary Claims
Exemplary claims 1 and 4 under appeal read as follows (emphasis
added):
Claim 1. An apparatus comprising:
a separating unit for separating main video data and graphics data
from a stream of audiovisual data, the graphics data comprising sub-video
data which comprises motion video that supplements the main video data;
a graphics processing unit configured to receive the graphics data, to
process the graphics data, and to provide the graphics data together with
alpha data as outputs for a video picture; and
a blending process unit with at least a first input operatively coupled
to the graphics processor unit with one or more transmission lines to receive
the graphics data and the alpha data, the blending process unit configured to
receive the main video data for the video picture from a second input
different from the first input, the blending process unit further configured to
blend the graphics data and the main video data according to the alpha data
to generate the video picture.

Claim 4. The apparatus as defined in Claim 1, wherein the graphics
processing unit is further configured to provide the graphics data and the
alpha data on a pixel-by-pixel basis.

1
The rejection of claims 24-31 has been withdrawn by the Examiner.
(Ans. 3).
Appeal 2010-011648
Application 11/326,105

3
Rejections
The Examiner rejected claims 1-3, 5, 6, 8-12, 14, 16-18, and 21-23
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of
Fujimoto (US 5,912,710), Dawson (US 2004/0233215 A1), and Hora (US
2004/0001402 A1).
2

The Examiner rejected claims 4, 13, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over the combination of Fujimoto, Dawson, and
Hora.
3

Appellant’s Contentions
1. Appellant contends that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because “Hora is clear that its usage of the term
‘sub-video’ includes only still graphic data, not motion video that
supplements main video.” (App. Br. 8). Appellant additionally argues
(emphasis added):
In apparent tacit recognition of Hora's disclosure that its
“sub-video” includes only graphics data such as still images and

2
Separate patentability is not argued for claims 2, 3, 5, 6, 8-12, 14, 16-18,
and 21-23. Although Appellant provides separate headings for many of
these claims, Appellant merely references the arguments for claim 1 or
Appellant references the arguments for claim 1 and adds a mere recitation of
the claim elements with a naked assertion that the corresponding elements
were not found in the prior art. These are not substantive arguments that
these claims are separately patentable. See In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349
(Fed. Cir. 2011). Except for our ultimate decision, these claims are not
discussed further herein.
3
Separate patentability is not argued for claims 13 and 19. Although
Appellant provides separate headings for these claims, Appellant merely
references the arguments for claim 4. This is not a substantive argument that
these claims are separately patentable. Except for our ultimate decision,
these claims are not discussed further herein.
Appeal 2010-011648
Application 11/326,105

4
text, the Examiner states that “it is well known in the art that
graphics data as described in Hora (e.g. characters, figures,
titles) may be rendered as animation, movies, or video games
which are associated with motion or moving objects or
images.” Examiner's Answer, p. 17. In response to the
Examiner's argument, the Applicant first submits that it is
irrelevant whether graphics data can be rendered as movies.
The portion of Claim 1 in question refers to the contents of “a
stream of audiovisual data” (e.g., an MPEG2 stream from a
DVD), not to how those contents are ultimately rendered on a
display.
(Reply Br. 4).
2. Appellant also contends that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because “Fujimoto explicitly teaches away
from the concept of modifying Fujimoto’s graphics data 100B to include the
‘sub-video’ of Hora so as to arrive at the result that the alpha blending
circuit 108 blends ‘sub-video’ with main video.” (App. Br. 10).
3. Appellant also contends that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because:
The Final Office Action cites to par. [0003] of Dawson as
teaching [“wherein the graphics processing unit is further
configured to provide the graphics data and the alpha data on a
pixel-by-pixel basis”]. Final Office Action, p. 5. However, the
cited paragraph of Dawson merely teaches that an alpha
blending operation is performed on a pixel-by-pixel basis; par.
[0003] of Dawson teaches nothing with regard to how graphics
data and alpha data are provided to a blending process unit, as
described in Claim 4. At least one benefit of providing graphics
data and alpha data on a pixel-by-pixel basis is that it reduces
the burden on the blending process unit to synchronize the
graphics data and alpha data, as described, for example, in par.
[0043] of the Applicant’s specification.
(App. Br. 11).
Appeal 2010-011648
Application 11/326,105

5
Issue on Appeal
Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 1-6, 8-14, 16-19, and 21-23
as being obvious?

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s
arguments (Appeal Brief and Reply Brief) that the Examiner has erred.
We disagree with Appellant’s conclusions. We adopt as our own
(1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from
which this appeal is taken and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in
the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellant’s Appeal Brief. We concur
with the conclusions reached by the Examiner. We highlight the following
arguments for emphasis.
As to Appellant’s above contention 1 directed to the “motion video”
of claim 1, we agree with the Examiner that:
[I]n computer graphics, it is well known in the art that graphics
data as described in Hora (e.g. characters, figures, titles) may be
rendered as animation, movies, or video games which are
associated with motion or moving objects or images.
(Ans. 17). We agree in particular because in order to be an
artisan one must at least understand that motion/animation is a
sequence of individual related still images and that the motion
is an illusion created by the response time of the human eye as
it sees the individual still images. The apparatus to provide a
sequence of individual unrelated still images to a user is also
capable of providing a sequence of individual related still
images to that user. The sole difference is in the content of the
images and not in the apparatus. Appellant argues a distinction
where none exists.
Appeal 2010-011648
Application 11/326,105

6
As to Appellant’s above contention 2 directed to the “updating” step
of claim 1, we agree with the Examiner reasoning.
As to Appellant’s above contention 3, we disagree. Appellant’s
argument is not persuasive because it is not commensurate in scope with the
actual claim language. In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 1348 (CCPA 1982). The
claim language “provide the graphics data and the alpha data on a pixel-by-
pixel basis” merely requires that each of the data be provided on a pixel-by-
pixel basis. Appellant acknowledges that Dawson “teaches that an alpha
blending operation is performed on a pixel-by-pixel basis.” (App. Br. 11).
We agree with the Examiner that this teaching is sufficient to show that an
artisan would know to provide data on a pixel-by-pixel basis as claimed.
Appellant’s argument would have us read the claim limitation as “provide
the graphics data and the alpha data on a [synchronized] pixel-by-pixel
basis.” We decline to do so.

CONCLUSIONS
(1) The Examiner has not erred in rejecting claims 1-6, 8-14, 16-19,
and 21-23 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
(2) Claims 1-6, 8-14, 16-19, and 21-23 are not patentable.

DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-6, 8-14, 16-19, and 21-23 is
affirmed.

Appeal 2010-011648
Application 11/326,105

7
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

ELD