Ex Parte Lin et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jul 25, 2012

10099710 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 25, 2012)

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.
10/099,710 03/14/2002 Shu Lin PU020052 2027
7590 07/26/2012
JOSEPH S. TRIPOLI
THOMSON MULTIMEDIA LICENSING INC.
2 INDEPENDENCE WAY
P.O. BOX 5312
PRINCETON, NJ 08543-5312
EXAMINER
FLETCHER, JAMES A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2621
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/26/2012 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 BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________

Ex parte SHU LIN and DONALD HENRY WILLIS
_____________

Appeal 2009-014294
Application 10/099,710
Technology Center 2600
______________

Before, ERIC S. FRAHM, DAVID M. KOHUT, and
TREVOR M. JEFFERSON, Administrative Patent Judges.

KOHUT, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the final
rejection of claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of these claims.

INVENTION
The invention is directed to a method and system for performing a
trick mode on a video signal by setting predetermined values for the display
Appeal 2009-014294
Application 10/099,710

2
indicator of the picture being repeated and the subsequent repeated pictures.
Spec. 3-4. Claim 1 is representative of the invention and is reproduced
below:
1. A method of performing a trick mode on a video signal,
comprising the steps of:
receiving a trick mode command;
in response to the trick mode command, repeating a picture
in the video signal to form a trick mode video signal, wherein
the picture contains a display indicator;
setting the display indicator of the picture being repeated to
a predetermined value; and
setting the display indicators of subsequent repeated
pictures of the picture being repeated to the predetermined value.

REFERENCES
McLaren WO 96/13121 Sept. 29, 1995

Metz US 5,978,855 Nov. 2, 1999

Duruoz US 6,487,642 B1 Nov. 26, 2002
(filed Oct. 22, 1998)

REJECTIONS AT ISSUE
Claims 1, 2, 4, 8-12, 14, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Duruoz. Ans. 3-5.
Claims 5 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Duruoz. Ans. 5-6.
Claims 3 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Duruoz and Metz. Ans. 6-7.
Claims 6, 7, 16, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Duruoz and McLaren. Ans. 7-8.

Appeal 2009-014294
Application 10/099,710

3
ISSUE
Did the Examiner err in finding Duruoz discloses:
(a) Setting the display indicator of the picture being repeated to a
predetermined value?
(b) Setting the display indicators of subsequent repeated pictures of
the picture being repeated to the predetermined value?
ANALYSIS
35 U.S.C. § 102 rejections
Appellants argue that the Duruoz does not disclose the limitations of
claim 1 recited in the issue statement above because the Examiner has
misinterpreted Appellants’ invention. App. Br. 19. Appellants cite to
portions of Appellants’ Specification and argue that it is clear that the
invention, as claimed, requires that the display indicator of a first picture to
be repeated must be set to a predetermined value that indicates a display
order of the picture to be repeated. App. Br. 20-21. As a result, Appellants
argue that Duruoz does not disclose the disputed limitations because Duruoz
discloses a predetermined value that represents the number of times a frame
is repeated in a slow tick mode and not a predetermined value that represents
an intended display order. App. Br. 22. However, we agree with the
Examiner that Appellants’ arguments are not commensurate in scope with
the claim. Ans. 8.
“During examination, ‘claims . . . are to be given their broadest
reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, and . . . claim
language should be read in light of the specification as it would be
interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art.’” In re Am. Acad. Of Sci.
Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364, 70 USPQ2d 1827, 1830 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
Appeal 2009-014294
Application 10/099,710

4
However, this does not mean “that everything in the specification must be
read into the claims.” Raytheon Co. v. Roper Corp., 724 F.2d 951, 957, 220
USPQ 592, 597 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 835 (1984). Neither
claim 1 nor Appellants’ Specification requires the “predetermined value” to
represent an intended display order; claim 1 only requires that the display
indicator of the picture being repeated is set to a predetermined value. Since
Duruoz discloses the display indicator of the picture being repeated is set to
10 and the display indicators of subsequent repeated pictures is also set to
10, the claim limitations are met.
As a result, Appellants’ arguments directed toward the interpretation
where limitations from Appellants’ Specification are read into the claims are
not persuasive and we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claims 2, 4, 8-12, 14, and 18- 20, Appellants make the
same arguments with respect to these claims as with claim 1. App. Br. 24-
32. As such, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of these claims for the
same reasons as indicated supra.
35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections
Appellants make the same arguments with respect to claims 3, 5-7, 13,
and 15-17 as with claim 1. App. Br. 33-40. As such, we sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of these claims for the same reasons as indicated supra.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in finding Duruoz discloses:
(a) Setting the display indicator of the picture being repeated to
a predetermined value; and
Appeal 2009-014294
Application 10/099,710

5
(b) Setting the display indicators of subsequent repeated
pictures of the picture being repeated to the predetermined value.
SUMMARY
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-20 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)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED

tj