Ex Parte MORPHETDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 23, 201613721286 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 23, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 131721,286 12/20/2012 104840 7590 Imagination Technologies 3201 Scott Blvd. Santa Clara, CA 95054 09/27/2016 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Stephen MORPHET 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. 070852.000161 7627 EXAMINER SPINKS, ANTOINETTE T ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2663 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/27/2016 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): patlaw@vorys.com vmdeluca@vorys.com mmseasay@vorys.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte STEPHEN MORPHET Appeal2015-003485 Application 13/721,286 Technology Center 2600 Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, THU A. DANG, and JAMES R. HUGHES, Administrative Patent Judges. DIXON, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of claims 1-16. This application serial number 13/721,286 (Appeal 2015- 003485) is a continuation of an application serial number 11/361,705, which had a prior decision on appeal (Appeal 2011-001133). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). We affirm. Appeal2015-003485 Application 13/721,286 The claims are directed to a method and apparatus for controlling overshoot in a video enhancement system. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A method for enhancing an edge transition in a video signal comprising: receiving a video signal including an edge transition; generating a correction signal for the edge transition; applying the correction signal to the video signal to produce a corrected signal; measuring maximum and mimmum amplitudes of a predefined pattern of pixels adjacent to the edge transition; and restricting the amplitude of the corrected signal to extend between extended maximum and minimum amplitude limits wherein amounts of extension of the maximum and minimum amplitude limits are calculated in dependence on the measured maximum and minimum amplitudes of the predefined pattern of pixels. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Hongu et al. Parker et al. Vlahos et al. Lin et al. us 4,198,650 us 5,369,446 US 6,363,526B1 US 2003/0107678 Al REJECTIONS Apr. 15, 1980 Nov. 29, 1994 Mar. 26, 2002 June 12, 2003 The Examiner made the following rejections: 2 Appeal2015-003485 Application 13/721,286 Claims 1-2, 6-9, 13, and 14 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lin in view of Vlahos and further in view of Parker. Claims 3-5 and 10-12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lin in view of Vlahos in view of Parker as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hongu. Claims 15 and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lin in view of Vlahos in view of Parker as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Examiner's Official Notice (MPEP § 2144.03). ANALYSIS With respect to independent claims 1 and 8, Appellant argues the claims together. Appellant does not set forth separate arguments for patentability of the dependent claims. (App. Br. 6). As a result, we address independent claim 1 as the representative claim for the group. Appellant contends: Claims 1 and 8 pertain respectively to a method (Claim 1) and a system (Claim 8) for enhancing an edge transition in a video signal by generating and applying a corrected signal to the video signal. Claim 1 is addressed below. The corrected signal is processed based on measured maximum and minimum amplitudes of a predefined pattern of pixels adjacent to the edge transition, such that an amplitude of the corrected signal is restricted to extend between extended maximum and minimum amplitude limits wherein amounts of extension of the maximum and minimum amplitude limits are calculated in dependence on the measured maximum and minimum amplitudes of the predefined pattern of pixels. 3 Appeal2015-003485 Application 13/721,286 (App. Br. 6). Appellant further contends: Correctly, the Examiner admits that Lin fails to disclose restricting the amplitude of the corrected signal to extend between extended maximum and minimum amplitude limits wherein amounts of extension of the maximum and minimum amplitude limits are calculated in dependence on the measured maximum and minimum amplitudes of the predefined pattern of pixels. In point of fact, Lin not only fails to disclose this element, Lin is explicitly directed to avoiding extended maximum and minimum amplitude limits as explained by Lin at i-f 16. Yet, the Examiner seeks to modify Lin in a manner that violates Lin's fundamental purpose by changing Lin to provide extended maximum and minimum amplitude limits. To that end, the Final Rejection cites Vlahos. In particular, the Final Rejection purports to quote Vlahos col. 3, lines 7-13 as disclosing "small, carefully controlled amount of overshoot can add significantly to the apparent sharpness of an image." However, that quote does not appear in Vlahos. Further, a word search of Vlahos' specification reveals that the words 'careful' and 'carefully' do not exist in Vlahos' specification. The closest apparent excerpt from Vlahos is at Col. 5, Lines 46-51, " [ m ]any television receivers also apply a 'sharpness control' to further apply image enhancement. Signal clipping in the television receiver, with a modest offset to preserve small spikes, would greatly improve image quality of receivers whose sharpness control is (often) over-adjusted." (App. Br. 7). Appellant further contends that the Vlahos and Parker references do not disclose or suggest the claimed limitation. (App. Br. 7- 10). The Examiner responds to Appellant's argument and finds: In response to Appellant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871(CCPA1981); In re Merck& Co., 800F.2d1091, 4 Appeal2015-003485 Application 13/721,286 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The Parker reference is used to teach amplitudes that are proportional to signal level. The Lin reference teaches using the difference to calculate the extended max and min values (see at least i-f 29-38). In addition, the Board did not find issue with the use of the Parker reference in the previous Appeal for the parent application 11/361,705 (see Patent Board Decision of November 2, 2012). (Ans. 7). We note that Appellant has modified independent claim 1 in the present prosecution to include a portion of prior dependent claim 2 regarding calculating which was before the Board in the prior appeal. In the present rejection, the Examiner has modified the grounds of the rejection to include the Parker reference, as in the prior appeal. We find Appellant's argument in the present appeal to be unavailing. In the prior appeal, we affirmed the Examiner's rejection (Prior Dec. 5---6), and in the present appeal, Appellant has not set forth a sufficient line of reasoning to identify error in the Examiner's rejection nor in our findings or conclusion with regards to the prior appeal. As a result, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent claim 1. With respect to independent claim 8, Appellant repeats the language of the claim and generally requests withdrawal of the rejection. With regards to dependent claims 2 and 9, the Examiner maintains that Appellant is arguing the references individually, and the Examiner finds The Parker reference is used to teach amplitudes that are proportional to signal level. The Lin reference teaches using the difference to calculate the extended max and min values (see at least i-f29-38). In addition, the Board did not find issue with the use of the Parker reference in the previous Appeal for the parent application 11/361,705 (see Patent Board Decision ofNovember 2, 2012). 5 Appeal2015-003485 Application 13/721,286 (Ans. 7-8). We agree with the Examiner and find that Appellant's argument does not show error in the Examiner's conclusion of obviousness of dependent claim 2. Additionally, Appellant has not shown error in our reasoning set forth with respect to dependent claim 2 in our prior decision. Consequently, we affirm the rejection of dependent claim 2. With respect to dependent claims 3-5 and 10-12, Appellant sets forth a separate heading and repeats the language of the claims and contends that the Hongu reference does not teach the claimed limitation. Merely reciting the language of the claim is insufficient. See 3 7 C.F.R. § 41.37(c) (l)(iv) ("A statement which merely points out what a claim recites will not be considered an argument for separate patentability of the claim"). Merely alleging that the references fail to support an obviousness rejection (e.g., App. Br. 12) is insufficient to persuade us of Examiner error. Attorney arguments and conclusory statements that are unsupported by factual evidence are entitled to little probative value. In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997); see also In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705 (Fed. Cir. 1984); and Ex parte Belinne, No. 2009-004693, slip op. at *7-8 (BP AI Aug. 10, 2009) (informative), available at http://www. uspto. gov /web/ offices/ dcom/bpai/its/fd09004693. pdf. As a result, we sustain the rejection of claims 3-5 and 10-12. With respect to dependent claims 15 and 16, Appellant relies upon the arguments advanced with respect to the parent claims 1 and 8. Because we found no error in the Examiner's rejection of independent claims 1and8, we similarly find no error in the Examiner's rejection of claims 15 and 16, and we sustain the rejection thereof. 6 Appeal2015-003485 Application 13/721,286 CONCLUSION The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1-16 based upon obviousness. DECISION For the above reasons, we sustain the Examiner's rejections of claims 1-16. 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 7 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation