Ex Parte Shepherd et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 20, 2012

10817436 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 20, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte JAMES SHEPHERD and ANDREW MAJOR
____________________

Appeal 2010-006464
Application 10/817,436
Technology Center 2400
____________________

Before DEBRA K. STEPHENS, KRISTEN L. DROESCH, and
MICHAEL R. ZECHER, Administrative Patent Judges.

STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2010-006464
Application 10/817,436

2
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) (2002) from a final
rejection of claims 1-4 and 9-11.1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b). An Oral Hearing was held March 6, 2012.
We REVERSE.
Introduction
According to Appellants, the invention relates to a system and method
for re-timing video cuts. A video process receives an interlaced sequence of
input fields organized in a plurality of frames and identifies whether each
video cut occurs at a frame boundary. Where a cut occurs otherwise than at
a frame boundary, the processes generates a synthetic field by motion
compensation and interpolation. This synthetic field replaces one of the
fields at the cut, effectively re-timing the cut to a frame boundary. The
process thereby outputs a sequence of output fields in which every cut is
positioned at a frame boundary. The sequence of output fields contains the
same number of fields as the sequence of input fields. (Abstract).

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Exemplary Claim
Claim 1 is an exemplary claim and is reproduced below:
1. A video process comprising the steps of
receiving an interlaced sequence of input fields organized
in a plurality of frames;

1 The Final Rejection mailed November 24, 2008, was of claims 1-12.
Appellants cancelled claims 5-8 and 12 in the Appeal Brief (App. Br. 1-2).
The Examiner acknowledged cancellation of claims 5-8 and 12 (Ans. 2).
Appeal 2010-006464
Application 10/817,436

3
identifying a cut between first and second input fields;
identifying whether the cut occurs at a frame boundary;
and,
where a cut occurs otherwise than at a frame boundary,
generating from said second field a synthetic field and replacing
said first field by said synthetic field,
the process thereby outputting a[n] interlaced sequence of
output fields in which the cut is positioned at a frame boundary,
the sequence of output fields containing the same number of
fields as the sequence of input fields.

Prior Art
Holland US 2003/0193614 Oct. 16, 2003
Wu US 6,731,684 B1 May 4, 2004

Rejections
(1) Claims 1-4 and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by Wu.
(2) Claims 10 and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Wu and Holland.

ISSUE 1
35 U.S.C. § 102(b): claims 1-4
Appeal 2010-006464
Application 10/817,436

4
Appellants argue their invention as recited in claim 1 is not
anticipated by Wu because Wu does not disclose generation of a synthetic
field of picture information from a second field (App. Br. 10-11).

Issue 1: Has the Examiner erred in finding Wu discloses “where a cut
occurs otherwise than at a frame boundary, generating from said second
field a synthetic field and replacing said first field by said synthetic field” as
recited in claim 1?

ANALYSIS
We agree with Appellants. Although we agree with the Examiner that
Wu discloses changing the P frame to an I-frame (Ans. 13), the Examiner
has not shown that Wu describes that the I-frame is generated from a second
field. Accordingly, the Examiner erred in finding Wu discloses the
invention as recited in independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2-4 not
separately argued. Therefore, the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-4
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) for anticipation by Wu.

ISSUE 2
35 U.S.C. § 102(b): claim 9
Appellants argue their invention as recited in claim 9 is not
anticipated by Wu because Wu does not disclose re-timing a cut that occurs
otherwise than at a frame boundary (App. Br. 13). Appellants contend the
re-timing of a cut as recited in claim 9 operates so that, where the input
fields exhibit a cut in the middle of a frame, the cut is re-timed such that the
cut is instead positioned at a frame boundary in the output fields (App. Br.
Appeal 2010-006464
Application 10/817,436

5
14). According to Appellants, Wu does not disclose re-timing a cut that
occurs in the middle of a frame (id.). Wu describes switching from frame to
field prediction for cuts within a frame when a “bad edit” occurs (a scene
change occurs at the odd/even field boundary of a frame) (id.). Additionally,
Appellants argue the delay in Wu ensures the picture coding decision is in
precise register with the scene change, but does not teach re-timing the cut
where the cut occurs otherwise than at a frame boundary (id.).

Issue 2: Has the Examiner erred in finding Wu discloses “where a cut
occurs otherwise than at a frame boundary, retiming the cut” as recited in
claim 9?

ANALYSIS
We agree with Appellants (App. Br. 14; Reply Br. 7) that the
Examiner has not shown Wu discloses re-timing the cut where a cut occurs
otherwise than at a frame boundary. Although we agree with the Examiner
that Wu describes the main objective of scene change processing is to
change the location of the scheduled new GOP(group of pictures) to align
with the start of the new scene if a scene change is detected at the proximity
of the originally scheduled I-frame (Ans. 18), we also agree with Appellants
that the “delay” described by Wu and relied upon by the Examiner does not
disclose re-timing the cut (i.e., scene change, transition) (App. Br. 14; Reply
Br. 7). The Examiner indicates “Wu discloses a delay function that accounts
for the delays in processing the corresponding frame in the delay function
and motion estimation” and “[s]ince the delay accounts for delays in
processing, it would be capable of re-adjusting or retiming a scene change”
Appeal 2010-006464
Application 10/817,436

6
(Ans. 20). However, the Examiner has not shown Wu describes that the
delay in processing describes re-timing a cut nor explained how such a delay
in processing would render Wu capable of retiming a scene change. We find
too large a gap to bridge between Wu’s delay in processing and the
Examiner’s conclusion that the delay is capable of being used to re-time a
scene change.
Therefore, we are constrained by the record in determining the
Examiner erred in finding Wu discloses the invention as recited in claim 9.
Accordingly, the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 9 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) for anticipation by Wu.

ISSUE 3
35 U.S.C. § 103(a): claims 10 and 11
Claims 10 and 11 depend from claim 9. The Examiner has not shown
Wu anticipates the invention as recited in claim 9. Further, the Examiner
has not asserted Holland cures the deficiencies of Wu. Accordingly, the
Examiner has not shown the combination of Wu and Holland would have
taught or suggested the invention as recited in claims 10 and 11. Therefore,
the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 10 and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
for obviousness over Wu and Holland.

DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-4 and 9 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Wu is reversed.
Appeal 2010-006464
Application 10/817,436

7
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 10 and 11 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being obvious over Wu and Holland is reversed.

REVERSED

tj