12692060 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 18, 2018)

Ex Parte TOKUTAKE

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardOct 18, 2018

12692060 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 18, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 12/692,060 01/22/2010 154930 7590 XSENSUS LLP 200 Daingerfield Road Suite 201 Alexandria, VA 22314 10/22/2018 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Kenji TOKUTAKE 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. 10140US01 1042 EXAMINER ITSKOVICH, MIKHAIL ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2483 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 10/22/2018 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): anaquadocketing@Xsensus.com Arlene.Hudgens@Xsensus.com Faith.Baggett@xsensus.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte KENJI TOKUTAKE Appeal2017-001448 Application 12/692,060 Technology Center 2400 Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., and JOHN P. PINKERTON, Administrative Patent Judges. PINKERTON, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from the final rejection of claims 1-11 and 14, which constitute all of the claims pending in this application. 2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). We reverse. 1 Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Sony Mobile Communications AB. App. Br. 1. 2 Claims 12 and 13 are canceled. Appeal2017-001448 Application 12/692,060 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction Appellant's disclosed and claimed invention generally relates to "reproduction of a moving image and, more particularly, to a moving image output method and a moving image output apparatus." Spec. 1. 3 Claims 1 and 5 are illustrative and reproduced below ( with the disputed limitation in italics): 1. A moving image output method comprising: detecting a difference between adjacent frames of moving image data including synchronization frames and differential frames; determining motion vector values for frames of the moving image data based on the difference detected; monitoring predetermined various conditions; assigning a priority value to the frames of the moving image data according to the difference detected, frames having a larger difference being given a higher priority value than frames having a smaller difference, the synchronization frames being assigned a priority value above a predetermined threshold; and selectively executing three operation modes based on a result of the monitoring, the three operation modes including a normal mode in which video output data is output with the number of frames of the moving image data not increased or decreased, 3 Our Decision refers to the Final Action mailed Sept. 4, 2015 ("Final Act."); Appellant's Appeal Brief filed May 19, 2016 ("App. Br.") and Reply Brief filed Nov. 1, 2016 ("Reply Br."); the Examiner's Answer mailed Sept. 8, 2016 ("Ans."); and, the original Specification filed June 22, 2012 ("Spec."). 2 Appeal2017-001448 Application 12/692,060 a skipping mode in which only frames having priority values above the predetermined threshold are output, and a high quality mode in which one or more intermediate frames are inserted between adjacent frames having a difference equal to or greater than a predetermined value. 5. A moving image output apparatus comprising: a circuit that decodes encoded moving image data including synchronization frames and differential frames; extracts a difference between adjacent frames of the moving image data decoded; computes motion vector values for frames of the moving image data based on the difference between adjacent frames; monitors predetermined various conditions; and assigns a priority value to the frames of the moving image data according to the difference extracted, frames having a larger difference being given a higher priority value than frames having a smaller difference, the synchronization frames being assigned a priority value above a predetermined threshold, and selectively executes three operation modes based on a result of the monitoring, the three operation modes including a normal mode in which video output data is output with a number of frames of the moving image data not increased or decreased, a skipping mode in which only frames having priority values above the predetermined threshold are output, and 3 Appeal2017-001448 Application 12/692,060 a high quality mode in which one or more intermediate frames are inserted between adjacent frames having a difference equal to or greater than a predetermined value. App. Br. 10-12 (Claims App'x). Rejections on Appeal Claims 5-11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. Claims 1-11 and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ I03(a) as being unpatentable over Koshimizu et al. (US 2007 /0091204 Al; published Apr. 26, 2007) ("Koshimizu") in view of Yamaguchi et al. (US 6,674,477 B 1; issued Jan. 6, 2004) ("Yamaguchi"). ANALYSIS Rejection of Claims 5-11 UnderÂ§ 112, First Paragraph The Examiner finds that each of independent apparatus claims 5 and 9 is "embodied in a 'circuit that' performs the intended method." Final Act. 3--4; Ans. 4. The Examiner also finds that each of these claims "is a single means claim which covers every conceivable means for achieving the stated purpose ( data processing) and it is nonenabling for the scope of the claim because the specification disclosed at most only those means known to the inventor." Ans. 4 (citing In re Hyatt, 708 F.2d 712, 714--715 (Fed. Cir. 1983)). We are persuaded by Appellant's arguments that the Examiner erred. First, Appellant argues, and we agree, that the use of the term "circuit," combined with a description of the functions of the circuit, has been found by the courts to connote sufficient structure to one of ordinary skill in the art 4 Appeal2017-001448 Application 12/692,060 to avoid "means plus function" treatment under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 112, sixth paragraph. App. Br. 5 ( citing Mass. Inst. of Tech. v. Abacus Software, 462 F.3d 1344, 1355-1356 (Fed. Cir. 2006)); Reply Br. 4. Here, consistent with Appellant's argument, we determine claims 5 and 9 do not merely describe a circuit, but add further structure by describing the operation of the circuit in sufficient detail to avoidÂ§ 112, sixth paragraph. See App. Br. 5-6; Reply Br. 4; see also Linear Tech. Corp. v. Impala Linear Corp., 379 F.3d 1311, 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Second, Appellant argues, and we agree, because claims 5 and 9 do not invoke interpretation under Â§ 112, sixth paragraph, "the single-means-claim analysis under 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, in In Re Hyatt is simply not applicable to Claims 5-11 of the instant application." Reply Br. 5. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of independent claims 5 and 9, and claims 6-8, and 10 and 11, which depend from claims 5 and 9, respectively, underÂ§ 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. Rejection of Claims 1-11 and 14 UnderÂ§ 103(a) The Examiner finds that the combination of Koshimizu and Yamaguchi teaches or suggests the disputed limitation of claim 1-"a skipping mode in which only frames having priority values above the predetermined threshold are output." Final Act. 9 (citing Koshimizu Fig. 2, ,r,r 25-26); 13. In particular, the Examiner finds Figure 2C, and paragraphs 25-26, of Koshimizu "teach an embodiment of the claimed skipping mode as a thin-out mode which performs 'frame rate conversion ... by reducing the number of frames to be played within a predetermined period of time' which corresponds to skipping intermediate frames." Ans. 16. The Examiner also finds that Appellant's interpretation of Figure 2C would 5 Appeal2017-001448 Application 12/692,060 result in slow play, as in Figure 2B, with original frames being delayed to a later time, whereas Figure 2C "is explicitly directed to thin-out not slow play." Id. at 17; see App. Br. 7-8. The Examiner further finds that Yamaguchi "assigns priority values to each frame according to the claimed embodiment." Final Act. 10 (citing Yamaguchi Figs. 21-23; 15:51---61, 16:36-45); see also Ans. 5, 12. Appellant argues that paragraphs 25 and 26 of Koshimizu describe reducing the rate at which frames are output so that the number of frames output for a predetermined time period is reduced, but all frames are still output given enough time. App. Br. 7. Regarding Figure 2 of Koshimizu, Appellant argues it illustrates the "reducing of frames to be played within a predetermined period of time" as it shows "that each frame 1, 2, 3, etc. is still being output only at a slower rate, 60fps instead of 240fps a[ s] in Fig. 2A." Id. at 7-8. We are persuaded by Appellant's arguments that the Examiner erred. First, we agree with Appellant's contention that paragraphs 25 and 26 do not teach "skipping" frames, as the Examiner finds, but instead describe and teach reducing the rate at which frames are output "by reducing the number of frames to be played within a predetermined period of time." App. Br. 7. In that regard, Appellant argues, and we agree, that Koshimizu "does not reduce the number of frames played by skipping frames, but by instead reducing the number of frames played per unit time," and given enough time, "all frames would still be played." Reply Br. 6. Second, we agree with Appellant that Figure 2 of Koshimizu does not teach or suggest "skipping" frames. Appellant argues, and we agree, that Figure 2 of Koshimizu shows that each frame is being output only at a 6 Appeal2017-001448 Application 12/692,060 slower rate. Accordingly, for these reasons, we agree with Appellant that Koshimizu "does not disclose or suggest a 'skipping mode in which only frames having priority values above the predetermined threshold are output' because in Koshimizu every frame is output albeit at different rates." App. Br. 8 ( emphasis omitted). We further agree with Appellant that Yamaguchi does not cure Koshimizu's deficiency of failing to teach a "skipping" mode because Yamaguchi is relied on only for describing assignment of priority values. See Final Act. 10. Based on this record, we are persuaded the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Koshimizu and Yamaguchi teaches or suggests the disputed limitation of claim 1. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1, and dependent claims 2--4 and 14, under Â§ 103(a). For the same reasons, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection under Â§ 103 (a) of independent claims 5 and 9, which recite the same "skipping mode" limitation as claim 1, and claims 6-8, and 10 and 11, which depend from claims 5 and 9, respectively. DECISION We reverse the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-11 and 14 for obviousness under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a). REVERSED 7