Ex Parte Witter et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 29, 2012

11251599 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 29, 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.
11/251,599 10/14/2005 Todd Witter ITL.1720US (P20803) 5276
21906 7590 03/30/2012
TROP, PRUNER & HU, P.C.
1616 S. VOSS ROAD, SUITE 750
HOUSTON, TX 77057-2631
EXAMINER
MARTELLO, EDWARD
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2628
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/30/2012 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 TODD WITTER and SATYA AVADHANAM
________________

Appeal 2009-012963
Application 11/251,599
Technology Center 2600
________________

Before SCOTT R. BOALICK, CARLA M. KRIVAK, and
BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, Administrative Patent Judges.

BAUMEISTER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2009-012963
Application 11/251,599

2
SUMMARY
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejections of claims 5, 7-12, 14, and 15:
1. Claims 7-12, 14, and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Tomizawa (US 2003/0048385 A1; published Mar. 13,
2003).
2. Claim 5 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
Yamakawa (US 2004/0145596 A1; published July 29, 2004) in view
of Tomizawa.
We affirm.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants describe their invention as follows:
A method of reducing video flicker by adaptive filtering
may include receiving a group of lines of video data and
detecting one or more edges within the group of lines of video
data. Pixels that are associated with the one or more edges may
be filtered using a first set of filter coefficients. Pixels that are
not associated with the one or more edges using may be filtered
[sic: may be filtered using] a second set of filter coefficients
that is different from the first set of filter coefficients.
(Abstract).
Independent claim 7 is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
7. A system, comprising:
a phase generator to choose filter coefficients for filtering
video information;
an edge detector connected to the phase generator to
recognize edges in the video information and to alter the filter
coefficients chosen by the phase generator for the edges in the
video information wherein the edge detector is arranged to
Appeal 2009-012963
Application 11/251,599

3
detect single edges that are not within a predetermined distance
from another edge and double edges that are within the
predetermined distance from each other; and
a filter operatively coupled to the phase generator and the
edge detector to selectively filter the video information using
the filter coefficients chosen by the phase generator and the
filter coefficients altered by the edge detector.

FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Appellants’ Specification teaches the following:
. . . the PC-formatted information to be displayed on the
interlaced display may include abrupt transitions (e.g., edges)
that may cause undesired visual “flicker” (i.e., inconstant or
wavering light) when displayed, unaltered, on the interlaced
display.
(Spec. ¶ [0003]).
2. Appellants’ Specification teaches the following:
Edge detector 130 may be arranged to detect edges (i.e.,
sufficiently abrupt transitions) in one or more lines of data from
buffers 110. Edge detector 130 may detect two types of edges:
one where a single abrupt transition occurs in an area of interest
(e.g., a “step” function-type edge), and another where two
abrupt transitions occur in an area of interest (e.g., an “impulse”
function-type edge).
(Spec. ¶ [0013]).
3. Appellants’ Specification teaches the following:
For a particular area in a line of data where the gradient
between pixels does not meet a threshold level to be designated
as an edge, edge detector 130 may designate such an area as
“normal” data.
(Spec. ¶ [0013]).
Appeal 2009-012963
Application 11/251,599

4
ANALYSIS
I. The § 102(b) rejection of claims 7-12, 14, and 15
The noted claims stand rejected over the single reference, Tomizawa.
In their Appeal Brief, Appellants contend that “the cited references” (plural)
do not teach various claim limitations and that “the cited references never
even contemplated” various limitations (App. Br. 11). These contentions are
unpersuasive as they are merely conclusory statements. Appellants’ general
allegations do not provide any convincing factual basis pointing out
distinctions between specific claim limitations and the applied references to
rebut the Examiners’ finding (see App. Br. 11-12). See In re Geisler, 116
F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (attorney arguments or conclusory
statements are insufficient to rebut a prima facie case).
In the Reply Brief, Appellants contend that the Specification explicitly
defines “edges” in line(s) of data as having “sufficiently abrupt transitions”
(Reply Br. 2; Facts 1, 2). Appellants acknowledge that “[t]he Pb ‘edges’, as
asserted by the Examiner, are just the rising and falling edges of Pb” (Reply
Br. 3). Appellants nonetheless argue that these edges do not correspond to
the term “edge” as defined by Appellants’ Specification.
Appellants argue that Tomizawa’s picture pattern Pb leading edge’s
transition that may be from 89% to 90% of the white level does not teach
Appellants’ “edge” because Tomizawa’s 89% to 90% transition is not a
“sufficiently abrupt transition” (Reply Br. 3). Appellants argue that
“Tomizawa at best detects transitions from below a threshold to above a
threshold but involves no concern or recognition as to whether such a
transition is subtle, gradual, or abrupt” (some emphasis removed) (id.).
Appeal 2009-012963
Application 11/251,599

5
Appellants’ arguments are not persuasive. While the Specification
defines an “edge” in a line of data as having “sufficiently abrupt transitions,”
the Specification does not provide any objective standard for what
constitutes an “abrupt transition,” much less any objective standard for what
constitutes a “sufficiently abrupt transition” (see Reply Br. 2-4). Appellants’
Specification merely states that an edge is an area of line where the gradient
between pixels meets a threshold level to be designated as an edge, but it
does not state what the threshold level is (Fact 3). Because Appellants do
not provide any benchmark gradient threshold for determining what
constitutes a “sufficiently abrupt transition,” we interpret “edge” to include
any measurable transition. Any arguments that the term “edge” must be
interpreted more narrowly may raise issues of whether the objective metes
and bounds of the claim are reasonably definite.
Applying this interpretation, Tomizawa’s edges in the picture patterns
Pa and Pb may be reasonably interpreted as corresponding to the claimed
“edges” (Ans. 3-4, 10-11; Tomizawa, Figs. 13A to 13G). Accordingly, we
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 7 and of dependent claims 8-12,
14, and 15, which are not separately argued.
II. The § 103(a) rejection of claim 5
Claim 5 contains similar limitations as in claim 7. Appellants’ merely
repeat arguments made with respect to the rejection of claim 7 (Reply Br. 4).
Appellants provide no additional patentability arguments in relation to
Yamakawa. We therefore sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of
claim 5 for the reasons set forth above.

Appeal 2009-012963
Application 11/251,599

6
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 5, 7-12, 14, and 15 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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2010).

AFFIRMED
rwk