Ex Parte Wyman

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 18, 2014

10871758 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 18, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte RICHARD H. WYMAN
____________________

Appeal 2011-010365
Application 10/871,758
Technology Center 2400
____________________

Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, and
HUNG H. BUI, Administrative Patent Judges.

BUI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner’s final rejections of claims 1-24 and 45-92. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.2

1 The Real Party in Interest is Broadcom Corporation.
2 Our decision refers to Appellant’s Appeal Brief filed February 18, 2011
(“App. Br.”); Reply Brief filed May 6, 2011 (“Reply Br.”); Examiner’s
Answer mailed March 23, 2011 (“Ans.”); Final Office Action mailed May
(Footnote continued on next page.)
Appeal 2011-010365
Application 10/871,758

2

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant’s Invention
Appellant’s invention relates to a “system and method to more
effectively detect and perform a reverse 3:2 pull-down for a 3:2 pull-down
video signal.” Appellant’s Spec. ¶[07]. The method includes generating one
or more temporally sequential variances, correlating these temporal
sequential variances with one or more temporal variance patterns associated
with the 3:2 pull-down video. Id. at ¶[8]. Furthermore, correlation
coefficients associated with the temporal variance patterns are generated,
which are assessed to identify the pull-down field associated with a repeat
field phase. Id.

Claims on Appeal
Claims 1, 45, and 69 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1 is
representative of the invention, as reproduced below with disputed
limitations emphasized:

l. A method of identifying a pull-down field in a 3:2 pull-
down video stream comprising:
generating one or more temporally sequential variances
using said 3:2 pull-down video stream; and
correlating said one or more temporally sequential
variances to one or more temporal variance patterns associated
with said 3:2 pull-down video stream, each of said one or more

19, 2010 (“Final Rej.”); and the original Specification filed June 17, 2004
(“Spec.”).
Appeal 2011-010365
Application 10/871,758

3

temporal variance patterns associated with one or more unique
field phases.

Claims 2, 46, and 70 are dependent claims on appeal that are
disputed herein. Claim 2 is representative of these dependent claims,
as reproduced below with disputed limitations emphasized:

2. The method of Claim 1 further comprising:
generating one or more correlation coefficients
associated with each of said one or more temporal variance
patterns;
assessing whether said one or more correlation
coefficients exceeds a first threshold value;
incrementing one or more counters associated with said
one or more correlation coefficients if said one or more
correlation coefficients exceeds said first threshold value;
assessing whether said one or more correlation
coefficients is less than a second threshold value;
decrementing said one or more counters associated with
said one or more correlation coefficients if said one or more
correlation coefficients is less than said second threshold value;
determining if a counter of said one or more counters
exceeds a third threshold;
selecting said one or more unique field phases as a
repeat field phase if said counter exceeds said third threshold;
and
identifying said pull-down field associated with said
repeat field phase.

Evidence Considered
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Oishi et al. US 5,691,771 Nov. 25, 1997
Funayama et al. US 6,389,155 B2 May 14, 2002
Liu et al. US 2003/0195977 A1 Oct. 16, 2003
Appeal 2011-010365
Application 10/871,758

4

Examiner’s Rejections
(1) Claims 1-5, 22, 24, 45-49, 66, 68-73, 90, and 92 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Oishi. Ans. 3-4.
(2) Claims 6-21, 50-65, and 74-89 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as being unpatentable over Oishi and Funayama. Ans. 4-5.
(3) Claims 23, 67, and 91 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Oishi and Liu. Ans. 5-6.

ISSUES
Based on Appellant’s arguments, the issues on appeal are:
(1) Whether the Examiner has erred in rejecting claims 1, 45, and
69 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Oishi. In particular, the
issue turns on whether Oishi discloses or suggests several limitations of
Appellant’s independent claims 1, 45, and 69. App. Br. 8-18.
(2) Whether the Examiner has erred in rejecting claims 2, 46, and
70 under U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Oishi. In particular, the
issue turns on whether Oishi discloses or suggests several limitations of
dependent claims 2, 46, and 70. App. Br. 18-24.

ANALYSIS
§ 102(b) Rejection of Independent Claims 1, 45, and 69 based on Oishi
Appellant argues that Oishi fails to disclose all the features of
independent claim 1, including: (1) “generating one or more temporally
sequential variances” (App. Br. 10) and (2) “correlating one or more
temporally sequential variances to one or more temporal variance patterns
associated with the 3:2 pull-down video.” (App. Br. 11.)
Appeal 2011-010365
Application 10/871,758

5

We do not find Appellant’s arguments persuasive. First, as correctly
found by the Examiner, Oishi discloses a method of identifying a pull-down
field in a 3:2 pull-down video stream. Ans. 3 (citing Oishi, FIG. 5, FIG. 11
and FIG. 14). The method generates one or more temporally sequential
variances using said 3:2 pull-down video stream. Id. Finally, the method
correlates said one or more temporally sequential variances to one or more
temporal variance patterns associated with said 3:2 pull-down video stream,
each of said one or more temporal variance patterns associated with one or
more unique field phases. Id.
Nevertheless, Appellant argues that: (1) a frame of video does not
teach anything about a temporally sequential variance, and (2) the Examiner
has not shown how this temporally sequential variance is generated as
recited in claim 1. App. Br. 10-11. The Examiner responds that the video
stream of Oishi meets the claim limitation in the broadest sense. Ans. 6.
“[T]he PTO gives claims their ‘broadest reasonable interpretation.’”
See In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (quoting In re Hyatt,
211 F.3d 1367, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2000)). Under the broadest reasonable
interpretation, we agree with the Examiner and find the succession of three
different types of video frames in a video stream that vary over time are
readable as a temporally sequential variance. Ans. 6, see also Final Rej. ¶8.
Appellant further argues that the Examiner has not considered the
Appellant’s Spec. which describes how the variance is computed. App. Br.
14.
We disagree with Appellant.
Though understanding the claim language may be aided by the
explanations contained in the written description, it is important
not to import into a claim limitations that are not a part of the
Appeal 2011-010365
Application 10/871,758

6

claim. For example, a particular embodiment appearing in the
written description may not be read into a claim when the claim
language is broader than the embodiment.

See SuperGuide Corp. v. DirecTV Enters., Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875 (Fed. Cir.
2004) (citing Electro Med. Sys. S.A. v. Cooper Life Sci., Inc., 34 F.3d 1048,
1054 (Fed. Cir. 1994). We find the claims are silent as the manner to which
the recited variance is computed and the claims are written broader than the
embodiments in the Specification identified by Appellant. Accordingly, we
find no error in the Examiner not reading the features of the variance as
disclosed in Appellant’s Specification into the claims.
For the reasons set forth above, Appellant has not persuaded us of any
prejudicial error in the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of Appellant’s
independent claim 1. With respect to independent claims 45 and 69,
Appellant reiterates the same patentability arguments presented against
claim 1. For the same reasons discussed, we also sustain the Examiner’s
anticipation rejection of independent claims 45 and 69.

§ 102(b) Rejection of Dependent Claims 2, 46, and 70 based on Oishi
Appellant also argues that Oishi fails to disclose features of dependent
claim 2, including: (1) “‘assessing whether said one or more correlation
coefficients exceeds a first threshold value’”; “incrementing one or more
counters associated with said one or more correlation coefficients if said one
or more correlation coefficients exceeds said first threshold value” (App. Br.
22); (2) “‘decrementing said one or more counters associated with said one
or more correlation coefficients if said one or more correlation coefficients is
less than said second threshold value’” (App. Br. 23); and (3) “‘determining
Appeal 2011-010365
Application 10/871,758

7

if a counter of said one or more counters exceeds a third threshold’”;
“‘selecting said one or more unique field phases as a repeat field phase if
said counter exceeds said third threshold’” (App. Br. 23).
We agree with Appellant. In particular, the Examiner relies on
Figures 6 and 7 of Oishi for a disclosure of the features of claim 2.
However, we find that these Figures of Oishi do not mention the
incrementing or decrementing of one or more counters if the one (or more)
correlation coefficients exceeds a first threshold value or is less than a
second threshold value, respectively, as recited in claim 2. We further find
that Oishi does not disclose selecting one or more unique field phases as a
repeat field if one of the one or more counters exceeds a third threshold, as
recited in claim 2. Therefore, we find Oishi fails to disclose the assessment
of the one or more correlation coefficients and the identifying of the pull-
down field, as recited in claim 2.
For these reasons, we cannot sustain the anticipation rejection of
claim 2. Because claims 46 and 70 recite similar limitations as claim 2, we
cannot sustain the anticipation rejections of claims 46 and 70 for the same
reasons. Finally, based on the dependency of claims 3-24, 47-68, and 71-92
to claims 2, 46, and 70, we cannot sustain the rejections of the
aforementioned claims for the same reasons.

CONCLUSION
On the record before us, we conclude that the Examiner has not erred
in rejecting claims 1, 45, and 69 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). However, we
also conclude that the Examiner’s rejections of dependent claims 2-24, 46-
Appeal 2011-010365
Application 10/871,758

8

68, and 70-92 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) or 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) should be
reversed.
DECISION
As such, we AFFIRM the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1, 45,
and 69 and REVERSE the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 2-24, 46-68,
and 70-92.
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-IN-PART

cdc