de Haan, Wiebe

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 26, 2019

14089169 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Dec. 26, 2019)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
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.
14/089,169 11/25/2013 Wiebe de Haan 1995P01070US03 6028
24737 7590 12/26/2019
PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS
465 Columbus Avenue
Suite 340
Valhalla, NY 10595
EXAMINER
LEE, Y YOUNG
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2485
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/26/2019 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):
katelyn.mulroy@philips.com
marianne.fox@philips.com
patti.demichele@Philips.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte WIEBE DE HAAN

Appeal 2019-000808
Application 14/089,169
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., DAVID M. KOHUT and
IRVIN E. BRANCH, Administrative Patent Judges.

PER CURIAM

DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 5, 29, 30, and 32–34.2 Appeal Br. 12;
Final Act., Summary (Form PTOL-326). We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use “Appellant” to reference the applicant as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as
“Koninklijke Philips N.V.” Appeal Br. 2.
2 Claims 1−4, 6−14, 16−28, and 31 were previously withdrawn and claim 15
was previously cancelled.
Appeal 2019-000808
Application 14/089,169

2

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
APPELLANT’S INVENTION
Appellant describes the invention as follows:
A problem in the [art] is that a subtitle displayed on a television
screen stays there until a next subtitle is received, so that a
subtitle may remain too long on the screen[.] . . .
It is an object of the invention to . . . transmit[] video
information for which the reproduction of [subtitle] overlay
information is independent of [such] information
. . . transmitted at a later stage.
Spec. 1, ll. 23–30. Claim 32 is illustrative and reproduced, below, with
emphasis on an argued feature.
32. A presentation device for producing a presentation,
comprising:
a receiver configured for receiving basic information
comprising a series of frames, and overlay information
comprising multiple overlay portions, and overlay time
information indicating periods of time for controlling when
respective overlay portions are to be presented combined into
respective frames of the basic information; and
a combiner configured for combining the basic information
with the overlay information to form a presentation, by, for
respective overlay portions, substituting the same portion of the
overlay information for corresponding portions in the same
areas of multiple respective frames of the series of frames in the
presentation;
wherein the areas of the multiple subsequent respective frames
in the presentation, corresponding to the overlay portions, are
not included in the presentation, and
wherein the overlay time information comprises an indication
of a duration of an overlay portion for controlling the period of
time in the presentation in which the overlay portion is to be
Appeal 2019-000808
Application 14/089,169

3
presented and removed after expiration of the duration
irrespective of other information to be read subsequent to the
overlay information.
Appeal Br. 29–30 (Claims Appendix).

REFERENCE
Name Reference Date
Nomura US 5,097,349 March 17, 1992

REJECTION
Claims 5, 29, 30, and 32–34 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
as anticipated by Nomura. Ans. 3–4; Final Act. 2–3; Non-Final Act. 3.

ANALYSIS
For the reasons below, we are unpersuaded of error in the rejection of
independent claim 32. For the same reasons, we are unpersuaded of error in
the rejections of claims 5, 29, 30, 33, and 34, which are not separately
argued. See e.g., Appeal Br. 14 (“Nomura does not disclose or suggest the
present invention as recited in independent claim 5, and similarly recited in
independent claims 29, 30 and 32–34.”); see also 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv)
(“When multiple claims subject to the same ground of rejection are argued
as a group . . . , the Board may select a single claim . . . and may decide the
appeal as to the ground of rejection . . . on the basis of the selected
claim alone.”).
Appellant contends that each claim “defines the duration as being
indicative of a time from an instant at which the overlay information is
presented.” Appeal Br. 13 (emphases omitted). Addressing the Examiner’s
Appeal 2019-000808
Application 14/089,169

4
reading of this claimed duration on Nomura’s below-addressed start and end
times (see Ans. 4–5; Final Act. 2–3; Non-Final Act. 3), Appellant
specifically contends these “are start and end times of CD areas.” Id.
We are unpersuaded. As reflected above, Nomura teaches “start and
end times of small portions which together constitute each area.” Nomura
col. 7, ll. 11–16; see also Ans. 4–5 (addressing Nomura col. 7, ll. 11–
16). We find these start and end times for “portions” of an area (id. at col. 7,
ll. 15–16) indicate when Nomura’s invention overlays “regions” on a picture
in the manner shown by Figures 14–15. See Nomura col. 14, ll. 6–27; see
also Ans. 3–4 (addressing Nomura’s Figs. 15A–C). We find so because
Nomura’s subcode includes the cited start and end times (see id. at col. 1,
ll. 44–45; col. 7, l. 11) and controls the overlay of the above regions on a
picture (see id. at col. 3, ll. 13–14; col. 14, ll. 22–27; Figs. 15A–C
(“SUBCODE” regions)). Further, Nomura corresponds the above “portions”
and “regions” to one another by stating that Figure 14’s constructed picture
(bottom) results from setting the mixing ratio of a video format signal (id. at
col. 14, ll. 1–7) “to 100% for a portion corresponding to each pixel within
the region D’ of picture B” (id. at col. 14, ll. 17–19). Per the above
disclosures, the cited “start and end times of small portions which together
constitute each area” (id. at col. 7, ll. 15–16) include start and end times of a
video format signal portion that constitutes part of a CD area (see e.g., id. at
col. 6, ll. 54–56 (area 20b)) and overlays a region on a picture (see e.g., id. at
Figs. 14 (region D’)). Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner ( Ans. 4–5)
that the cited start and end times are reasonably understood as start and end
times for overlaying a region on a picture.
Appellant also contends that, even assuming an overlay duration is
Appeal 2019-000808
Application 14/089,169

5
derived from Nomura’s cited start and end times, “such a derivation requires
calculation . . . [whereas the claimed] duration is included in the overlay
information.” Appeal Br. 13.
We are unpersuaded. Claim 32 recites the overlay information and
included overlay duration as follows: “the overlay time information
comprises an indication of a duration of an overlay portion[;] . . . the
duration [being] irrespective of other information.” As its recited, the
duration need only be indicated by “time information” and “irrespective of
other information” (i.e., definitive). “Start and end times” (Nomura, col. 7,
l. 15) are plainly time information that definitively describes a duration.
Appellant also contends that, if Nomura’s cited start and end times
indicate an overlay duration, then “there is no reason . . . to do any counting
[because] . . . start tstart and stop tstop times . . . are provided.” Reply Br. 3.
We are unpersuaded. Claim 32 does not recite any counting. Only
claims 5, 29, and 30 recite counting. We have selected claim 32—not one of
claims 5, 29, and 30—to decide the appeal. Even if we were to consider
“the overlay time information comprises an indication of a duration of an
overlay[;] . . . the duration being indicative of a time . . . the overlay
information is presented and is counted” limitation, found in claims 5, 29,
and 30, Appellant’s contention would be unpersuasive. We find the claims
only require an indication of a duration, which itself need only be indicative
of a time period that is counted. Nomura’s cited start and end times, if
merely defined by a unit of time (as opposed to events), represent a duration
that is indicative of a counted time period (e.g., a quantity of seconds). See
Nomura, col. 7, l. 15. Appellant does not rebut the Examiner’s finding that
an artisan would recognize the start and end times as being defined by a unit
Appeal 2019-000808
Application 14/089,169

6
of time. Indeed, Appellant does not even dispute that “one of ‘ordinary
skilled in the art would have had no difficulty in recognizing that a duration
from start to end can be simply counted in seconds.’” Reply Br. 3 (quoting
Ans. 5).

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of
claims 5, 29, 30, and 32–34.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference/Basis Affirmed Reversed
5, 29, 30, 32–34 102(b) Nomura 5, 29, 30,
32–34

TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See
37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED