Ex Parte Chia-Chen

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardOct 18, 2017

12262598 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 18, 2017)

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. 12/262,598 10/31/2008 Kuo Chia-Chen 250318-1510 6528 109673 7590 10/20/2017 McClure, Qualey & Rodack, LLP 3100 Interstate North Circle Suite 150 Atlanta, GA 30339 EXAMINER SHIBRU, HELEN ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2484 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 10/20/2017 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): uspatents @ mqrlaw.com dan.mcclure@mqrlaw.com gina. silverio @ mqrlaw. com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte KUO CHIA-CHEN Appeal 2017-005805 Application 12/262,5981 Technology Center 2400 Before DEBRA K. STEPHENS, DANIEL J. GALLIGAN, and DAVID J. CUTITTAII, Administrative Patent Judges. GALLIGAN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Introduction Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 1—4, 8—12, 16—19, 23, and 24, which are all of the claims pending in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). Claims 5—7, 13—15, and 20-22 have been cancelled. We AFFIRM.2 1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is CyberLink Corp. App. Br. 2. 2 Our Decision refers to Appellant’s Appeal Brief filed September 8, 2016 (“App. Br.”); Appellant’s Reply Brief filed February 22, 2017 (“Reply Br.”); Examiner’s Second Answer mailed February 2, 2017 (“Ans.”); and Final Office Action mailed January 20, 2016 (“Final Act.”). Appeal 2017-005805 Application 12/262,598 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Claims on Appeal Claims 1,9, 17, and 24 are independent claims. Claim 1 is reproduced below: 1. A method for quality control in a video playback device comprising: monitoring, in the video playback device, a power status of a power supply of the video playback device; determining, in the video playback device, if the power status of the power supply is sufficient for preventing one of dropped frames and video jitter to provide smooth video playback, wherein determination of the power status is performed during playback of a video; and if the power status is not sufficient for smooth video playback, dynamically adjusting an output performance parameter during playback such that smooth video playback on a display of the video playback device can be maintained based on a current power level, reflected by the power status; wherein dynamically adjusting an output performance parameter comprises turning off a special playback effect of the video playback device, wherein turning off a special playback effect comprises at least one of: disabling a color adjustment of a video output of the video playback device; disabling a sharpening of a video output of the video playback device; disabling a noise reduction of a video output of the video playback device; disabling a resolution up-conversion of a video output of the video playback device by returning from a higher video output resolution to an original video output resolution; 2 Appeal 2017-005805 Application 12/262,598 disabling a frame-rate up-conversion of a video output of the video playback device by returning from a higher video output frame-rate to an original video output frame-rate; or disabling an aspect ratio conversion of a video output of the video playback device. Examiner s Rejection Claims 1—4, 8—12, 16—19, and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lee, Chaddha, and Sonobe. Final Act. 4—8. Claim 24 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lee, Matsui, and Sonobe. Id. at 8—10. We disagree with Appellant’s contentions and adopt as our own: (1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken; and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Answer in response to the Appeal Brief. With respect to the claims argued by Appellant, we highlight and address specific findings and arguments for emphasis as follows. Appellant contends Lee does not teach “if the power status is not sufficient for smooth video playback, dynamically adjusting an output References Chaddha Matsui Sonobe Lee US 2003/0012279 A1 Jan. 16, 2003 US 2004/0227456 A1 Nov. 18, 2004 US 2008/0270767 A1 Oct. 30, 2008 US 2008/0307243 A1 Dec. 11, 2008 ANALYSIS 3 Appeal 2017-005805 Application 12/262,598 performance parameter during playback such that smooth video playback on a display of the video playback device can be maintained based on a current power level,” as recited in claim 1 and similarly recited in claims 9, 17, and 24. App. Br. 7—19; Reply Br. 1—3. Specifically, Appellant argues Lee’s “power saving measures,” i.e., output performance parameter adjustments, “apparently relate to playback of audio content (e.g., songs, albums, audiobooks)” rather than “ensuring that smooth video playback can be achieved.” App. Br. 9; Reply Br. 2—3. We are not persuaded. The Examiner finds, and we agree, Lee teaches a device which preserves battery power to “play[] back media in [a] continuing manner” (Ans. 11—12; Final Act. 3—5 (citing Lee Tflf 42-43; see Lee Fig. 4,145)), by “reducing] . . . power consumption of the device” (Lee Fig. 2,136). The Examiner further finds (Final Act. 3,5; Ans. 11), and we agree, Lee teaches device power consumption is reduced by adjusting or disabling “non-essential functions” to operate the device in a “more power efficient manner” (Lee Fig. 2,136), e.g., “limit[ing] media playback volume” (id. 142 43). Moreover, the Examiner finds (Ans. 11— 12), and we agree, Lee teaches that “media playback” includes “video” (Lee 1145, 57). Additionally, the Examiner finds (Final Act. 6), and we agree, Sonobe teaches a power-saving video playback mode in which “the occurrence of. . . frame dropping can be prevented” (Sonobe 1 87). For example, Sonobe maintains video playback by omitting “image-quality improving process[es].” Sonobe 1 63. Appellant’s arguments, specifically addressing Lee’s audio playback (App. Br. 9; Reply Br. 2—3), do not persuasively address Lee’s teachings 4 Appeal 2017-005805 Application 12/262,598 directed to video playback (Lee H 45, 57). Specifically, Lee’s “media device (e.g., media player) [is] capable of playing (including displaying) media items” and “media items can pertain to . . . videos (e.g., movies).” Id. I 57 (emphasis added). Because Lee’s media items include both video and audio media, Lee’s teachings are applicable to video media, and are not limited to audio media. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that Lee teaches, or at least suggests, continuing video playback by adjusting or disabling “non-essential functions” to “reduce power consumption of [the] device.” Id. at Fig. 2, H 36, 42. For example, Lee “permit[s] the media playback to continue but. . . with reduced volume.” Id. 142. Further, the skilled artisan would have understood Lee teaches, or at least suggests, the reduced power consumption allows for continuous, i.e., “smooth” (see Ans. 11), video playback (see Lee claim 6,142). Furthermore, Appellant’s arguments do not address the Examiner’s combination of Lee and Sonobe. Sonobe teaches providing smooth video playback by preventing dropped frames in a power-saving mode. Sonobe II 63, 87. The Examiner combines Lee’s disclosure, which teaches disabling features to provide continuous video playback in a power-saving mode, with Sonobe’s disclosure, which teaches disabling image-quality improving features to prevent dropped frames in a power-saving mode, such that Lee’s video playback disables features in order to prevent dropped frames when in power-saving mode. Final Act. 7. Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Lee and Sonobe teaches or suggests the disputed limitations of claims 1,9, 17, and 24. Therefore, we sustain the rejections of claims 1, 9, 17, and 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). We likewise sustain the rejection 5 Appeal 2017-005805 Application 12/262,598 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of claims 2-4, 8, 10-12, 16, 18, 19, and 23, for which Appellant offers no additional persuasive arguments for patentability. See App. Br. 9—10, 13, 16. DECISION We affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1—4, 8—12, 16—19, 23, and 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). 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. § 41.50(f). AFFIRMED 6