Ex Parte Cooper et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardNov 14, 2014

11252320 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 14, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte JEFFREY ALLEN COOPER, JOAN LLACH, and CRISTINA GOMILA ____________ Appeal 2012-007250 Application 11/252,320 Technology Center 2600 ____________ Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, JAMES R. HUGHES, and ERIC S. FRAHM, Administrative Patent Judges. HUGHES, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner’s final decision rejecting claims 1–8. (Br. 3.)1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. 1 We refer to Appellants’ Specification (“Spec.”) filed October 17, 2005, claiming benefit of 60/619,632, filed October 18, 2004 and Appeal Brief (“Br.”) filed August 3, 2011. We also refer to the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.”) mailed January 9, 2012. Appeal 2012-007250 Application 11/252,320 2 Appellants’ Invention The invention at issue on appeal concerns methods for generating a film grain simulation by determining block averages for a decoded picture in a display pipeline and selecting a film grain pattern based on the block averages. (Spec. 1:10–11; 2:16–26; Abstract.) Representative Claim Independent claim 1, reproduced below with the key disputed limitations emphasized, further illustrates the invention: 1. A method for determining block averages of a decoded picture in a film grain simulation process, comprising: determining a block average for said decoded picture in a display pipeline, avoiding external memory usage for said block average, and selecting at least one film grain pattern for combination with said decoded picture, wherein the selecting is based, at least in part, on said determined block average. Rejection on Appeal The Examiner rejects claims 1–8 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by US Patent App. Pub. No. 2006/0256853 A1, published Nov. 16, 2006 (filed Aug. 27, 2004) (“Schlockermann”). ISSUE Based upon our review of the administrative record, Appellants’ contentions, and the Examiner’s findings and conclusions, the pivotal issue before us follows: Appeal 2012-007250 Application 11/252,320 3 Does the Examiner err in finding that Schlockermann discloses “determining a block average for said decoded picture in a display pipeline” and “selecting at least one film grain pattern for combination with said decoded picture, wherein the selecting is based, at least in part, on said determined block average” within the meaning of Appellants’ claim 1 and the commensurate limitations of claim 5? ANALYSIS The Examiner rejects independent claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as anticipated by Schlockermann. (Ans. 4–5, 6–7.) Appellants contend, inter alia, that Schlockermann does not disclose the disputed features of claim 1. (Br. 5–9.) We agree with Appellants that the portions of Schlockermann identified by the Examiner do not disclose the disputed features of independent claim 1, and we cannot sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection for essentially the reasons set forth by Appellants. (Br. 5–9.) In particular, as pointed out by Appellants, Schlockermann does not describe block averaging, much less block averaging of a decoded image/picture in a display pipeline (Br. 7–8) or during a decode process (Br. 9). Instead, Schlockermann at most describes calculating differentials between macro blocks (¶ 139) and/or image data (Br. 7; Schlockermann, ¶ 81). Further, Schlockermann does not determine the differential for an image in the display pipeline (Br. 8) or during a decode process (Br. 9). Rather, Schlockermann’s selection unit 132 determines the differential in the film grain coding unit 130 of the moving picture coding apparatus 100 (Br. 8; Schlockermann, ¶¶ 69, 80; Figs. 3, 5). Appeal 2012-007250 Application 11/252,320 4 Consequently, we are constrained by the record before us to find that the Examiner erred in finding that Schlockermann discloses the recited features of Appellants’ claim 1 or claim 5. Appellants’ dependent claims 2– 4 and 6–8 depend on and stand with claims 1 and 5, respectively. Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of claims 1– 8. CONCLUSION Appellants have shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1– 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e). DECISION We reverse the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1–8. REVERSED lv