Ex Parte Covell et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardNov 14, 2012

11149720 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 14, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte MICHELE COVELL, SUMIT ROY, and JOHN ANKCORN ____________________ Appeal 2010-004564 Application 11/149,720 Technology Center 2600 ____________________ Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, BRYAN F. MOORE, and TREVOR M. JEFFERSON, Administrative Patent Judges. MacDONALD, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2010-004564 Application 11/149,720 2 STATEMENT OF CASE Introduction Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a final rejection of claims 1-35. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). Exemplary Claim Exemplary claim 1 under appeal reads as follows: 1. A method for enhancing the quality of visual prompts in an interactive media response system, said method comprising: determining a video coder/decoder (codec) used by a thin device; accessing a visual prompt to be displayed on said thin device; and modifying the display parameters of said visual prompt such that at least one character of said visual prompt is aligned with a blocking artifact generated by said video codec. Rejections The Examiner rejected claims 1-6, 10-15, 19-24, 28-29, and 32-33 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Hara (US 2005/0201624 Al) and Berkner (US 2004/0146199 Al). 1 The Examiner rejected claims 7-8, 16-17, 25-26, 30-31, and 34-35 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Hara, Berkner, and Collins (US 2003/0009595 Al). 1 Separate patentability is not argued for claims 2-6, 10-15, 19-24, 28-29, and 32-33. Except for our ultimate decision, these claims are not discussed further herein. Appeal 2010-004564 Application 11/149,720 3 The Examiner rejected claims 9, 18, and 27 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Hara, Berkner, and He (US 2006/0140267 Al). Appellants’ Contentions 1. Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because: Appellants have reviewed Hara and Hara does not mention a "blocking artifact," and Appellants do not understand Hara to teach a "blocking artifact." Moreover, because Hara does not teach, disclose or suggest the "blocking artifact," Hara can not [sic] teach, disclose or suggest "at least one character of said visual prompt is aligned with a blocking artifact generated by said video codec," as claimed in Claim 1. (App. Br. 12). 2. Appellants further contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because “Appellants find no mention of alignment in the cited paragraphs or suggestion in the cited figures of Hara, nor any further mention of justification, especially with respect to a ‘blocking artifact,’ as claimed in Claim 1.” (App. Br. 13). 3. Appellants also contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because “Appellants also find no mention in the cited paragraphs or suggestion in the cited figures of Berkner of a ‘blocking artifact,’ and Appellants do not understand Berkner to teach a ‘blocking artifact.’” (App. Br. 15). 4. Appellants also contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 7 and 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for the same reasons as in above Appeal 2010-004564 Application 11/149,720 4 contentions 1-3 and because the other references do not correct these deficiencies. FINDINGS OF FACT (FF) 1. Appellants state (emphasis added): [I]n block based video codecs, blocking artifacts occur at the boundaries between blocks of pixels such as MPEG blocks, or direct cosine transform (DCT) blocks. These boundaries are caused by the fact that each block is encoded using separate quantizers on the low frequencies. Because these quantizers do not result in equal values showing up on the two abutting block edges, it looks like a line on the display. Typically, these lines are not desired because there are not real lines in the content that line up with the block edges. However, in embodiments of the present invention, prior knowledge that text is to be displayed allows using the lines at the boundaries of these blocks to create sharper edges on the displayed letter, thus increasing the sharpness of the displayed text. (Appellants’ Spec. 25:24-33). 2. Appellants also state (emphasis added): Figure 9 shows the alignment of a rendered character relative to a blocking artifact in accordance with embodiments of the present invention. In Figure 9 a plurality of video blocks are shown which are defined by horizontal boundaries (e.g., 901, 902, 903, 904, 905, and 906) and vertical boundaries (e.g., 911, 912, 913, 914, 915, and 916). As described above, because each of the blocks are encoded using separate quantizers, the horizontal and vertical boundaries appear as well defined lines in the display. (Appellants’ Spec. 26:4-10). Appeal 2010-004564 Application 11/149,720 5 ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’ arguments (Appeal Brief and Reply Brief) that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants’ conclusions. We 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 Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellants’ Appeal Brief. We concur with the conclusions reached by the Examiner. Regarding above contentions 1 and 2, we agree with the Examiner’s interpretation of a block artifact that “the claimed block artifact is interpreted in view of Applicant’s Specification at Page 26 (e.g., lines 28-35 wherein the letters are aligned with the block boundaries and the block artifacts occur at the block boundaries----see Page 26, lines 4-10).” Ans. 5. (FF 2). We also note the discussion of blocking artifacts at page 25, lines 24-33, of Appellants’ Specification. (FF 1). We also agree with the Examiner that an artisan would understand Hara to contain “blocking artifacts” at its boundaries. (Ans. 4). Further, we agree with the Examiner that Hara justifying the text to the left in the block (¶ 188) is an alignment with the blocking artifact. The Examiner contents that “Hara further teaches at least one character such as "WORKSHOP" is aligned within a code block artifact defined by the rectangular boundaries of the rectangular region ....” (Ans. 5). Regarding above contentions 3 and 4, as we find that Hara does teach aligning with a blocking artifact, we do not reach whether the Examiner erred as to the finding that Berkner also teaches aligning with a blocking artifact. (Ans. 6). Further, we find no deficiency in the aligning with a Appeal 2010-004564 Application 11/149,720 6 blocking artifact teaching of the Hara reference that need be corrected by the other references. CONCLUSIONS (1) The Examiner has not erred in rejecting claims 1-35 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). (2) Claims 1-35 are not patentable. DECISION The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1-35 are 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)(iv). AFFIRMED tj