Ex Parte Holtslag et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardNov 15, 2012

10056362 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 15, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ________________ Ex parte ANTONIUS HENDRICUS MARIA HOLTSLAG and DOMINICUS JOHANNES IJNTEMA ________________ Appeal 2010-003093 Application 10/056,362 Technology Center 2600 ________________ Before BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, JEFFREY S. SMITH, and STANLEY M. WEINBERG, Administrative Patent Judges. WEINBERG, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2010-003093 Application 10/056,362 2 SUMMARY Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-16. Claim 5 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph for lack of enablement. Final Rejection 2.1 Claims 1, 9-12, 15, and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Rosser (US 6,446,261 B1). Ans. beginning at the unnumbered page (the page between the two pages that are numbered as page 2) through numbered page 3. Claims 2-4 and 7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over Rosser in view of Berger (US 6,414,693 B1). Final Rejection 6-8. Claim 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over Rosser and Berger and further in view of Official Notice. Final Rejection 8. Claims 8, 13, and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over Rosser in view of Sano (US 5,258,828). Final Rejection 8-11. We affirm. STATEMENT OF CASE Appellants’ invention relates to a system and method for automatically detecting which window on a display screen should be enhanced. The system and method detects whether there is (i) an application 1 Throughout this opinion, we refer to (1) the Final Rejection mailed January 14, 2005; (2) the Notice of Appeal filed May 9, 2005; (3) the Appeal Brief filed November 23, 2005; and (4) the Examiner’s Answer mailed March 8, 2007. Appeal 2010-003093 Application 10/056,362 3 indicating that non-synthetic information is displayed;2 or (ii) an extension of a file indicating that non-synthetic information is displayed; or (iii) moving information is displayed. If any of (i), or (ii), or (iii) is true, the system and method enhances the indicated part of the display. See generally Spec. 1:1-5, 18-20; 2:10-19. The briefed claims are directed to only a subset of the invention – a system and method that detect whether the first two conditions (i) and (ii) are satisfied, but not the third (iii). Independent claim 1is illustrative of the claimed subject matter and is reproduced below with key disputed limitations emphasized: 1. A system comprising: a display information-generating device for generating display information, a display apparatus having a display screen for displaying the display information, detection means for detecting whether at least one of the following criteria is fulfilled for display information being displayed in a portion of the display screen: (i) an application is one of a group of applications indicating that non-synthetic information is displayed, in which the application is not a picture viewer, (ii) an extension of a file is one of a group of extensions indicating that non-synthetic information is displayed, and enhancement means for enhancing the display information being displayed in said portion of the display screen if at least one of the criteria (i) and (ii) is true. 2 Appellants define synthetic information as computer synthesized information such as, for example, text, graphics and tables. Appellants define non-synthetic information as not computer-synthesized information such as photographs and video or film. Spec. 2:17-19. Appeal 2010-003093 Application 10/056,362 4 The Examiner finds that Rosser discloses every recited feature of representative claim 1 including a detection means that detects whether an extension of a file indicates that non-synthetic information is displayed, in accordance with condition (ii) of claim 1 (Ans. 9:10-10:8), and an enhancement means that enhances display information when an extension of a file indicates that non-synthetic information is displayed (Ans. 10:8- 11:11). ISSUES Have Appellants demonstrated the Examiner erred in finding that Rosser discloses a detection means that detects whether an extension of a file indicates that non-synthetic information is displayed? Have Appellants demonstrated the Examiner erred in finding that Rosser discloses an enhancement means that enhances display information when an extension of a file indicates that non-synthetic information is displayed?3 3 We do not consider Appellants’ contentions regarding Rosser’s asserted lack of disclosure in relation to criterion (i). Claim 1 merely requires a detection means that detects either one of conditions (i) and (ii), and an enhancement means that enhances the display information if the detected condition of the two recited conditions is true. Because our analysis of Appellants’ arguments regarding Rosser’s disclosure in relation to condition (ii) is dispositive, we need not reach any further conclusions regarding whether Rosser discloses detection means or enhancement means in relation to condition (i). Appeal 2010-003093 Application 10/056,362 5 THE ENABLEMENT REJECTION Although the Notice of Appeal and Appellants’ statement of the Status of Claims (Br. 4) state that claim 5 is appealed, Appellants’ Brief does not address the rejection. Accordingly, this rejection of claim 5 is summarily affirmed. THE ART-BASED REJECTION Claim 1 According to Appellants’ Specification, their invention enhances display information in an area (a window) of a display screen of a display apparatus. Spec. 1:1-2, 18-20. The invention uses a detection circuit DE1 in a computer processor (PC-PRO) to indicate that display information meeting criterion (ii) (an extension of a file indicates that non-synthetic information; for example, video) is displayed. Spec. 5:10-17; Fig. 2. Appellants’ examples of extensions within criterion (ii) are at least jpg, tiff, mpg, and mov (Spec. 3:1-4), as well as mpeg. Spec. 8:12. If criterion (ii) is detected, the area/window is enhanced. Spec. 1:22-24; 2:16. An area is considered to be enhanced when, for example, any signal processing “draw[s] the attention to the area.” Spec. 3:8-11. Rosser discloses a profile matcher 96 that selects stored video insertions 90 for feeding to warp unit 100. The warp unit 100 warps the video insertions 90. Col. 10, ll. 29-33; Fig. 2. The Examiner finds that Rosser’s disclosure of MPEG2 meets claim 1’s criterion (ii): “an extension of a file is one of a group of extensions indicating that non-synthetic information is displayed” because MPEG2 comes within Appellants’ examples of such extensions. Ans. 9:15-10:2, citing Spec. 3:1-4. See also Spec. 8:12. The Examiner also finds that other Appeal 2010-003093 Application 10/056,362 6 aspects of Rosser disclose extensions of files and showing non-synthetic information. Ans. 10:16-11:11. Appellants do not dispute these findings. We agree with the Examiner’s findings because they have a rational underpinning. The Examiner also finds that Rosser’s selection device 72 is a detection means that detects condition (ii) because it discriminates between the variety of different video programs or data streams. Ans. 9:20-10:2. The Examiner further finds that “warp” corresponds to claim 1’s enhancement and that “video” corresponds to claim 1’s non-synthetic information. Ans. 10:13-15. Appellants contend that Rosser does not disclose a detection means for detecting that criterion (ii) is being displayed. Br. 10-12. More specifically, Appellants contend that Rosser’s viewer usage monitor is not a detection module configured to detect that criterion (ii) is fulfilled. Br. 11:10-24. Appellants also specifically contend that Rosser’s “triggers” do not teach detection means for detecting that criterion (ii) is fulfilled for displayed information. Br. 11:25-12-14. However, Appellants do not explain why the Examiner’s specific findings incorrectly correlate Rosser’s selection device 72 to claim 1’s detection means or why the Examiner’s findings incorrectly correlate Rosser’s MPEG2 video to claim 1’s non-synthetic information. Accordingly, Appellants have not demonstrated that the Examiner erred finding that Rosser discloses detection means for detecting condition (ii) of claim 1. Appellants further contend that Rosser does not disclose an enhancement means for enhancing display information if the displayed Appeal 2010-003093 Application 10/056,362 7 information meets criterion (ii). Br. 13-15. More specifically, Appellants contend that Rosser cannot teach an enhancement means as defined in claim 1 at least because Rosser does not teach a detection means that first detects criterion (ii). Br. 13:8-13. But, this contention is not persuasive because Appellants have not explained why the Examiner’s findings regarding Rosser’s detection means are incorrect, as explained above. Regarding “warping,” Appellants agree that Rosser’s warping is a form of enhancement, i.e., magnification, and that Rosser’s warping is capable of warping video inserts. Br. 14:1-3. They seek to distinguish Rosser’s warping/enhancement from claim 1’s “enhancement” recitation by contending that Rosser gives an end user the “option” of performing magnification of a window “simply by virtue of having available the multiple windows.” Br. 14:8-9, 13-15. Appellants’ argument is not persuasive because claim 1 does not negate the possibility that a user can have the option of enhancing a window. Appellants also contend that Rosser’s “picture in a picture” does not satisfy claim 1’s recitation of enhancement means if criterion (ii) is satisfied. Br. 14:16-15:12. However, this argument is not persuasive because, as indicated above, the Examiner has not relied upon Rosser’s “picture in a picture” as an enhancement means that enhances display information if criterion (ii) is true. CONCLUSIONS Under § 112, the Examiner did not err in rejecting claim 5. Under § 102, the Examiner did not err in rejecting independent claim 1 and independent claims 11, 15, and 16 having similar recitations. Appellants have not established that the Examiner erred in rejecting Appeal 2010-003093 Application 10/056,362 8 independent claim 12 and dependent claims 9 and 10, as Appellants have not separately argued these claims with particularity. Under § 103, Appellants have not established that the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claim 13 and dependent claims 2-4, 6-10, and 14, as Appellants have not argued these claims with particularity. DECISION The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-16 is 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). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2010). AFFIRMED rwk