Ex Parte Hung

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 28, 2013

11602313 (P.T.A.B. May. 28, 2013)

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. 11/602,313 11/21/2006 Kuen-Jen Hung SUND-849 7399 23995 7590 05/28/2013 RABIN & Berdo, PC 1101 14TH STREET, NW SUITE 500 WASHINGTON, DC 20005 EXAMINER YENKE, BRIAN P ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2422 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/28/2013 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte KUEN-JEN HUNG ____________________ Appeal 2012-011563 Application 11/602,313 Technology Center 2400 ____________________ Before THU A. DANG, JAMES R. HUGHES, and GREGORY J. GONSALVES, Administrative Patent Judges. DANG, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2012-011563 Application 11/602,313 2 I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of claims 1, 3-8, and 10-12 (App. Br. 3). Claims 2 and 9 have been cancelled (App. Br. 2). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. A. INVENTION Appellant’s invention is directed to a video apparatus and method for auto-compensating weak signals that includes a tuner, video decoder, and controller; wherein, when the controller determines that the analog signal is a weak signal according to a gain control signal generated by the tuner relative to the intensity of the analog signal, the controller generates a control signal to actuate a noise reduction function of the video decoder; otherwise, the controller disables the noise reduction function (Abstract). B. ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM Claim 1 is exemplary: A video apparatus for auto-compensating weak signals, comprising; a tuner, for receiving an analog signal and accordingly outputting a video signal, and generating a gain control signal according to intensity of the analog signal; a controller, for receiving the gain control signal to determine the intensity of the analog signal, and generating a control signal; and a video decoder, for receiving the video signal and the control signal, and decoding the video signal to be a digital signal according to the control signal; Appeal 2012-011563 Application 11/602,313 3 wherein when the controller determines that the analog signal is not a week signal according to the gain control signal, the controller disables all noise reduction functions of the video decoder and when the controller determines that the analog signal is a weak signal according to the gain control signal, the controller outputs the control signal to actuate a noise reduction function of the video decoder to generate the digital signal of low noise. C. REJECTIONS The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Cugnini US 6,389,070 B1 May 14, 2002 Pugel US 7,710,503 B2 May 4, 2010 Kim US 2004/0244050 Dec. 2, 2004 Kim US 2005/0181753 Aug. 18, 2005 Claims 1, 3-4, 7, and 10-12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kim ‘050 in view of Pugel and Kim ‘753. Claims 5, 6, and 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kim ‘050 in view of Pugel, Kim ‘753, and Cugnini. II. ISSUE The dispositive issue before us is whether the Examiner has erred in determining that the combination of Kim ‘050, Pugel, and Kim ‘753teaches or would have suggested a video apparatus having a controller, “wherein when the controller determines that the analog signal is not a we[a]k signal according to the gain control signal, the controller disables all noise reduction functions of the video decoder and when the controller determines that the analog signal is a weak signal according to the gain control signal, Appeal 2012-011563 Application 11/602,313 4 the controller outputs the control signal to actuate a noise reduction function of the video decoder to generate the digital signal of low noise” (claim 1, emphasis added). III. FINDINGS OF FACT The following Findings of Fact (FF) are shown by a preponderance of the evidence. Kim ‘050 1. Kim ‘050 discloses a television having a broadcast receiver that provides channel management which includes a tuner 302 that receives the analog signal and passes a signal to an automatic gain control (AGC) amplifier 303 which performs automatic gain control on the broadcast signal with an intermediate frequency to amplify the broadcast signal to a fixed amplitude relative to the signal intensity; wherein, when the intensity of the broadcast signal is high, then the gain of the AGC amplifier 303 is lowered to obtain the fixed amplitude of the broadcast signal, otherwise, the gain is increased to reach the fixed amplitude of the broadcast signal (Fig. 3; ¶¶ [0035] and [0037]). 2. A signal intensity estimator 308 estimates the intensity of the broadcast signal using the gain set by the AGC amplifier 303 (Fig. 3; ¶¶ [0035] and [0038]). 3. A controller 310 couples to receive the signal intensity estimate from the signal intensity estimator 308 and produce control signals for memory 312, a graphic processor 311, and the tuner 302 (Fig. 3; ¶ [0035]). Appeal 2012-011563 Application 11/602,313 5 4. A digital demodulator 305, including a channel decoder 407, couples to receive the digital signal generated by an Analog-to-Digital Converter (ADC) 304 that couples to the AGC amplifier 303 (Figs. 3 and 4; ¶ [0035]). Pugel 5. Pugel discloses a fixed-gain amplifier used as low noise amplifier 116, which may be substituted for a gain-controlled amplifier with a proper gain control circuit to provide the same feature of noise reduction (Fig. 1; col. 4, ll. 5-7). Kim ‘753 6. Kim ‘753 discloses a system having a logic low noise amplifier that uses the hysteresis characteristic of a Schmitt trigger circuit and an AGC voltage to allow a weak electric-field signal to be amplified through a low noise amplification circuit unit, or in the alternative, to disable the low noise amplification circuit unit when a strong electric-field signal is detected such that the signal bypasses the low noise amplification circuit 120 (Fig. 2; ¶ [0014]). Effectively, the low noise amplifier is turned on to amplify the received weak electric-field signal and the low noise amplifier is turned off to allow the strong electric-field signal to pass without amplification and noise reduction (¶ [0102]). IV. ANALYSIS Claims 1, 3, 4, 7, and 10-12 Appellant contends that “including the low noise amplifier 100 of Kim ‘753 to be disposed between the antenna and the tuner in the television of Kim ‘050 will change the actual relative grades among the reception Appeal 2012-011563 Application 11/602,313 6 qualities of the PCT channels and thus render the intended purpose of Kim ‘050 . . . unsatisfactory” (App. Br. 9) since it “estimate[s] the actual reception quality grades among the PCT channels and correctly assign[s] the PCT channel having the finest reception quality to the virtual (VCT) channel (rule 1) or assign[s] PCT channels to a VCT channel in the priority order of their reception qualities (rule 2)” (App. Br. 6-7). Appellant argues that “the television of Kim ‘050 [already] include[s] an AGC amplifier 303 …, and thus there is no motivation or suggestion to include a redundant amplifier or low noise amplification circuit in Kim ‘050’s television, except in a hindsight attempt at reconstructing [Appellant’s] claimed invention” (App. Br. 8). However, the Examiner finds that the “modifying Kim ‘050 with [the low noise amplifier of] Pugel would provide the system an adaptive noise reduction system, thereby improving the picture for the user/display” (Ans. 5). The Examiner finds further “regarding disabling ‘all noise reduction functions’” that Kim ‘753 discloses “that in the event of a strong signal the low noise circuit is bypassed and when the signal is weak the signal is passed through the low noise amplification circuit” (id.). Kim ‘050 discloses a television having a broadcast receiver including a controller couples to an AGC amplifier and signal intensity estimator to receive the signal intensity estimate and to produce a control signals for the tuner (FF 1-3). The ADC generates a digital signal which is passed to the channel decoder (FF 4). We find that the channel decoder comprises a “video decoder” (claim 1). We find further that Kim ‘050’s television having the controller coupled with the signal intensity estimator comprises the “controller [that] determines [when] the analog signal is not a we[a]k Appeal 2012-011563 Application 11/602,313 7 signal according to the gain control signal … and … determines [when] the analog signal is a weak signal according to the gain control signal” (claim 1). Pugel discloses a low noise amplifier (FF 5). We find that Pugel’s low noise amplifier comprises “a noise reduction function” (claim 1). In addition, Kim ‘753 discloses a logic low noise amplifier that is enabled to amplify and provide noise reduction to a weak electric-field signal or, in the alternative, disabled to avoid amplification and noise reduction when the received signal is a strong electric-field signal (FF 6). We find that the controlling of noise reduction function of the low noise amplifier disclosed in Kim ‘753 comprises a controller, “wherein when controller determines that the analog signal is not a we[a]k signal …, the controller disables all noise reduction functions and when the controller determines that the analog signal is a weak signal according to the gain control signal, the controller outputs the control signal to actuate a noise reduction function … to generate the digital signal of low noise” (claim 1). Accordingly, we find that the combination of Kim ‘050, Pugel, and Kim ‘753 at least suggests providing “wherein when the controller determines that the analog signal is not a we[a]k signal according to the gain control signal, the controller disables all noise reduction functions of the video decoder and when the controller determines that the analog signal is a weak signal according to the gain control signal, the controller outputs the control signal to actuate a noise reduction function of the video decoder to generate the digital signal of low noise,” as specifically required by claim 1. Appeal 2012-011563 Application 11/602,313 8 Though Appellant contends that “including the low noise amplifier 100 of Kim ‘753 to be disposed between the antenna and the tuner in the television of Kim ‘050 will change the actual relative grades among the reception qualities of the PCT channels and thus render the intended purpose of Kim ‘050” (App. Br. 9), we find that Appellant has mistaken the Examiner’s proposed combination. In particular, the Examiner relies upon the controlling mechanism of the noise reduction function of the low noise amplifier of Kim ‘753 and not solely the amplifier or the placement thereof (Ans. 5). That is, the controlling mechanism that determines when the signal is weak to apply the noise reduction function of the low noise amplifier and when the signal is strong to bypass the noise reduction function is the feature that the Examiner relies upon to modify the broadcast receiver of Kim ‘050 (id.). Since Kim ‘050 discloses a television having a broadcast receiver having a controller and signal intensity estimator, Pugel discloses a low noise amplifier, and Kim ‘753 discloses a system having a controller and a low noise amplifier that controls whether noise reduction is applied based upon the strength of the signal, we conclude that the combination of one known element (Kim ‘050 broadcast receiver including the controller and signal intensity estimator) with another (Kim ‘753 discloses a system having a controller and a low noise amplifier that controls whether noise reduction is applied based upon the strength of the signal) would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. Thus, we find that a controller that receives a gain control signal and determines the intensity of the analog signal as taught by Kim ‘050 in addition to Pugel’s low noise amplifier or Kim ‘753’s system that controls Appeal 2012-011563 Application 11/602,313 9 the noise reduction function based upon the strength of the signal is no more than a simple arrangement of old elements, with each performing the same function it had been known to perform, yielding no more than one would expect from such an arrangement. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007). The skilled artisan would “be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle” since the skilled artisan is “a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” Id. at 420-21. Appellant has presented no evidence that combining Kim ‘050’s broadcast receiver with the noise reduction function (and control thereof), as disclosed in Kim ‘753, was “uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art” or “represented an unobvious step over the prior art.” Leapfrog Enterprises, Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing KSR, 550 U.S. at 418-19). We also agree with the Examiner’s explicit motivation that combining the references would be obvious to “improv[e] the picture for the user/display” (Ans. 6). The Supreme Court has stated that “[t]he combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007). Thus, we find no error in the Examiner’s finding that the combination of a controller that receives a gain control signal and determines the intensity of the analog signal as taught by Kim ‘050 in addition to Pugel’s low noise amplifier or Kim ‘753’s system that controls the noise reduction function based upon the strength of the signal, produces a controller that enables a Appeal 2012-011563 Application 11/602,313 10 noise reduction function when it detects that the received signal is weak and disables the noise reduction function when it detects that the signal is strong which would be obvious (Ans.5; FF 1-6). Accordingly, we find no error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Kim ‘050 in view of Pugel and Kim ‘753. Further, independent claims 7 and 12 having similar claim language and claims 3, 4, 10, and 11 (depending from claims 1 and 7) which have not been argued separately, fall with claim 1. Claims 5, 6, and 8 Appellant presents no separate argument for the patentability of dependent claims 5, 6, and 8. We therefore sustain the rejection of claims 5, 6, and 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Kim ‘050in view of Pugel, Kim ‘753, and Cugnini. V. CONCLUSION AND DECISION The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 3-8, and 10-12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) 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)(iv). AFFIRMED pgc