Ex Parte Newton et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 26, 2017

13809204 (P.T.A.B. May. 26, 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. 13/809,204 01/09/2013 Philip Steven Newton 2010P00716WOUS 5560 24737 7590 05/31/2017 PTTTT TPS TNTFT T FfTTTAT PROPFRTY fr STANDARDS EXAMINER 465 Columbus Avenue HASAN, MAINUL Suite 340 Valhalla, NY 10595 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2489 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/31/2017 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): marianne. fox @ philips, com debbie.henn @philips .com patti. demichele @ Philips, com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte PHILIP STEVEN NEWTON, ROBERT ALBERTUS BRONDIJK, and WIEBE DE HAAN Appeal 2017-000617 Application 13/809,204 Technology Center 2400 Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, JAMES R. HUGHES, and ERIC S. FRAHM, Administrative Patent Judges. HUGHES, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2017-000617 Application 13/809,204 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 1— 12 and 15. Claims 13 and 14 have been canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. The invention relates to transferring 3D video along with auxiliary data, such as graphical data or subtitles (Spec. 2:11—3:1). The 3D video data is arranged into a 2D transmission format by packing left view and right view data into 2D frames and then assembled into a transport stream (Spec. 9:13—20). A first version of auxiliary data, which comprises auxiliary left view and auxiliary right view data to be overlaid onto the left view and right view of the 3D video data, is also arranged into a corresponding 2D transmission format to be included in the transport stream (Spec. 9:21—26). Further, a second, 2D version of the auxiliary data with disparity data is also included in the transport stream, where the disparity data indicates a disparity—i.e., a horizontal displacement—to be applied when the 2D version of the auxiliary data is overlaid onto the left view and right view of the 3D video data (Spec. 10:10-21; 12:18—24). Thus, the invention includes a transport stream with 3D video data and two versions of auxiliary data: a version with a left view and right view, and a 2D version with disparity data (see Spec. 5:18—6:32). The two versions of auxiliary data allow the invention to accommodate different playback devices that handle auxiliary data, like subtitles, differently (Spec. 14:29-34). Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. Method of processing three dimensional [3D] video information for generating a data transport stream for 2 Appeal 2017-000617 Application 13/809,204 transferring of the 3D video information according to a 2D transmission format, in a receiver, - receiving the 3D video information comprising 3D video data and auxiliary data, the 3D video data comprising at least a left view and a right view to be displayed for respective eyes of a viewer for generating a 3D effect, the auxiliary data being arranged for display in an overlay area on the 3D video data, the method comprising: - arranging the 3D video data of the left view and the right view in a 2D frame for main video data according to the 2D transmission format in a main arrangement, - providing control data comprising parameters for a receiver for enabling the receiver to reproduce the main video data and overlaying the auxiliary data, - assembling the data transport stream including the 3D video data in the main arrangement, the auxiliary data and the control data, - providing an auxiliary left view and an auxiliary right view of the auxiliary data to be overlayed on the left view and the right view of the 3D video data, in an auxiliary arrangement corresponding to the main video transfer arrangement, and a 2D version of the auxiliary data and auxiliary disparity data indicative of the disparity to be applied to the 2D version of auxiliary data when overlayed on the left view and the right view, - arranging the auxiliary data of the auxiliary left view and the auxiliary right view in an auxiliary data stream according to the 2D transmission format in an auxiliary arrangement that corresponds to the main arrangement, - arranging the 2D version of the auxiliary data in a further auxiliary data stream, 3 Appeal 2017-000617 Application 13/809,204 - including, in the transport stream, the further auxiliary data stream, the auxiliary disparity data and a disparity format indicator indicative of the further auxiliary data stream. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Yamashita Suh (“Suh ‘306”) Suh (“Suh ‘886”) Suh (“Suh ‘074”) US 2010/0142924 A1 US 2011/0090306 A1 US 8,866,886 B2 WO 2010/085074 A2 June 10, 2010 Apr. 21,2011 Oct. 21,2014 July 29, 2010 REJECTIONS The Examiner made the following rejections: Claims 1, 7—12, and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Suh ‘074 and Yamashita. Claims 2 and 3 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Suh ‘074, Yamashita, and Suh ‘306. Claims 4—6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Suh ‘074, Yamashita, and Suh ‘886. ANALYSIS The Examiner finds the combination of Suh ‘074 and Yamashita discloses all the limitations of independent claim 1, including providing an auxiliary left view and an auxiliary right view of the auxiliary data to be overlayed on the left view and the right view of the 3D video data, in an auxiliary arrangement corresponding to the main video transfer arrangement, and a 2D version of the auxiliary data and auxiliary disparity data indicative of the disparity to be applied to the 2D version of 4 Appeal 2017-000617 Application 13/809,204 auxiliary data when overlayed on the left view and the right view (Final Act. 3—7; Ans. 4—5). Specifically, in the Answer, the Examiner finds Yamashita’s embodiment shown in Figure 6 teaches sending two versions of auxiliary data with 3D video data (Ans.1 4—5). Appellants contend “[tjhere is no teaching in Yamashita to send two versions of the data simultaneously” (App. Br. 11; see also Reply Br. 4—6). We agree with Appellants. Yamashita describes a system for the playback of a composite stereoscopic video that includes graphics, such as subtitles (see Yamashita 1112, 23). Yamashita’s Figure 6 shows an embodiment of processing stereoscopic video where the stereo mode for each plane—for example the “video plane,” or the “image plane” which includes subtitles—can be switched to ON or OFF (Yamashita H 270—281; Fig. 6). The Examiner finds Yamashita’s “subtitle plane could be ON or OFF, therefore the stream needs to include both the stereo or 3D version of the auxiliary data as well as the 2D version with horizontal disparity value associated with it in order for the subtitle to switch between 3D and 2D+disparity as the case may be” (Ans. 5). We disagree with the Examiner that the capability to switch the stereo mode between ON and OFF for subtitles means there must be two auxiliary data streams. Rather, Yamashita’s Figure 7 shows that stereo mode relies on using both left and right views of the subtitle data (Yamashita 11282—283; Fig. 7), while Figure 8 shows that just the left views of the subtitle data are used when not in stereo mode (Yamashita 1284; Fig. 8). That is, Yamashita simply uses either right and left views, or just left views, from the same auxiliary data stream to switch between ON and OFF stereo modes, and does not rely on two auxiliary data streams. 1 We refer herein to the Examiner’s Answer dated August 25, 2016. 5 Appeal 2017-000617 Application 13/809,204 We are, therefore, constrained by the record to find the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claim 1, independent claims 12 and 15 which recite commensurate limitations, and dependent claims 2—11 for similar reasons. CONCLUSION The Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1—12 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). DECISION For the above reasons, the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1—12 and 15 are reversed. REVERSED 6