Ex Parte Overton et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardNov 29, 2012

10885472 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 29, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte MICHAEL S. OVERTON, XINYU ZHU, and SCOTT A. JOHNSON Appeal 2010-002021 Application 10/885,472 Technology Center 2400 ____________ Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD, JR., ERIC S. FRAHM, and ANDREW J. DILLON, Administrative Patent Judges. DILLON, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 5, 18, 23, and 24. App. Br. 4.1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. STATEMENT OF THE CASE According to Appellants, “[t]he present invention relates to video timing, and more particularly to a video timing display for multi-rate 1 Throughout this opinion, we refer to the Appeal Brief (“App. Br.”) filed June 8, 2009 and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.”) mailed August 14, 2009. Appeal 2010-002021 Application 10/885,472 2 systems to allow a user to quickly, easily and precisely measure the timing difference between video signals of different rates.” Spec. p. 1, ll. 9-12. Claim 1 is illustrative, with paragraphing added and key disputed limitations emphasized: 1. A video timing display for measuring timing difference between video signals having different rates comprising a graphic display area on a display screen, the graphic display area including a reference indicator associated with one of the video signals and a plurality of timing indicators where the number of timing indicators represents the number of different phases between the video signals. The Examiner relies on the following as evidence of unpatentability: Mark US 4,631,533 Dec. 23, 1986 Augenbraun Grant US 2002/0023271 A1 US 2002/0087599 A1 Feb. 21, 2002 Jul. 4, 2002 THE REJECTIONS The Examiner rejected claims 1, 5, and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Mark. Ans. 3-4. The Examiner rejected claims 23 and 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Mark in view of Grant and/or Augenbraun. Ans. 4-5. Appeal 2010-002021 Application 10/885,472 3 ISSUE Based upon our review of the record, the arguments proffered by Appellants, and the findings of the Examiner, we address the following issue: Under § 102, has the Examiner erred in finding that Mark’s display of eddy current signals constitutes a display of phases between “video signals” as claimed? § 102 REJECTION OF CLAIMS 1, 5, AND 18 OVER MARK As reflected by the issue statement, independent claims 1 and 18 each require a display of phases between “video signals”. Claim 1 requires a display that represents the number of different phases between video signals of different rates. Claim 18 requires a step of displaying a plurality of phases between video signals of different rates. Claim 5 depends from claim 1. Mark’s invention displays an object’s eddy current as a signal of varying amplitude and phase. Mark, col. 1, ll. 5-36; abstract. The signal can be displayed as a strip chart (one chart per paired in-phase and in-quadrature signal components 4, 5 of Fig. 1) and Lissajous figure (one figure per quadrant of Fig. 2). Mark, col. 3, ll. 11-39; col. 4, ll. 55-67. Selecting a portion of a strip chart, via a cursor 30, creates a corresponding Lissajous figure. Mark, col. 4, ll. 17-27. Selecting a portion of a Lissajous figure, via the cursor 30, provides a corresponding phase angle. Mark 1:47-49; col. 5, ll. 10-12. Mark’s disclosed embodiment concurrently displays four signals, for four respective object depths, within four respective strip charts or Lissajous figures. Mark, col. 2, ll. 11-13; Figs. 1-2. Appeal 2010-002021 Application 10/885,472 4 The Examiner finds that Mark’s invention displays “video signals” of different rates, as claimed, because “[t]he eddy currents are represented as video signals” (Ans. 5) and “each of the four images in the respective quadrants corresponds to signals characterized by different frequencies (i.e. rates)” (Ans. 6). Further, the Examiner finds that Mark’s invention displays the phases between “video signals” because the “cursor 30 … can represent the phase per signal …, thereby providing data representing the phase differences per all four signals”. Ans. 4. Appellants argue: [A] “video signal”, as used in the present invention and as is apparent to one of ordinary skill in the video arts, refers to a signal that represents a series of images defined by consecutive frames of data which generally represent motion of objects within the images. The video signal has sync pulses that define the beginning of a frame/field and of each horizontal line of the frame image. … Claim 1 recites a video timing display for measuring timing differences between video signals having different rates. It is unclear as to what the Examiner is comparing such video signals in Mark. The eddy current signals are not video signals, but rather are merely current signals. Just because the eddy current signals are displayed graphically on a graphic display device does not convert them to video signals. App. Br. 10 (emphasis added). We agree with Appellants’ argument. As noted supra, claims 1 and 18 each require a display of phases between “video signals”. The claim term, “video signals”, must be given its plain meaning unless inconsistent with Appellants’ Specification. See e.g., In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321 (Fed. Cir. 1989). Given the plain meaning of “video signal”, as well as the Appeal 2010-002021 Application 10/885,472 5 disclosed background and summary of Appellants’ invention (Spec., p. 1, l. 8 – p. 4, l. 17), we hold that the claimed “video signals” are restricted to video signals as described by Appellants’ quoted argument. Turning to the plain meaning, the adjective “video” restricts the noun “signal”, not vice versa. Thus, “video signal” means a signal restricted to representing a video display, not a video display restricted to representing a signal (which would be a “signal video”). Only the later, incorrect meaning reads on Mark’s invention. Turning to Appellants’ Specification, the background and summary discuss only techniques for addressing offsets between horizontal and vertical timings of video signals; that is, between “video signals” as described by Appellants’ argument. Specifically, the background and summary discuss horizontal and vertical timings with respect to: aligning color frames (Spec., p. 1, l. 17 – p. 2, l. 9); aligning 24 Hz and 30 Hz frames (Spec., p. 2, ll. 10-24); a “SMPTE 318M” motion picture standard (Spec., p. 3, ll. 1-7);2 locking video signals to one another (Spec., p. 3, ll. 8-14); and, displaying “vertical and horizontal timing offsets of one video signal with respect to another video vertical and signal as a reference” (Spec., p. 4, l. 19 – p. 5, l. 14). For the foregoing reasons, we find the Examiner failed to apply the correct scope of “video signals” in addressing claims 1, 5, and 18. Accordingly, we reverse the § 102 rejection of claims 1, 5, and 18 over Mark. 2 “SMPTE” is an acronym for the “Society of Motion Picture & Television Engineers.” See e.g., https://www.smpte.org/. Appeal 2010-002021 Application 10/885,472 6 § 103 REJECTION OF CLAIMS 23 AND 24 OVER MARK IN VIEW OF GRANT AND/OR AUGENBRAUN The Examiner likewise failed to apply the correct scope of “video signals” in addressing claims 23 and 24. Ans. 4-5. Accordingly, we reverse the § 103 rejection of claims 23 and 24 over Mark in view of Grant and/or Augenbraun. ORDER The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 5, 18, 23, and 24 is reversed. REVERSED tkl