Ex Parte Ramos et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardNov 9, 2012

11215571 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 9, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES ____________ Ex parte JEREMY RAMOS, JASON WALTUCH, and CHRISTOPHER J. BUTERA ____________ Appeal 2010-006846 Application 11/215,571 Technology Center 2600 ____________ Before JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO, JEFFREY S. SMITH, and JOHN A. EVANS, Administrative Patent Judges. RUGGIERO, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection of claims 1-21, which are all of the pending claims. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner, we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed July 30, 2009), the Answer (mailed Nov. Appeal 2010-006846 Application 11/215,571 2 13, 2009), and the Reply Brief (filed Jan. 11, 2010). We have considered in this decision only those arguments Appellants actually raised in the Briefs. Any other arguments which Appellants could have made but chose not to make in the Briefs are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). Appellants’ Invention Appellants’ invention relates to the processing of digital video data in which one or more optical sensor modules generate serial digital video signals of captured images which are processed by a reconfigurable computer coupled to the one or more optical modules. The reconfigurable computer is configured to implement a digital filter which functions to remove data pertaining to one or more of color, sound, and control symbols from the serial digital video signal. The reconfigurable computer includes one or more memories which store the filtered digital video signal as a memory-mapped image. See generally Spec. ¶ [0008]. Claim 1 is illustrative of the invention and reads as follows: 1. A digital video processing system, the system comprising: one or more optical sensor modules adapted to generate serial digital video signals of captured images; and a reconfigurable computer coupled to the one or more optical sensor modules configured to process the serial digital video signal, wherein the reconfigurable computer is further configured to implement a first digital filter adapted to remove from the serial digital video signal data pertaining to one or more of color, sound, and control symbols, and wherein the reconfigurable computer is further configured to implement one or more Appeal 2010-006846 Application 11/215,571 3 memories adapted to store the serial digital video signal filtered by the first digital filter, as a memory-mapped image, wherein each pixel of the memory-mapped image is mapped to a specific memory address in the one or more memories. The Examiner’s Rejections The Examiner’s Answer cites the following prior art references: Kamel US 4,746,976 May 24, 1988 Blackmon US 5,493,392 Feb. 20, 1996 Ludgate US 6,133,956 Oct. 17, 2000 Okuda US 6,493,467 B1 Dec. 10, 2002 Ogura US 6,774,940 B1 Aug. 10, 2004 Sugimori US 6,958,772 B1 Oct. 25, 2005 (filed Jan. 18, 2000) Gagnon US 7,027,628 B1 Apr. 11, 2006 (filed Nov. 13, 2001) Oya US 7,116,357 B1 Oct. 3, 2006 (filed Mar. 14, 1996) Claims 1-4 and 6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Gagnon in view of Okuda. Claims 7 and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Gagnon in view of Okuda and Ogura. Claim 5 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Gagnon in view of Okuda and Sugimori. Claims 8 and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Gagnon in view of Okuda and Ludgate. Claims 10, 11, and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Gagnon in view of Okuda and Kamel. Claim 12 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Gagnon in view of Okuda, Kamel, and Ludgate. Appeal 2010-006846 Application 11/215,571 4 Claim 14 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Gagnon in view of Okuda and Blackmon. Claims 15-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Gagnon in view of Okuda and Oya. ANALYSIS Claims 1-4 and 6 Appellants’ arguments, with respect to the obviousness rejection of independent claim 1 based on the combination of Gagnon and Okuda, contend that neither applied reference, individually or collectively, teaches all of the claimed elements. In particular, Appellants contend that Gagnon has no teaching or suggestion of removing color data from a video image as claimed. According to Appellants (App. Br. 11-13; Reply Br. 2-5), the Examiner erred in equating the claimed removal of color data with Gagnon’s disclosure of adjusting the value of color data to increase or decrease the presence of color in an image. Appellants also contend (App. Br. 13) that Okuda’s generalized disclosure of nonlinear image processing such as color correction does not remedy the deficiencies of Gagnon. We do not agree with Appellants. Our interpretation of the disclosure of Gagnon as it relates to appealed independent claim 1 coincides with that of the Examiner. As explained by the Examiner (Ans. 16), Gagnon’s disclosure of a color correction filter 720 which adjusts the value of color data in a decreasing direction reasonably corresponds to the claimed removal of data “pertaining to” color (col. 8, ll. 39-67). As also alluded to by the Examiner (Ans. 16), contrary to Appellants’ contentions, there is no claimed requirement that all existence of color data Appeal 2010-006846 Application 11/215,571 5 be removed. In other words, even if color data remains in Gagnon after adjustment of the color data value to a decreased level, data “pertaining to” color has nonetheless been removed in order to arrive at the decreased color data value. We also find that, contrary to Appellants’ generalized conclusion (Reply Br. 5), the Examiner has provided a valid articulated line of reasoning with a rational underpinning to support the conclusion of obviousness with respect to the proposed combination of Gagnon and Okuda. We agree with the Examiner that a skilled artisan would have recognized and appreciated that Okuda’s teaching of a memory mapped image processing feature would have served as an obvious enhancement in the system of Gagnon (Ans. 5). KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). Lastly, we are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument that Gagnon is non-analogous art since it is not reasonably pertinent to the problem with which the invention is concerned (App. Br. 10; Reply Br. 7). As previously discussed, Gagnon discloses a color correction filter which removes color data from a video signal as in the instant claimed invention. For the above reasons, the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of independent claim 1, as well as dependent claims 2-4 and 6 not separately argued by Appellants, is sustained. Claims 5 and 7-21 We also sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejections of 5 and 7-21 based on separate combinations of the Gagnon/Okuda combination with Ogura, Sugimori, Ludgate, Kamel, Blackmon, and Oya.. Appellants (App. Appeal 2010-006846 Application 11/215,571 6 Br. 14-22; Reply Br. 4-5) have not argued the rejected claims with any particularity but, instead, have relied upon arguments asserted against the rejection of independent claim 1, which arguments we have found unpersuasive as discussed supra. CONCLUSION OF LAW Based on the analysis above, we conclude that the Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1-21 for obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). DECISION We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). 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)(2010). AFFIRMED rwk