Ex Parte SIM

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 21, 2013

11678869 (P.T.A.B. May. 21, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte YONG-HOON SIM
____________________

Appeal 2012-012509
Application 11/678,869
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 2012-012509
Application 11/678,869

2
I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1-15. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

A. INVENTION
Appellant’s invention is directed to a method and apparatus for
improving the transition characteristic of a chrominance signal that generates
an edge-improved chrominance signal using a differential signal of a
luminance signal and a differential signal of the chrominance signal to
generate a transition-improved chrominance signal for the purpose of
removing an undershoot and overshoot of the edge-improved chrominance
signal (Abstract).

B. ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
Claim 1 is exemplary:
1. A method of receiving an image signal including a
luminance signal and a chrominance signal and outputting a
transition-improved chrominance signal, the method
comprising:
carrying out multiplication on the sign value of a first
order differential signal of the luminance signal, the sign value
of a second order differential signal of the luminance signal, a
first order differential signal of the chrominance signal and a
gain constant to generate an edge chrominance signal;
adding the edge chrominance signal and the chrominance
signal to generate an edge- improved chrominance signal;
detecting a minimum value of the chrominance signal
from a predetermined portion of a positive section of a second
order differential signal of the chrominance signal, outputting
Appeal 2012-012509
Application 11/678,869

3
the minimum value as the value of the transition-improved
chrominance signal in a section where the value of the edge-
improved chrominance signal is lower than the minimum value,
and outputting the edge-improved chrominance signal as the
transition-improved chrominance signal in a section where the
value of the edge-improved chrominance signal is higher than
the minimum value; and
detecting a maximum value of the chrominance signal
from a predetermined portion of a negative section of the
second order differential signal of the chrominance signal,
outputting the maximum value as the value of the transition-
improved chrominance signal in a section where the value of
the edge-improved chrominance signal is higher than the
maximum value, and outputting the edge-improved
chrominance signal as the transition-improved chrominance
signal in a section where the value of the edge-improved
chrominance signal is lower than the maximum value.

C. REJECTIONS
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Faroudja US 4,030,121 June 14, 1977
Ohara US 5,920,357 July 6, 1999
Demas US 7,454,081 B2 Nov. 18, 2008
Appellant’s Admitted Prior Art (APA)

Claims 1, 3-9, and 11-15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Faroudja in view of Demas and Ohara.
Claims 2 and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Faroudja in view of Demas and APA.

Appeal 2012-012509
Application 11/678,869

4
II. ISSUES
The dispositive issues before us are whether the Examiner has erred in
determining that the combination of Faroudja, Demas, and Ohara teaches or
would have suggested:
1) “outputting the minimum value [of the chrominance signal] as the
value of the transition-improved chrominance signal in a section where the
value of the edge-improved chrominance signal is lower than the minimum
value,”
2) “outputting the edge-improved chrominance signal as the
transition-improved chrominance signal in a section where the value of the
edge-improved chrominance signal is higher than the minimum value,”
3) “outputting the maximum value as the value of the transition-
improved chrominance signal in a section where the value of the edge-
improved chrominance signal is higher than the maximum value,” and
4) “outputting the edge-improved chrominance signal as the
transition-improved chrominance signal in a section where the value of the
edge-improved chrominance signal is lower than the maximum value”
(claim 1, emphasis added).

III. FINDINGS OF FACT
The following Findings of Fact (FF) are shown by a preponderance of
the evidence.
Faroudja
1. Faroudja discloses a system and a method of shortening
transition time occurring in video signals to crispen the luminance and
chroma signals of a color television video signal; wherein, the system
Appeal 2012-012509
Application 11/678,869

5
includes circuitry for multiplying a function of the full wave rectified first
differential of the input video signal by a function of the second differential
of the input video signal and then adding the waveform resulting from such a
product to the properly delayed input signal to provide a crispened output
video signal (Abstract; col. 11, ll. 50-56). In particular, the delayed first
differentiated chroma signal and the filtered/limited second differential of
luminance are multiplied together by the four quadrant multiplier 216 to
produce as a product the crispening signal (waveform I") which is applied to
an adder 218 along with the input chroma signal (waveform G") delayed by
delay element 220 to produce a crispened output signal (waveform J") (Fig.
10; col. 12, ll. 33-42).
Demas
2. Demas discloses a system and method that enhance edges in
images by detecting and correcting edges of the luma and the chroma
components of the image; wherein, a luma edge detection block 211 uses the
product of the first and second derivatives of luma signal (Figs. 2 and 3;
Abstract; col. 4, l. 58- col. 5, l.31).
Ohara
3. Ohara discloses a digital color transient improvement (CTI)
method and apparatus for enhancing the color sharpness of a chrominance
signal using a median logic circuit (30) that selects values from an
chrominance input signal A, a derivative of the once delayed input
chrominance signal B, and a twice delayed input chrominance signal C to
provide an output signal that has steep color edges without any undershoot
or overshoot (Figs. 3 and 5C; Abstract).
Appeal 2012-012509
Application 11/678,869

6
4. In particular, at time t1, the median logic circuit outputs the
twice delayed input signal C when the derivative signal B is less that signal
C; until time t2, where the value of the derivative signal B is greater than the
signal C (Fig. 5C; col. 4, l. 63–col. 5, l. 1). At such point in time, the
median logic circuit outputs the value of derivative signal B as the value of
the output signal 18 until time t3 when the input signal A is less than the
derivative signal B, where it selects the value of the input signal A (Fig. 5C;
col.5, ll. 1-5). When the value of the input signal A becomes less than the
twice delayed input signal C during time t4, the value of signal C is selected
as output until the derivative signal B is less than the value of signal C
during time t5 (Fig. 5C; col. 5, ll. 8-15). Finally, when the values of signal B
drops below the value of signal A, the value of signal A are selected as
output during period t6 (Fig. 5C; col. 5, ll. 17-20).

IV. ANALYSIS
Claim 1, 3-9, and 11-15
Appellant contends that “in Ohara, only a chrominance signal is used”
but the “luminance signal is not used” (App. Br. 8) (emphasis omitted).
Appellant argue that “the method of removing the undershoot and overshoot
of in accordance with exemplary embodiments of the present invention is
different from that of Ohara” (App. Br. 8-9).
However, the Examiner finds that the Faroudja and the Demas
references disclose the use of a luminance signal to enhance a chrominance
signal and “Ohara is used as a reference to show the technique for removing
the overshoot and undershoot” (Ans. 28). The Examiner notes that “while
Ohara does not teach enhancing a chrominance signal with a luminance
Appeal 2012-012509
Application 11/678,869

7
signal, the limitations that Ohara is being used to teach do not involve a
luminance signal” (id.).
We give the claim its broadest reasonable interpretation consistent
with the Specification. See In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir.
1997) (citations omitted). Claim 1 does not define what “minimum value of
the chrominance signal” means, includes, or represents other than it is from
a predetermined portion of a positive section of a second order differential
signal of the chrominance signal. We find further that claim 1 does not
define how the first or second order differential is calculated for either one
of the luminance or chrominance signals. The Specification is silent as to its
derivation.
We note that “minimum value” and “second order differential signal”
do not change the functionality of or provide any additional function to the
“detecting” or “outputting” steps of claim 1, i.e., do not limit how the data is
detected or outputted. That is, the terms “minimum value” and “second
order differential signal” are merely descriptions of the type of data that is
being detected and outputted. Non-functional descriptive material will not
distinguish the invention from the prior art in terms of patentability. See In
re Ngai, 367 F.3d 1336, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2004) and In re Gulack, 703 F.2d
1381, 1385 (Fed. Circ. 1983). Thus, we give “minimum value of the
chrominance signal” its broadest reasonable interpretation as a signal/data
relating to the chrominance signal.
Similarly, we give “maximum value of the chrominance signal” its
broadest reasonable interpretation as a signal/data relating to the
chrominance signal.
Appeal 2012-012509
Application 11/678,869

8
Although claim 1 defines that the “edge-improved chrominance
signal” is equal to the product of the sign value of a first order differential
signal of the luminance signal, the sign value of a second order differential
signal of the luminance signal, a first order differential signal of the
chrominance signal and a gain constant added to the chrominance signal, we
similarly note that neither the claims nor the Specification define how the
first and second order differential signals are calculated or derived for either
the luminance or the chrominance signals.
We note that “edge-improved,” “sign value of a first order differential
signal,” “sign value of a second order differential signal,” and “first order
differential signal” also do not change the functionality of or provide any
additional function to the “carrying out multiplication,” “detecting” or
“outputting” steps of claim 1, and are merely descriptions of the type of data
that is being multiplied, detected, and outputted. Thus, we give “edge-
improved chrominance signal” its broadest reasonable interpretation as a
signal/data relating to the luminance and chrominance signals.
Likewise, claim 1 does not define “transition-improved chrominance
signal” other than it equals the minimum value of the chrominance signal
when the edge-improved chrominance signal is lower than the minimum
value or it equals the edge-improved chrominance signal when the edge-
improved chrominance signal is higher than the minimum value, wherein the
term “transition-improved” is merely a description of the type of data that is
being outputted. In view of our claim construction above, we give
“transition-improved chrominance signal” its broadest reasonable
interpretation as a signal/data relating to the luminance and chrominance
signals.
Appeal 2012-012509
Application 11/678,869

9
Faroudja discloses a system and a method of shortening transition
time occurring in video signals to crispen the luminance and chroma signals;
wherein, a delayed first differentiated chroma signal and the filtered/limited
second differential of luminance are multiplied together (FF 1). This
product is added with a delayed input chroma signal to produce a crispened
output signal (id.). We find product of the delayed first differentiated
chroma signal and the filtered/limited second differential of luminance
added to the delayed input chroma signal represents a signal relating to the
luminance and chrominance signals. We note further that the delayed first
differentiated chroma signal represents a signal relating to the chrominance
signal.
In addition, Demas discloses a system that enhances edges in images
having a method that includes the use of the product of the first and second
derivatives of luma signal to detect and correct edges of the luma component
of an image (FF 2). We find that the product of the first and second
derivatives of luma signal represents a signal relating to the luminance
signal.
Furthermore, Ohara discloses a digital CTI method and apparatus for
enhancing the color sharpness of a chrominance signal using a median logic
circuit that selects values from the input signal A, a derivative of the once
delayed input signal B, and a twice delayed input signal C to provide an
output signal that has steep color edges without any undershoot or overshoot
(FF 3).
Appeal 2012-012509
Application 11/678,869

10
An annotated version of Ohara’s Figure 5C is reproduced below:

Figure 5C depicts a graph of the three input signals A, B, and C
selected by the median logic circuit, whereby the highlighted composite
output signal of the median logic circuit is identified by the signal having a
series of shaded dots (col. 3, ll. 25-31).

As illustrated above, at time t1, the median logic circuit selects the
twice delayed input chrominance signal C when the derivative of the
chrominance signal B is less that signal C; until time t2, where the value of
the derivative of the chrominance signal B is greater than the signal C (FF
4). We find that outputting of signal C when signal B is lower than signal C
to be the outputting a first signal relating to the chrominance signal when a
second signal relating to the chrominance signal is lower than the first
signal. We find further that the outputting of signal B when the value of
signal B is higher than that of signal C to be the outputting the second signal
relating to the chrominance signal when the second signal is higher than the
first signal relating to the chrominance signal.
In view of our claim construction above, we find that the combination
of Faroudja, Demas, and Ohara at least suggests providing “outputting the
minimum value as the value of the transition-improved chrominance signal
Appeal 2012-012509
Application 11/678,869

11
in a section where the value of the edge-improved chrominance signal is
lower than the minimum value, and outputting the edge-improved
chrominance signal as the transition-improved chrominance signal in a
section where the value of the edge-improved chrominance signal is higher
than the minimum value” (claim 1).
Further, as illustrated supra, Ohara also discloses that at time t3 when
the value of the derivative of the chrominance signal B is higher than that of
the input chrominance signal A, the system outputs the value of the input
chrominance signal A; yet, when chrominance signal A becomes lower than
twice delayed input chrominance signal C, signal C is output (FF 4). We
find the outputting of signal A when signal B is higher than signal A to be
outputting a third signal relating to the chrominance signal when the second
signal relating to the chrominance signal is higher than the third signal. We
find further that the outputting of the signal C when signal C is lower than
the third signal A represents the outputting of the first signal relating to the
chrominance signal when the third signal relating to the chrominance signal
is lower than the third signal.
In view of our claim construction above, we find that the combination
of Faroudja, Demas, and Ohara at least suggests providing “outputting the
maximum value as the value of the transition-improved chrominance signal
in a section where the value of the edge-improved chrominance signal is
higher than the maximum value, and outputting the edge-improved
chrominance signal as the transition-improved chrominance signal in a
section where the value of the edge-improved chrominance signal is lower
than the maximum value” (claim 1).
Appeal 2012-012509
Application 11/678,869

12
Accordingly, we find that Appellant has not shown that the Examiner
erred in rejecting claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Faroudja in view of
Demas and Ohara. Further, independent claim 7 reciting similar claim
language and claims 3-6, 8, 9, and 11-15 (depending from claims 1 and 7)
which have not been argued separately, fall with claim 1.
Claims 2 and 10
Appellant argues that claims 2 and 10 (depending from claims 1 and 7
respectively) are patentable over the cited prior art for the same reasons
asserted with respect to claim 1 (App. Br. 9 and 11).
As noted supra, however, we find that the combined teaching of
Faroudja, Demas, and Ohara at least suggests all the features of claim 1. We
therefore affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2 and 10 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Faroudja in view of Demas and APA.

V. CONCLUSION AND DECISION
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1-15 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

llw