Ex Parte SIMDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 21, 201311678869 (P.T.A.B. May. 21, 2013) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation