Ex Parte Zhong

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardOct 29, 2012

10980200 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 29, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE _____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD _____________ Ex parte SHENG ZHONG _____________ Appeal 2010-005275 Application 10/980,200 Technology Center 2600 ______________ Before, ERIC S. FRAHM, DAVID M. KOHUT, and RAMA G. ELLURU, Administrative Patent Judges. KOHUT, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2010-005275 Application 10/980,200 2 This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the final rejection of claims 1-30. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse the Examiner’s rejection of these claims. INVENTION The invention is directed to a method, computer-readable storage medium, and system for processing a video signal through the combination of two filters: an infinite impulse response (IIR) filter and a polyphase filter (PPF). Spec. 4-5. Claim 1 is representative of the invention and is reproduced below: 1. A method for processing a video signal, the method comprising: selecting infinite impulse response (IIR) filter coefficients for implementing an IIR filter for filtering a video signal during scaling; selecting polyphase filter coefficients for implementing a polyphase filter for filtering the video signal during the scaling; and filtering the video signal during the scaling, using a combination of the IIR filter having the selected IIR filter coefficients and the polyphase filter having the selected polyphase filter coefficients. REFERENCES Rossum US 7,280,878 B1 Oct. 9, 2007 (filed Oct. 27, 1999) Wang US 7,391,933 B2 June 24, 2008 (filed Oct. 30, 2003) Appeal 2010-005275 Application 10/980,200 3 REJECTION AT ISSUE Claims 1-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Rossum and Wang. Ans. 3-6. ISSUE Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Rossum and Wang teaches or suggests selecting infinite impulse response (IIR) filter coefficients for implementing an IIR filter for filtering a video signal during scaling? 1 ANALYSIS Claim 1 recites “selecting infinite impulse response (IIR) filter coefficients for implementing an IIR filter for filtering a video signal during scaling.” Independent claims 11 and 21 contain a similar limitation. Claims 2-10, 12-20, and 22-30 are dependent upon claims 1, 11, and 21 (respectively). The Examiner finds that Rossum teaches the IIR filter and discloses two filters in Table 3. Ans. 8. Additionally, the Examiner finds that in selecting one of the filters, the coefficients that go with them would also be selected. Ans. 8. Appellant argues that Rossum’s Table 3 illustrates specifications for a filter based upon the sampling rate of the input signal but there is no discussion of filter coefficients or selection of filter coefficients. App. Br. 6; Reply Br. 5. We agree with Appellant. Rossum, in Table 3, discloses specifications for an IIR upsampling filter. Col. 13, ll. 45-55. However, the Examiner has failed to indicate 1 Appellant makes additional arguments with respect to claims 1-30. App. Br. 5-19; Reply Br. 3-10. We will not address the additional arguments as this issue is dispositive of the appeal. Appeal 2010-005275 Application 10/980,200 4 which part of this Table constitutes the filter coefficients, whether specific coefficients are selected, and whether one of the filters in the Table is even selected. As a result, the Examiner has not provided sufficient evidence to support the finding that since one of the filters from Table 3 is selected then the coefficients corresponding to the filter are also selected. Thus, the Examiner has not borne the initial burden of presenting a prima facie case of obviousness. See In re Oeticker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992). Therefore, we cannot sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-30. CONCLUSION The Examiner erred in finding that the combination of Rossum and Wang teaches or suggests selecting infinite impulse response (IIR) filter coefficients for implementing an IIR filter for filtering a video signal during scaling. SUMMARY The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-30 is reversed. REVERSED ELD