Ex Parte Zustak et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 15, 2017

13794000 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 15, 2017)

United States Patent and Trademark Office UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O.Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450 www.uspto.gov APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 13/794,000 03/11/2013 Frederick J. Zustak SA130022-US-NP 9613 36738 7590 03/17/2017 ROrTTT7 fr ASSOPTATRS EXAMINER 750 B STREET HAGHANI, SHAD AN E SUITE 3120 SAN DIEGO, CA 92101 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2485 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/17/2017 ELECTRONIC Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding. The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication. Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the following e-mail address(es): Noelle@rogitz.com eofficeaction @ appcoll.com John@rogitz.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte FREDERICK J. ZUSTAK, BRANT CANDELORE, GRAHAM CLIFT, KAZUMOTO KONDO, and STEVEN MATIN RICHMAN Appeal 2016-001376 Application 13/794,0001 Technology Center 2400 Before MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, KEVIN C. TROCK, and DAVID J. CUTITTAII, Administrative Patent Judges. CUTITTA, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON REQUEST FOR REHEARING This is a decision on Appellants’ Request for Rehearing. Appellants’ Request for Rehearing, filed under § 41.52, requests that we reconsider our Decision of January 5, 2017, wherein we entered a new ground of rejection of independent claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kishi and Tsujii. We have reconsidered the new ground of rejection made in our Decision in light of Appellants’ comments in the request, but Appellants’ arguments do not convince us any points were misapprehended or overlooked or that we erred in rejecting claim 1 under § 103(a). We, therefore, decline to change the Decision. Appellants’ Request for Rehearing is denied. 1 According to Appellants, the subject application has been licensed by Sony Corp. to Technicolor since the appeal was filed. See Request 1. Appeal 2016-001376 Application 13/794,000 Claim 1 Independent claim 1 under appeal reads as follows: 1. Method, comprising: detecting that a focus of at least one viewer is on a first video display region of a video display having at least a second video display region; and responsive to detecting the focus of at least one viewer is on the first video display region, decoding all pixels in a predetermined area around a center of the first region and decoding only a fraction of pixels outside the predetermined area, the fraction being greater than zero. DISCUSSION Appellants argue the Board erred in newly rejecting claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kishi and Tsujii. Specifically, Appellants argue the cited combination fails to teach or suggest “decoding only a fraction of pixels outside the predetermined area, the fraction being greater than zero” because “[t]he RUSM [(relied-upon subject matter)] of Tsujii. . . does not teach decoding anything outside of a display area. Instead, the RUSM of Tsujii unmistakably teaches that the entire ‘input image’ is processed to produce a smaller reduced-scale image” and “[t]here is no reason from either reference to decode all pixels in a predetermined area around a center of the first region while decoding only a non-zero fraction of pixels outside the predetermined area.” Request 2. We find this argument unpersuasive because Appellants argue the references individually, when the rejection is based on the combination of references. It is well established that one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on 2 Appeal 2016-001376 Application 13/794,000 combinations of references. See In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091 (Fed. Cir. 1986). As we indicate in our Decision, we “agree with the Examiner’s finding that “Kishi discloses ‘responsive to detecting the focus of at least one viewer is on the first video display region, decoding all pixels in a predetermined area around a center of the first region.’” Decision 6 (citing Final Act. 2). Appellants acknowledge Kishi teaches decoding no pixels outside of the area of interest. Appeal Br. 8. Thus, consistent with Appellants’ acknowledgment, we find Kishi teaches “decoding only a fraction of pixels outside the predetermined area,” the fraction being zero. As we note in our Decision, however, Kishi does not disclose “decoding only a fraction of pixels outside the predetermined area, the fraction being greater than zero.” Kishi || 58—59, 98. Tsujii describes an image reduction section 301 that decodes and “outputs a reduced-scale image of about (336x336) pixels with respect to an input image of (2,688x2,688) pixels” to shorten arithmetic operation time (i.e., reduce processor load). Tsujii, col. 6,11. 10-21. We find one skilled in the art would have found it obvious to combine the teachings of Kishi and Tsujii by modifying Kishi’s data decoding unit 2003 to decode a non-zero fraction of pixels outside of the display area as taught by Tsujii. Appellants argue “[in] no case would the skilled artisan be motivated to decode one region using a first resolution and decoding another region using a second, non-zero resolution different from the first.” Request 3. We disagree. One skilled in the art would have found it obvious to modify Kishi’s decoding of a fraction of pixels where the fraction is zero to decode a non-zero fraction of pixels as taught by Tsujii. The modification 3 Appeal 2016-001376 Application 13/794,000 would result in reduced processor load compared to a device that decodes all pixels outside of the display area while improving on Kishi by allowing pixels outside of the display area to still be viewed, albeit at reduced resolution compared to pixels inside the display area. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to apply the known improvement technique of Tsujii in the same way to the base method of Kishi to produce predictable results, i.e., enhanced resolution of pixels located outside the display region in comparison with Tsujii, while still reducing processor load in comparison with a device that decodes all pixels in and outside the display region. KSRInt’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007) Appellants do not set forth a rebuttal or effectively articulate contrary evidence to the motivation to combine set forth in the Decision. We are, thus, not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments, and find the rationale provides sufficient “reasoning with . . . rational underpinnings.” KSR 550 U.S. at 418; see also In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“[R]ejections on obviousness grounds . . . [require] some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness”) (cited with approval in KSR at 418). We are unpersuaded by Appellants’ contention that “the skilled artisan would be led away from increasing processor load over what it would be otherwise by decoding pixels outside Kishi’s display region that Kishi does not teach are decoded at all.” Request 3. Although Appellants direct our attention to the disclosure of Kishi, Appellants do not proffer sufficient evidence or argument that Kishi criticizes, discredits, or otherwise discourages the claimed solution. In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004). 4 Appeal 2016-001376 Application 13/794,000 Appellants argue Kishi fails to disclose “detecting that a focus of at least one viewer is on a first video display region,” as claimed, because the cited portion of Kishi “says nothing about detecting viewer focus; it merely describes, at its most relevant, receiving a cursor click on a region .... The viewer’s actual focus can be anywhere.” Appeal Br. 6 (citing Kishi 199). Appellants request “an analysis of the ‘focus’ limitation purportedly taught by Kishi and argued by Appellants], and also a claim construction, which was argued by Appellants].” Request 5 (citing Appeal Br. 6). We find Appellants’ arguments unpersuasive because Appellants fail to establish the Examiner’s interpretation of “focus” is not the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with Appellants’ Specification. See In re Am. Acad. ofSci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Under a broadest reasonable interpretation, the words of the claim must be given their plain meaning unless the plain meaning is inconsistent with the Specification. In reZletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321 (Fed. Cir. 1989); Chef America, Inc. v. Lamb-Weston, Inc., 358 F.3d 1371, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The plain meaning of a term means the ordinary and customary meaning given to the term by those of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. In re Suitco Surface, Inc., 603 F.3d 1255, 1259-60 (Fed. Cir. 2010). The presumption that a term is given its ordinary and customary meaning may be rebutted by Appellants clearly setting forth a different definition of the term in the Specification. In re Morris, 111 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997). The Examiner proffers two dictionary definitions as demonstrative of the plain meaning of focus: Focus, defined by dictionary.com, is a central point of attraction, attention, or activity. Defined by Meriam- 5 Appeal 2016-001376 Application 13/794,000 Webster.com, it is a center of activity, attraction, or attention; or a point of concentration. Ans. 4. In their rebuttal, however, Appellants fail to demonstrate that “focus” has been expressly defined in Appellants’ Specification in a way that is inconsistent with the Examiner’s interpretation. Appellants also fail to proffer a different construction of “focus” but instead argue the Examiner’s interpretation is unreasonable because Kishi merely describes receiving a cursor click on a region. Request 4; Appeal Br. 6 (citing Kishi | 99). Accordingly, we determine that the Examiner’s interpretation of the term “focus” is not inconsistent with Appellants’ Specification and is, therefore, not shown to be erroneous. In light of this interpretation, we agree with the Examiner’s finding that in Kishi, by moving the display region to encompass the region of interest, the user is selecting the center of activity, attraction, attention, and concentration and that the area of focus is the designated region of Kishi. Ans. 5 (citing Kishi 199). We, therefore, agree Kishi discloses “detecting that a focus of at least one viewer is on a first video display region,” as recited in claim 1. Summary Appellants have not persuaded us we misapprehended or overlooked the teachings of Kishi or Tsujii or that we erred in rejecting claim 1 under § 103(a). 6 Appeal 2016-001376 Application 13/794,000 DECISION In view of the preceding discussion, we grant Appellants’ request to reconsider our Decision to the extent we have reconsidered our Decision in view of Appellants’ arguments made in the Request for Rehearing, but we decline to modify the new ground of rejection as set forth in our Decision. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv). REQUEST FOR REHEARING DENIED 7