Christophe Chevance et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Apr 23, 2020

14348107 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Apr. 23, 2020)

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.
14/348,107 02/11/2015 Christophe Chevance 2011P00068WOUS 1048
131384 7590 04/23/2020
Volpe and Koenig, P.C. and InterDigital
30 S. 17th Street 18th Floor
Philadelphia, PA 19103
EXAMINER
EDWARDS, TYLER B
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2488
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/23/2020 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):
eoffice@vklaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte CHRISTOPHE CHEVANCE, PHILIPPE SALMON, and
YANNICK OLIVIER
Appeal 2018-007440
Application 14/348,107
Technology Center 2400
Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, CATHERINE SHIANG, and
JOYCE CRAIG, Administrative Patent Judges.
MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 11–19. See Final Act. 1. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as the assignee of
record, Thomson Licensing DTV, a company located in France. Appeal Br.
3.
Appeal 2018-007440
Application 14/348,107
2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a device and method for intra-encoding
image blocks, storage medium carrying and use of a processing device for
decoding intra-encoded image blocks. See Spec. 1.
Claim 11, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
11. Method for intra-encoding of an image block, comprising
quantizing a transform of a residual of an intra-prediction
of the image block using a quantization parameter value and
encoding the quantized transform, and
using an already used quantization parameter value, the
corresponding coding cost and a target bit rate for determining
the quantization parameter value, said already used quantization
parameter value and corresponding costs being already used for
quantizing of a further image block close resembling the image
block to be encoded or having a same complexity as the image
block to be encoded.
See Appeal Br., Claims App. 14.
REFERENCE
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Leontaris et al. US 2011/0090960 A1 Apr. 21, 2011
REJECTIONS
Claims 11–12 and 15–19 are rejected under pre–AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Leontaris et al., hereinafter referred to as
Leontaris. Final Act. 4–10; Appeal Br. 6.
Claims 13–14 are rejected under pre–AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Leontaris. Final Act. 10–13. Appeal Br. 7.
Appeal 2018-007440
Application 14/348,107
3
OPINION
Anticipation of Claims 11–12 and 15–19 by Leontaris
Appellant argues inter alia that Leontaris does not disclose the
limitation of claim 11 reciting:
using an already used quantization parameter value, the
corresponding coding cost and a target bit rate for determining
the quantization parameter value, said already used quantization
parameter value and corresponding costs being already used for
quantizing of a further image block close resembling the image
block to be encoded or having a same complexity as the image
block to be encoded.
See Appeal Br. 7–11.
Appellant argues that the Examiner erred because paragraph 65 of
Leontaris does not disclose “quantizing of a further image block close
resembling the image block to be encoded or having a same complexity as
the image block to be encoded,” as required by claim 11. Appeal Br. 8.
For anticipation under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102, “each and every
element of the claimed invention” must be disclosed either explicitly or
inherently, and the elements must be “arranged or combined in the same way
as in the claim.” See In re Gleave, 560 F.3d 1331, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2009),
citing Eli Lilly & Co. v. Zenith Goldline Pharms., Inc., 471 F.3d 1369, 1375
(Fed. Cir. 2006); quoting Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d
1359, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
We agree with Appellant that paragraph 65 is “clearly discussing how
to determine a complexity measure. This is not the same as re-using the
quantization parameters once ‘a further image block close resembling the
image block to be encoded or having a same complexity as the image block
to be encoded’ has been determined.” Id. at 11 (bolding omitted, italics
added).
Appeal 2018-007440
Application 14/348,107
4
Appellant argues, and we agree, that Leontaris’ embodiment 6, “fails
to disclose any re-use of quantization parameters based on the at least one
value reflecting a complexity relationship or said complexity estimate. The
above embodiment does not describe what happens after the ‘at least one
value reflecting a complexity relationship or said complexity estimate’ is
determined.” Id at 10–11 (emphasis omitted).
Accordingly, constrained by the record before us, we reverse the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 11 and, for the same reasons, the rejection of
claims 12 and 15–19.
Obviousness of Claims 13–14 in view of Leontaris
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 13–14 as obvious in view of
Leontaris does not set forth sufficient reasoning to cure the deficiency of the
rejection of independent claim 11, and therefore the rejection of claims 13
and 14 is reversed.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 11–19 are reversed.
More specifically, the Examiner’s rejection of claims 11, 12, and 15–19
under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C § 102(b) is reversed, and the rejection of claims 13
and 14 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C § 103(a) is reversed.

DECISION SUMMARY

Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis  Affirmed Reversed
11, 12, 15–19 102(b) Leontaris 11, 12, 15–19
13, 14 103(a) Leontaris 13, 14
Appeal 2018-007440
Application 14/348,107
5
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis  Affirmed Reversed
Overall
Outcome:
  11–19
REVERSED