Ex Parte Adachi et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 16, 201612644464 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 16, 2016) Copy Citation 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. 12/644,464 12/22/2009 Satoru Adachi 9683/327 6412 79510 7590 08/16/2016 BGL/NTT DoCoMo, Inc P.O. Box 10395 Chicago, IL 60610 EXAMINER BAILEY, FREDERICK D ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2483 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/16/2016 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte SATORU ADACHI, CHOONG SENG BOON, SADAATSU KATO, MINORU ETOH, and THIOW KENG TAN ____________ Appeal 2015-001872 Application 12/644,464 Technology Center 2400 ____________ Before CATHERINE SHIANG, CARL L. SILVERMAN, and NORMAN H. BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judges. BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 2–7.1 Claim 1 is cancelled. We have jurisdiction over the pending claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). This Appeal is related to Appeal No. 2015-001851, Opinion mailed August 3, 2015.2 We affirm. 1 In the Appeal Brief, Appellants identify NTT DOCOMO Inc. as the real party in interest. (App. Br. 2.) 2 This Appeal arises from a continuation of Application 11/966,609, which underlies Appeal 2015-001851. Appeal 2015-001872 Application 12/644,464 2 THE INVENTION Appellants’ disclosed and claimed inventions are directed to video processing system implementing backward interframe prediction from a temporally subsequent frame and outputting information indicating that an option to eliminate use of a decoded image of the temporally subsequent frame was chosen. (Abstract.) Claim 2, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 2. A method of decoding encoded moving picture data, the method comprising: computer implemented steps performed by a processor of a computer system to implement: decoding the encoded moving picture data into decoded pictures; storing the decoded pictures in a decoded picture buffer, wherein the decoded pictures in the decoded picture buffer comprise at least one reference picture and at least one non- reference picture; if a decoded picture is an IDR picture, performing the following steps independently of a memory management control operation (MMCO): if a decoded picture is an IDR picture, making unused for reference the at least one reference picture stored in the decoded picture buffer; and if a decoded picture is an IDR picture and a flag associated with the IDR picture is set to a predetermined value, emptying the decoded picture buffer without outputting the decoded pictures stored in the decoded picture buffer. REJECTIONS The Examiner rejected claims 2–5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Setoguchi et al. (US 6,393,204 B2, issued May 21, 2002), Appeal 2015-001872 Application 12/644,464 3 Wiegand et al., Final Committee Draft of Joint Video Specification (ITU-T Rec. H.264 ISO/IEC 14496-10 AVC), and Yanagihara et al. (US 2001/0001024 A1; pub. May 10, 2001). (Final Act. 3–7.) The Examiner rejected claims 6 and 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Setoguchi, Wiegand, Yanagihara, and Li (US 2002/0051488 A1, pub. May 2, 2002). (Final Act. 7–8.) ISSUES ON APPEAL Appellants’ arguments in the Appeal Brief present the following issues:3 Issue One: Whether the combination of Setoguchi, Wiegand, and Yanagihara teaches or suggests the independent claim 2 limitation, “if a decoded picture is an IDR picture and a flag associated with the IDR picture is set to a predetermined value, emptying the decoded picture buffer without outputting the decoded pictures stored in the decoded picture buffer,” the similar limitation recited in independent claim 4, and whether the combination of Setoguchi, Wiegand, Yanagihara, and Li teaches or suggests the similar limitation recited in independent claim 6. (App. Br. 15–16.) Issue Two: Whether the combination of Setoguchi, Wiegand, and Yanagihara teaches or suggests the claim 3 limitation, “wherein the predetermined value is equal to 1,” and the similar limitation recited in claim 5, and whether the combination of Setoguchi, Wiegand, Yanagihara, and Li 3 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and positions of the Examiner, we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed Aug. 8, 2014); the Reply Brief (filed Nov. 17, 2014); the Final Office Action (mailed Oct. 15, 2013); and the Examiner’s Answer (mailed Sept. 16, 2014) for the respective details. Appeal 2015-001872 Application 12/644,464 4 teaches or suggests the similar limitation recited in claim 7. (App. Br. 15– 16.) ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’ arguments that the Examiner errs. We disagree with Appellants’ arguments, and we adopt as our own (1) the pertinent findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Action from which this appeal is taken (Final Act. 3–8) and (2) the corresponding reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellants’ Appeal Brief (Ans. 3–6). We concur with the applicable conclusions reached by the Examiner and emphasize the following. Issue One Appellants argue: Setoguchi does not even clear all the areas in the state table if any of the memory areas stores a decoded frame being currently displayed. Likewise, Wiedand [sic] does not empty the decoded picture buffer. Wiegand only marks a no longer- needed reference frame as “unused”. Yanagihara is silent about management of the decoded picture buffer. Li is simply irrelevant. (App. Br. 15.) This argument is unpersuasive as conclusory and directed to the references individually, whereas the Examiner relies on the combination of references for the rejection. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In particular, contrary to Appellants’ assertion that “Yanagihara is silent about management of the decoded picture buffer” (id.), Appellants have not shown error in the Examiner’s reliance on Yanagihara for the claim limitation at issue, in which the Examiner finds that reference teaches or suggests “when a discontinuity Appeal 2015-001872 Application 12/644,464 5 flag is detected, a command to clear (empty) the data in the buffer memories is issued to a MPEG video decoder and a MPEG audio decoder where it is inherent that pictures cleared from the buffer memories would be unused for reference.” (Final Act. 5; Yanagihara ¶ 95.) We are unpersuaded the Examiner errs in finding the combination of Setoguchi, Wiegand, and Yanagihara, for claims 2 and 4, and the combination of Setoguchi, Wiegand, Yanagihara, and Li for claim 6, teaches or suggests the claim limitation at issue. Issue Two Given the Appellants’ conclusory arguments alleging the Examiner errs in rejecting claims 3, 5, and 7, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection for the same reasons discussed above. (App. Br. 15–16.) In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (holding that “the Board reasonably interpreted Rule 41.37 to require more substantive arguments in an appeal brief than a mere recitation of the claim elements and a naked assertion that the corresponding elements were not found in the prior art”). We are not persuaded the Examiner’s findings with respect to this claim element are in error. (Final Act. 6; Ans. 4–5.) CONCLUSIONS For the reasons discussed above, we sustain the obviousness rejection of claims 2–7. DECISION We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2–7. Appeal 2015-001872 Application 12/644,464 6 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation