Ex Parte Azadegan

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Apr 7, 2003

08941785 (B.P.A.I. Apr. 7, 2003)

1 Application for patent filed September 30, 1997, which claims
priority benefit under 35 U.S.C. § 119 from provisional Application No.
60/033,426, filed January 24, 1996.
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written
for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 33
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte FARAMARZ AZADEGAN
____________
Appeal No. 2002-1632
Application No. 08/941,7851
____________
HEARD: MARCH 5, 2003
____________
Before FLEMING, LEVY and SAADAT, Administrative Patent Judges.
SAADAT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1, 3-8, 10-37, 39-46, 48-55, 57-62, 64-69,
71, 72 and 74. Claims 2, 9, 38, 47, 56, 63, 70 and 73 have been
canceled.
We reverse.
Appeal No. 2002-1632
Application No. 08/941,785
2
BACKGROUND
Appellant’s invention is directed to a method of data
compression for coding of video image signals. Data compression
is performed by comparing a coding macroblock to at least one
other reference macroblock in order to determine a difference and
encoding the coding macroblock with the difference
(specification, page 7). Thus, greater efficiency in video
compression by reducing spatial redundancy may be achieved
through macroblock intraframe coding (specification, page 3).
Representative independent claim 1 is reproduced below:
1. A method of data compression for intra-frame
coding with an intra-frame, comprising the steps, performed
by a processor, of:
receiving a plurality of macroblocks from a single
frame;
selecting one of the macroblocks from the frame;
determining a difference between the selected
macroblock and at least one other macroblock from the same
frame in an adjacent positional relationship to the selected
macroblock; and
encoding the selected macroblock based on the
difference without reference to any predicted frame to
reduce spatial redundancy in the intra-frame coding,
wherein the step of encoding the selected macroblock
based on the difference includes the substep of
assigning a difference bit designating that the
selected macroblock is encoded with the difference.
Appeal No. 2002-1632
Application No. 08/941,785
2 The revised appeal brief was refiled in response to a letter from the
Examiner (Paper No. 26, mailed October 22, 2001), indicating that the earlier
filed appeal brief (Paper no. 25, filed September 14, 2001) was defective.
3
The Examiner relies on the following reference in rejecting
the claims:
Fujii et al (Fujii) 5,815,636 Sep. 29, 1998
(effective filing date March 28, 1994)
Claims 1, 3-8, 10-15, 22-26, 33-37, 39-46, 48-55, 57-62, 64-
69, 71, 72 and 74 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as
being anticipated by Fujii.
Claims 16-21 and 27-32 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Fujii.
Rather than reiterate the viewpoints of the Examiner and
Appellant, we make reference to the answer (Paper No. 28, mailed
December 7, 2001) for the Examiner’s complete reasoning in
support of the rejection, and to the appeal brief (Paper No. 27,
filed November 27, 2001)2 and the reply brief (Paper No. 29,
filed February 25, 2002) for Appellant’s arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
With respect to the 35 U.S.C. § 102 rejection of the claims,
Appellant points out that the claims are directed to coding data
and data compression and differ from the prior art that relates
to error correction (brief, page 8 and reply brief, page 3).
Appeal No. 2002-1632
Application No. 08/941,785
4
Appellant further points to Figure 5 of Fujii and asserts that
actually an interpolation circuit is used for error correction
(id.). Further Referring to figures 6 and 7, Appellant points
out that Fujii selects two adjacent blocks for intrafield
interpolation if an error block is detected (brief, pages 10 & 11
and reply brief, pages 4 & 5). Appellant also indicates that the
claims recite coding of image signals by determining a
mathematical difference between macroblocks based on the
comparison of one macroblock to another (brief, page 13).
Additionally, Appellant argues that error flag 102 depicted in
Figure 5 of Fujii, as relied on by the Examiner (answer, page 3),
merely designates an error and is different from the claimed
difference bit that designates whether the coding is based on
macroblock intra-frame coding (brief, page 15).
In response to Appellant’s arguments, the Examiner asserts
that the argued features related to coding are not recited in the
claims (answer, pages 4 & 5). The Examiner further relies on
element 7 of Fujii (col. 3, lines 45-48 and col. 4, lines 17-22)
as an error correction encoding circuit and concludes that the
prior art relates to encoding data (answer, page 5). The
Examiner also argues that comparison steps S104-S107, shown in
Figure 7 of Fujii, are the same as the claimed step of
Appeal No. 2002-1632
Application No. 08/941,785
5
determining a difference bit (id.). In particular, the Examiner
asserts that “a reference bit (i.e. MODE bit from input 103)
designates whether the coding is based on a normal mode (i.e.
macroblock intra coding) or interframe coding mode” (answer,
pages 5 & 6).
A rejection for anticipation under section 102 requires that
the four corners of a single prior art document describe every
element of the claimed invention, either expressly or inherently,
such that a person of ordinary skill in the art could practice
the invention without undue experimentation. See Atlas Powder
Co. v. Ireco Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1347, 51 USPQ2d 1943, 1947
(Fed. Cir. 1999); In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1478-79, 31 USPQ2d
1671, 1673 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
After a review of Fujii, we agree with Appellant’s assertion
that the claimed encoding the selected macroblock based on the
difference determined between a selected macroblock and an
adjacent macroblock and assigning a difference bit, are absent in
the reference. Fujii relates to correcting errors of reproduced
images and constructing images which cannot be corrected (col. 2,
lines 9-16). The encoding circuit relied on by the Examiner
(element 7 in Figure 2) is a part of the circuit used for error
correction (col. 3, lines 44-50). As depicted in figure 7, if
Appeal No. 2002-1632
Application No. 08/941,785
6
the input image data is determined to be from an error block
(S101) and normal reproduction is not selected (S102), an
intrafield interpolation circuit is activated based on the output
of an error pattern detection circuit (S103) (col. 5, line 56
through col. 6, line 5). The intrafield interpolation data is
formed by using the image data of the blocks adjacent the error
block in the order specified in steps S104 through S107 (col. 6,
lines 6-32). Therefore, instead of the claimed encoding a
selected macroblock based on its difference compared to an
adjacent macroblock, Fujii reconstructs an error block by
intrafield interpolation based on the data from two adjacent
blocks, provided that the adjacent blocks are not error blocks.
We find Appellant’s arguments distinguishing the claimed
encoding macroblocks based on a difference from an adjacent
macroblock over Fujii’s reconstruction of an error block from the
data contained in adjacent blocks, to be persuasive. As
discussed above, what the Examiner characterizes in Fujii as the
step of determining a difference is actually the step of forming
the intrafield interpolation data by using the image data of two
blocks adjacent the error block in order to reconstruct the error
block data. Similarly, the Examiner neither points to any
specific portion of Fujii for disclosing the difference bit
Appeal No. 2002-1632
Application No. 08/941,785
7
designating that the selected macroblock is encoded with the
difference, nor do we find the error flag in step S101 of Fujii
for indicating that the data belongs to an error block to meet
the claimed difference bit. Thus, Fujii does not anticipate
claim 1, nor the other independent claims which recite
determining a difference between the encoding macroblock and an
adjacent one as well as assigning a difference bit. Accordingly,
the 35 U.S.C. § 102 rejection of claims 1, 3-8, 10-15, 22-26, 33-
37, 39-46, 48-55, 57-62, 64-69, 71, 72 and 74 over Fujii cannot
be sustained.
Turning to the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 16-21 and
27-32, we note that each of these dependent claims recites
features in addition to those of their base claims 15 and 26.
The Examiner, in taking of the Official notice, has not provided
sufficient support to overcome the deficiencies of Fujii above
with respect to the rejection of base claims 15 and 26, and
therefore, has failed to establish a prima facie case of
obviousness. Accordingly, the rejection of claims 16-21 and 27-
32 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Fujii is not sustained.
Appeal No. 2002-1632
Application No. 08/941,785
8
CONCLUSION
In view of the foregoing, the decision of the Examiner
rejecting claims 1, 3-8, 10-15, 22-26, 33-37, 39-46, 48-55, 57-
62, 64-69, 71, 72 and 74 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and rejecting
claims 16-21 and 27-32 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
REVERSED
MICHAEL R. FLEMING )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
STUART S. LEVY ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
MAHSHID D. SAADAT )
Administrative Patent Judge )
MDS/ki
Appeal No. 2002-1632
Application No. 08/941,785
9
Leonard Charles Suchyta
Verizon Services Group
600 Hidden Ridge, HQE03H01
Irving, TX 75038