Ex Parte Bruna Estrach

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 16, 2017

13148876 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 16, 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.
13/148,876 08/10/2011 Joan Bruna Estrach 156223/ 1376-1862 5261
111523 7590 02/21/2017
The Marbury Law Group/Qualcomm
11800 Sunrise Valley Drive, 15th Floor
Reston, VA 20191
EXAMINER
EDWARDS, TYLER B
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2486
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/21/2017 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):
ptonoticesqc @marburylaw.com
ocpat_uspto@qualcomm.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JOAN BRUNA ESTRACH
Appeal 2016-0040891
Application 13/148,876
Technology Center 2400
Before THU A. DANG, JUSTIN BUSCH, and ALEX S. YAP,
Administrative Patent Judges.
YAP, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection of
claims 1—15, which are all the claims pending in this application. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b)
We reverse.
1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Zoran (France) S.A.
(Br. 1.)
Appeal 2016-004089
Application 13/148,876
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellant’s invention “relates to digital video processing, and more
particularly to the analysis of a video sequence for motion estimation.”
(Aug. 10, 2011 Specification (“Spec.”) 11.) Claim 1 is illustrative, and is
reproduced below:
1. A method of analyzing a video sequence, comprising:
computing first matching energies for individual local
displacements between frames of the video sequence using a
first window around a pixel;
determining a minimum of the first matching energies;
computing second matching energies, each second
matching energy being a function of a set of a plurality of
local displacements between frames of the video sequence
using the first window around said pixel;
if none of the second matching energies satisfies a
comparison criterion with the minimum of the first matching
energies, associating with said pixel a local displacement
providing the minimum of the first matching energies;
if at least one set in said sets provides a second
matching energy satisfying the comparison criterion with the
minimum of the first matching energies:
forming a group of local displacements based on local
displacements of said at least one set;
computing third matching energies for the individual
local displacements of said group between frames of
the video sequence using a second window around said
pixel, the second window being smaller than the first
window;
associating with said pixel a local displacement of said
group for which the third matching energy is minimal.
2
Appeal 2016-004089
Application 13/148,876
Rejection on Appeal
The prior art reference relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the
claims on appeal is:
Ralph Braspenning & Gerard de Haan, Efficient Motion Estimation
with Content-Adaptive Resolution, International Symposium on Consumer
Electronics (Sept. 23, 2002) (“Braspenning”).
Claims 1—15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Braspenning. (See Final Office Action (mailed Dec. 29,
2014) (“Final Act.”) 4-9.)
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection in light of Appellant’s
arguments that the Examiner has erred. We are persuaded that the Examiner
erred in rejecting the claims on appeal.
Claim 1 recites “computing first matching energies . . . using a first
window around a pixel; . . . computing second matching energies . . . using
the first window around said pixel.” (Emphases added.) The Examiner finds
that Braspenning, in sections 2.2 and 3.2, discloses these limitations:
computing first matching energies for individual local
displacements between frames of the video sequence using a first
window around a pixel (Braspenning section 2.2 noting that the
algorithm constructs a small set of candidate motion vectors
obtained from spati[al]-temporal predictions);
computing second matching energies for sets of plurality
of local displacements between frames of the video sequence
using the first window around said pixel (Braspenning section
3.2 noting that if we need to go down to a higher resolution, we
3
Appeal 2016-004089
Application 13/148,876
first try to find the correct vector in the neighborhood by trying
some more spatial candidates and a temporal candidate)',
(Final Act. 4, bolding omitted, italics added.)
Appellant contends that because “the ‘second matching energy ’ would
be determined on a bigger or smaller resolution (i.e., with a bigger or smaller
window according to Braspenning ...)... the first and second matching
energies] are determined on different windows.” (Br. 5.) The Examiner
responds that “the steps of the estimation process take place on the same
block size (or window size), unless specific circumstances require the size to
change [and a]s such, it can be seen that the teachings of Braspenning
include completing the steps of determining matching energies on the same
size window.” (Ans. 12.)
We agree with Appellant that sections of Braspenning cited by the
Examiner fail to disclose computing second matching energies using the first
window, i.e., the same window used in computing first matching energies.
Braspenning discloses that “[a]t different resolutions (block sizes), different
compositions of [a] candidate set are appropriate.” (Braspenning § 3.2
Adaptive Candidate Set.) Braspenning further discloses using a large block
size (e.g., 32 x 32) for the initial computation (“computing first matching
energies”) and going down to smaller block sizes (e.g., 16 x 16, 4 x 4, or 2 x
2, etc.) if there is a “need to go down to a higher resolution” (“computing
second matching energies”). (Id.) Therefore, we agree with Appellant that
the two computations are done using different windows.
The Examiner states that “unless specific circumstances require the
size to change . . . the teachings of Braspenning include completing the steps
of determining matching energies on the same size window.'’’ (Ans. 12,
4
Appeal 2016-004089
Application 13/148,876
emphasis.) The Examiner, however, does not explain how Braspenning
computes the “second matching energies” using the same size windows.
For the foregoing reasons, we are persuaded of Examiner error in the
rejection of claim 1 and do not sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 102 rejection of claim
l.2 Independent claim 10 contains similar limitations at issue and the
Examiner cites to the same passages of Braspenning for the similar
limitations. (Final Act. 9 (“In regard to claim 10, this claim recites the
corresponding video processor to the method of analyzing a video sequence
described in claim 1. This claim recites substantially similar limitations to
those of claim 1, and as such, claim 10 has been analyzed and rejected with
respect to claim 1.”).) Thus, for the same reason, we do not sustain the
35 U.S.C. § 102 rejection of independent claim 10, and of claims 2—9 and
11—15, which depend from either independent claim 1 or 10.
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1—15 is reversed.
REVERSED
2 Because we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection for the reasons
discussed herein, we need not address Appellant’s further arguments. See
Beloit Corp. v. Valmet Oy, 742 F.2d 1421, 1423 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (finding an
administrative agency is at liberty to reach a decision based on “a single
dispositive issue”).
5