Ex Parte Camp et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 20, 2015

11925196 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 20, 2015)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte WILLIAM O. CAMP JR., MARK G. KOKES,
TOBY J. BOWEN, and WALTER M. MARCINKIEWICZ
____________________

Appeal 2013-000033
Application 11/925,196
1

Technology Center 2400
____________________

Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, THU A. DANG, and
LARRY J. HUME, Administrative Patent Judges.

HUME, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the final
rejection of claims 1–10. Appellants have previously canceled claims 11–
22. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1
According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Sony Mobile
Communications AB. App. Br. 2.
Appeal 2013-000033
Application 11/925,196

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
2

The Invention
Appellants' claimed invention generally relates "to compression of
video data and, more particularly, to a system and method for video coding
using different amounts of compression for various portions of a video
image and tracking a moving object that is compressed to have high image
fidelity." Spec. 1, ll. 10–13 ("TECHNICAL FIELD OF THE
INVENTION").
Exemplary Claims
Claims 1 and 4, reproduced below, are representative of the subject
matter on appeal (emphasis added):
1. A method of coding a video signal of a series of
frames, where each frame contains video data corresponding to
an imaged scene, comprising:
identifying an initial position and size of an object that
corresponds to a visual element from the scene, a portion of the
scene other than the visual element being a remainder of the
scene;
tracking movement of the initially identified object from
frame to frame to track changes in the movement of the object;
predicting a position of the object in future frames of the
video signal;
compressing, for each future frame when the future frame
arrives, video data corresponding to the predicted position of

2
Our decision relies upon Appellants' Appeal Brief ("App. Br.," filed
May 9, 2012); Reply Brief ("Reply Br.," filed Sept. 16, 2012); Examiner's
Answer ("Ans.," mailed Aug. 3, 2012); Final Office Action ("Final Act.,"
mailed Nov. 4, 2011); and the original Specification ("Spec.," filed
Oct. 26, 2007).
Appeal 2013-000033
Application 11/925,196

3
the object and compressing a remainder of the video data using
an amount of compression that is greater than an amount of
compression used to compress the video data for the predicted
position of the object so as to produce a high fidelity video
component corresponding to the predicted position of the object
and a low fidelity video component corresponding to the
remainder of the scene such that portions of the future frame
corresponding to the predicted position of the object receive
lower compression and the remainder of the frame receives
higher compression; and
wherein the tracking of the movement of the object from
frame to frame is carried out by analyzing video data output by
the compression step to use available spatial information about
the object in the high fidelity component for data correlation
from frame to frame.
4. The method of claim 1, wherein the object is
identified by proximity of the visual element to a predetermined
location within the scene.
Prior Art
The Examiner relies upon the following prior art as evidence in
rejecting the claims on appeal:
Gokturk et al.
("Gokturk")
US 2003/0235341 A1 Dec. 25, 2003
Zakrzewski et al.
("Zakrzewski")
US 2005/0069207 Al Mar. 31, 2005
Sethuraman et al.
("Sethuraman")
US 2007/0019874 A1 Jan. 25, 2007
Peter Miller et al.
("Miller")
US 2007/0019889 A1 Jan. 25, 2007
Paramvir Bahl and Imrich Chlamtac, "H.263 Based Video
Codec for Real-Time Visual Communications Over
Wireless Radio Networks," IEEE, Jan. 1997 (hereinafter
"Bahl").
Appeal 2013-000033
Application 11/925,196

4
Rejections on Appeal
R1. Claims 1–4, 6, 9, and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Gokturk and
Sethuraman. Ans. 4.
R2. Claim 5 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Gokturk, Sethuraman, and Miller.
Ans. 9.
R3. Claim 7 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Gokturk, Sethuraman, and Bahl.
Ans. 11.
R4. Claim 8 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Gokturk, Sethuraman, and
Zakrzewski. Ans. 12.
CLAIM GROUPING
Based on Appellants' arguments (App. Br.), we decide the appeal of
Rejection R1 of claims 1–3, 6, 9, and 10 on the basis of representative
claim 1; and separately decide Rejection R1 of claim 4.
We address remaining claims 5, 7, and 8 in rejections R2–R4, not
argued separately, infra.
3

ISSUES AND ANALYSIS
In reaching this decision, we consider all evidence presented and all
arguments actually made by Appellants. We do not consider arguments

3
We note Appellants do not provide any arguments in response to
Rejections R2–R4 of claims 5, 7, and 8.
Appeal 2013-000033
Application 11/925,196

5
which Appellants could have made but chose not to make in the Briefs so
that we deem any such arguments as waived. 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(2011).
We disagree with Appellants' arguments with respect to claims 1–10,
and we incorporate herein and adopt as our own: (1) the findings and
reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is
taken, and (2) the reasons and rebuttals set forth in the Examiner's Answer in
response to Appellants' arguments. We incorporate such findings, reasons,
and rebuttals herein by reference unless otherwise noted. However, we
highlight and address specific findings and arguments regarding claims 1
and 4 for emphasis as follows.
1. § 103 Rejection R1 of Claims 1–3, 6, 9, and 10
Issue 1
Appellants argue (App. Br. 3–7; Reply Br. 2–4) the Examiner's
rejection of claims 1–3, 6, 9, and 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
obvious over the combination of Gokturk and Sethuraman is in error. These
contentions present us with the following issue:
Did the Examiner err in finding the cited prior art combination teaches
or suggests a method that includes, inter alia, the step of,
compressing, for each future frame when the future frame
arrives, video data corresponding to the predicted position of
the object and compressing a remainder of the video data using
an amount of compression that is greater than an amount of
compression used to compress the video data for the predicted
position of the object,
as recited in claim 1?
Appeal 2013-000033
Application 11/925,196

6
Analysis
Appellants contend "a fundamental deficiency in the rejection of the
claims is the failure of the references to address the compression step of
claim 1," because "[t]here is a disconnect between the rejection and that
which is claimed, particularly with respect to the 'compressing . . . video
data corresponding to the predicted position of the object. . . ." App. Br. 5.
Appellants argue the video data corresponding to a predicted position of the
object is compressed in one way, and the remainder of the image is
compressed in a different manner. Id.
Appellants contend the claimed manner of compression is different
than that taught by Gokturk (id.), and also contend Sethuraman does not
teach or suggest the contested limitation. App. Br. 6. Appellants further
argue:
Even if Gokturk's search space is considered a predicted
location, the new (actual) position of the head is found in the
new search space as set forth in the remaining portion of
paragraph [0060]. If the head is not found in the new search
space, the location of the head is redetected from the entire
image space.
But when it comes to compressing the frame, Gokturk
compresses the actual location of the object — not the search
space for or the predicted location of the object.
App. Br. 6. Appellants also contend the compression taught by Gokturk
¶ 62 "compresses the actual head location and/or foreground objects with
one compression and other regions with different compression . . . [and] is
not instructive of that which is claimed and does not reasonably suggest that
which is claimed . . . [i.e.,] Gokturk does not teach or suggest compressing a
predicted location of an object [and neither does Sethuraman]." App. Br. 7.
Appeal 2013-000033
Application 11/925,196

7
In response, the Examiner finds Gokturk teaches or suggests
"applying object based compression where 'Different objects can be
compressed with different quality. For instance the head might be
compressed with high quality, the body with medium quality. The
background can be compressed with low quality [or] could be totally
suppressed.'" Ans. 14 (citing Gokturk ¶ 48 and Fig. 2, Step 240 (emphases
omitted)).
With respect to Appellants' contention that Gokturk does not teach or
suggest use of a predicted position of the object in a future frame, the
Examiner cites Figure 7, steps 720 and 750 of Gokturk, and the supporting
discussion in paragraph 60, where a feedback loop is illustrated in which the
Head Search Space for the Next Frame is determined by evaluating whether
a new ellipse is a good head fit. Ans. 14. In particular, the Examiner finds
paragraph 60 of Gokturk teaches or at least suggests use of a predicted
position in the next frame, as claimed. Ans. 15.
Specifically, the Examiner finds:
“In step 710, the head location and shape (i.e., size) are
determined using the head detection algorithm. In step 720,
the head search space is determined for the next frame.
Without any limitation, the new search space can be defined as
a band around the ellipse of the previous frame. The width of
this band can be between 10 to 100 pixels depending on the
resolution of the image and the frame rate of the senor. The
initial ellipse model is now searched only in the new search
space. In Step 730, the edges of the depth image are determined
in the search space. In step 740, an ellipse is fit to the edges
that are in the search space. By determining the new head
search space by using the band around the ellipse of the
previous frame, a prediction of the identified object (e.g.,
head) can be made in the new search space.” Further in Step
Appeal 2013-000033
Application 11/925,196

8
750 of Figure 7, it is determined if the new ellipse in the new
search space is a good head fit. Therefore in order to perform
this step, some prediction of the object must be made in the new
search space to determine if the ellipse is a good fit.
Id. (emphasis added).
We agree with the Examiner's finding that Gokturk's technique cited
above teaches or at least suggests determination of a predicted position of
the object, and further teaches or suggests the limitations of claim 1 when
combined with Sethuraman, relied upon for its teaching of tracking object
movement from frame to frame by analyzing video data. Ans. 17. The
Examiner makes additional findings regarding Gokturk's teachings, which
we adopt as our own, and incorporate herein by reference. Ans. 15–18.
In light of the Examiner's findings above, we are not persuaded by
Appellants' arguments in the Reply Brief regarding the alleged shortcomings
of the teachings and suggestions of the combination of Gokturk and
Sethuraman with respect to the contested limitation. Reply Br. 2–4.
Accordingly, Appellants have not provided sufficient evidence or
argument to persuade us of any reversible error in the Examiner's reading of
the contested limitations on the cited prior art. Therefore, we sustain the
Examiner's obviousness rejection of independent claim 1 and claims 2, 3, 6,
9, and 10, which fall therewith. See Claim Grouping, supra.
§ 103(a) Rejections R2–R4 of Claims 5, 7, and 8
In view of the lack of any substantive or separate arguments directed
to obviousness Rejections R2–R4 of claims 5, 7, and 8 under § 103 (see
App. Br. 3–7); we sustain the Examiner's rejection of these claims, as they
fall with their respective independent claim 1. Arguments not made are
Appeal 2013-000033
Application 11/925,196

9
considered waived.
4
See Hyatt v. Dudas, 551 F.3d 1307, 1314 (Fed. Cir
2008) ("When the appellant fails to contest a ground of rejection to the
Board, section 1.192(c)(7) [(now section 41.37(c)(1)(iv))] imposes no
burden on the Board to consider the merits of that ground of rejection . . .
[T]he Board may treat any argument with respect to that ground of rejection
as waived.").
2. § 103 Rejection R1 of Claim 4
Issue 2
Appellants argue (App. Br. 7) the Examiner's Rejection R1 of claim 4
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over the combination of Gokturk
and Sethuraman is in error. These contentions present us with the following
issue:
Did the Examiner err in finding the cited prior art combination teaches
or suggests the method of claim 1 "wherein the object is identified by
proximity of the visual element to a predetermined location within the
scene," as recited in claim 4?
Analysis
Appellants contend Gokturk's "ellipsoid model is not identifying an
object 'by proximity of the visual element to a predetermined location within
the scene' as claimed." Id.
The Examiner responds (Ans. 18) by citing to Gokturk's disclosure in
paragraph 55 which states, in pertinent part:

4
Appellants allege these claims are also patentable because the tertiary
references cited by the Examiner in Rejections R2–R4 do not cure the
purported deficiencies of Gokturk and Sethuraman. App. Br. 7.
Appeal 2013-000033
Application 11/925,196

10
"Head tracking is the algorithm that follows the head using the
heads location and shape in the previous frame and finds its
location in the new image". Thus, the head[']s location in the
previous frame is a "predetermined location" within the scene
for identifying the proximity of the object (e.g., head). By
tracking the head, some predetermined position in the previous
frame must be considered for identifying the object.
Appellants do not rebut the Examiner's findings with respect to
dependent claim 4 in the Reply Brief.
Accordingly, Appellants have not provided sufficient evidence or
argument to persuade us of any reversible error in the Examiner's reading of
the contested limitations on the cited prior art. Therefore, we sustain the
Examiner's obviousness rejection of dependent claim 4.
REPLY BRIEF
To the extent Appellants may advance new arguments in the Reply
Brief (Reply Br. 1–4) not in response to a shift in the Examiner's position in
the Answer, we note that "[a]ny bases for asserting error, whether factual or
legal, that are not raised in the principal brief are waived." Ex parte Borden,
93 USPQ2d 1473, 1474 (BPAI 2010) (informative). Cf. with Optivus Tech.,
Inc. v. Ion Beam Appl'ns. S.A., 469 F.3d 978, 989 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ("[A]n
issue not raised by an appellant in its opening brief . . . is waived.").
CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err with respect to the obviousness Rejections
R1–R4 of claims 1–10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the cited prior art
combinations of record, and we sustain the rejections.
Appeal 2013-000033
Application 11/925,196

11
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1–10.
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) (2011).
AFFIRMED

ELD