Ex Parte Chen et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 26, 2016

12358021 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 26, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/358,021 01122/2009
49579 7590 09/27/2016
STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C.
1100 NEW YORK A VENUE, N.W.
WASHINGTON, DC 20005
XueminChen
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
2875.1190002 1756
EXAMINER
VO,TUNGT
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2486
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
09/27/2016 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 XUEMIN CHEN and JASON DEMAS
Appeal2015-007432
Application 12/358,021
Technology Center 2400
Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., DANIEL N. FISHMAN, and
IRVINE. BRANCH, Administrative Patent Judges.
BRANCH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims
1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm-in-part.
Appeal2015-007432
Application 12/358,021
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to decoding and displaying a bitstream and
avoiding displaying artifacts caused by displaying incompletely decoded
pictures after channel acquisition. Abstract.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A method of decoding a plurality of images from a
bitstream of encoded images, comprising:
decoding a first encoded image comprising a first
independently decodable portion to generate a first decoded
image; and
zeroing out pixels that correspond to pixels outside of the
first independently decodable portion of the first decoded image
and that require prior decoding of an unavailable encoded image.
REJECTIONS
Claims 1-18 stand rejected on the ground ofnonstatutory
obviousness-type double patenting as unpatentable over claims 1-35 of U.S.
6,940,904 B2 and over claims 1-20 of U.S. 7,492,824 B2. 1 Ans. 2-3.
Claims 1-5, 7, 9-11, 13-16, and 18-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102( e) as anticipated by Tan (US 6,421,465 B2, July 16, 2002). Ans. 4---6.
Claims 1 and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated
by Choi (US 6,442,201 B2, Aug. 27, 2002). Ans. 6-7.
Claims 1 and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated
by Chen I (US 5,946,419, Aug. 31, 1999). Ans. 7.
1 We summarily affirm the nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting
rejection of claims 1-18 because Appellants do not present arguments
against this rejection. See generally App. Br.
2
Appeal2015-007432
Application 12/358,021
Claims 6, 8, 12, and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Tan and Chen II (US 7,046,910 B2, May 16, 2006). Ans.
8.
Claims 19 and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Tan and Wang (US 6,570,922 Bl, May 27, 2003). Ans.
8-9.
ANALYSIS
Appellants argue error in the Examiner's rejections of claims 1 and 9
over each of Tan, Choi, and Chen I. App. Br. 5-9. Specifically, Appellants
argue that: none of the references disclose "zero[ing] out pixels"; and none
of the references disclose zeroing out pixels that specifically "require prior
decoding of an unavailable encoded image," as recited in claims 1 and 9. Id.
See also Reply Br. 2.
The Examiner construes "zeroing out" pixels as "discarding" pixels.
Ans. 4. Appellants argue that the Examiner's construction is overly broad
because "discarding" "can simply mean ignoring or not using the
information." App. Br. 6. Appellants contend that "zeroing out" pixels
means "blacking out" the pixels such that the pixels display the color black.
Id. 6-7 (citing Spec. i-f 60 ("with yet-to-be refreshed portion of the image
blacked (zeroed) out")). But without regard to the construction of "zeroing
out," Appellants contend that the Examiner has erred because the discarded
pixels in the cited references are not pixels "that require prior decoding of an
unavailable encoded image," as recited in the claims. Id. 7-9.
We are persuaded by Appellants' arguments that the Examiner has
erred. Specifically, we agree that, in view of Appellants' Specification
3
Appeal2015-007432
Application 12/358,021
ci1 60), "zeroing out" pixels is not merely discarding the pixel information, as
the Examiner construes the term to mean. Ans. 4. Appellants' Specification
defines "zeroed out" as "blacked out." Spec. i-f 60. The Examiner has not
adequately explained how any of the cited references black out pixels by
simply discarding them. See Ans. 4--7, 9-10.
Further, we agree with Appellants that the Examiner also does not
adequately explain how the allegedly zeroed out pixels in Tan, Choi, and
Chen I describe pixels that "require prior decoding of an unavailable
encoded image," as recited in claims 1 and 9 as Appellants argue. App. Br.
5-9.
Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner's rejections of claims 1 and 9
as anticipated by each of Tan, Choi, and Chen I. Ans. 4--7. We also reverse
the Examiner's rejection of claim 14 as anticipated by Tan for similar
reasons. Id. 4. We also reverse the Examiner's rejections of the remaining
claims as anticipated or obvious because those claims depend from
improperly rejected base claims.
DECISION
We summarily affirm the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-18
on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting. We
reverse the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-20 as obvious and/or
anticipated.
4
Appeal2015-007432
Application 12/358,021
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
5