Ex Parte Choi

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Sep 29, 2009

10608411 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 29, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
________________

Ex parte BYUNG-SUN CHOI
________________

Appeal 2009-003211
Application 10/608,411
Technology Center 2600
________________

Decided: September 29, 2009
________________

Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, MARC S. HOFF,
and THOMAS S. HAHN, Administrative Patent Judges.

HAHN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant invokes our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1-3, 5-13, 15-18, 20-23, and 25-45.1

1 Claims 5, 6, 8, 11, 15, 16, 20, 21, 25, 26, 28, 31, and 36-45 are reported in
the Final Action, mailed Apr. 24, 2007, as objected to as being dependent
upon rejected base claims, but would be allowable if rewritten in
independent forms that include all base and any intervening claim
Footnote continued on next page
Appeal 2009-003211
Application 10/608,411

2
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). An oral hearing was held on
September 22, 2009. We reverse.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant claims an apparatus and method invention for converting
encoded video signals to another encoding, i.e., transcoding. The claimed
transcoding includes (i) decoding a video bit stream to obtain decoded
pictures; (ii) calculating an estimated complexity for a current picture to be
re-encoded; and (iii) encoding the decoded pictures.2 Claim 1, with disputed
limitations emphasized, is illustrative:
1. A transcoding apparatus comprising:
a video decoding unit which receives compressed bitstream and
performs decoding thereof to output decoded pictures;
a complexity estimation unit which estimates complexity of a current
picture among the decoded pictures to encode the current picture;
a target bit-allocation unit which performs desired bit-allocation using
the complexity information of the current picture;
a bit-rate control unit which controls bit-rate using bit-allocation
information and state information from memory, which outputs an
encoded bitstream; and
a video encoding unit which encodes the decoded pictures on the basis
of the bit- allocation and state information of the bit-rate control unit,

limitations (Final Action, ¶ 4). Accordingly, these claims are treated as
rejected (MPEP § 1214.06 (I)).
2 See generally Spec. ¶¶ [44], [46], [50], and [51]; Fig. 6.
Appeal 2009-003211
Application 10/608,411

3
wherein the complexity estimation unit calculates complexity of a
picture to be currently encoded, using complexity of decoded previous
and current pictures output from the video decoding unit and
complexity of an encoded previous picture output from the video
encoding unit.
The Examiner relies on the following published prior art references to
show unpatentability:
Kim US 2002/0126752 A1 Sep. 12, 2002
Tajime US 6,915,018 B2 July 5, 2005
(filed Dec. 22, 2000)

1. The Examiner rejected claims 1, 3, 7, 9, 10, 12, 13, 17, 18, 22, 23, 27,
29, 30, and 32-35 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Tajime (Ans. 3, 4).3
2. The Examiner rejected claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Tajime and Kim (Ans. 4, 5).
Rather than repeat the Appellant’s or the Examiner’s arguments, we
refer to the Briefs and the Answer4 for their respective details. In this

3 Although the Examiner does not include claim 35 in a rejection statement
(Ans. 3, 4), we presume, based on the record, that this is a typographical
error with respect to the § 103(a) rejection over Tajime. Other than being a
listed pending claim, this claim is nowhere in either the Examiner’s Answer
or Final Action, mailed Apr. 24, 2007, listed or addressed as a rejected or
objected to claim. Claim 35 directly depends from independent claim 1, and
in a non-final Office Action, mailed July 21, 2006, was addressed with claim
1, and other § 103(a) now rejected claims, as being anticipated under
§ 102(e) by Tajime (Office Action, ¶ 5).
4 We, therefore, refer throughout this opinion to the Appeal Brief filed Dec.
26, 2007, the Examiner’s Answer mailed Feb. 6, 2008, and the Reply Brief
filed Apr. 7, 2008.
Appeal 2009-003211
Application 10/608,411

4
decision, we have considered only those arguments actually made by
Appellant. Arguments that Appellant could have made but did not make in
the Briefs have not been considered and are deemed to be waived. See 37
C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
Appellant’s Arguments
Appellant exclusively argues independent claim 1 for the grouped
claims 3, 7, 9, 10, 12, 13, 17, 18, 22, 23, 27, 29, 30, and 32-35 (App. Br. 11-
16; Reply Br. 4-7). Accordingly, we select claim 1 as representative. See 37
C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
Appellant specifies the following limitations from claim 1 as being
disputed:
the complexity estimation unit calculates complexity of a picture to be
currently encoded, using complexity of decoded previous and current
pictures output from the video decoding unit and complexity of an
encoded previous picture output from the video encoding unit.

(App. Br. 12) (italicizing substituted for original underlining emphasis).
Appellant then asserts that Tajime fails to teach or suggest the recited
complexity estimation unit that “calculates complexity of a picture to be
currently encoded, using complexity of decoded previous and current
pictures output from the video decoding unit . . . .” (App. Br. 14) (italicizing
substituted for original underlining emphasis).
The same reasons submitted by Appellant for contesting the rejection
of claim 1 are asserted for claim 2, which is dependent from claim 1 (App.
Br. 16).

Appeal 2009-003211
Application 10/608,411

5
ISSUE
Has Appellant shown the Examiner erred in finding that Tajime
teaches or suggests calculating a complexity estimate for a current picture
using complexities for decoded previous and current pictures along with the
complexity of an encoded previous picture, as is recited in representative
claim 1?

FINDINGS OF FACT
The record supports the following Findings of Fact (FF) by a
preponderance of the evidence:
Present Application
1. The invented transcoding apparatus and method, according to
Appellant’s Specification, “are capable of improving image quality
upon transcoding, by efficiently estimating the complexity of each
picture using both complexity information of a decoded picture at a
previous time and complexity information of an encoded picture at a
previous time.” (¶ [12]).
2. As disclosed in Appellant’s Specification, picture complexity is
calculated for I, P, and B pictures using functions including: (i) the
number of bits generated for a picture; (ii) the average macroblock
quantization values for a picture; and (iii) a constant representing
relative complexity differences among the I, P, and B pictures. (¶¶
[33], [34]).
3. A transcoding apparatus disclosed in Appellant’s Specification
includes a complexity estimation unit 620 that calculates estimated
Appeal 2009-003211
Application 10/608,411

6
complexity for a picture as a function of complexities for (i) a
decoded current picture, (ii) a decoded previous picture, and (iii) a
previous picture after encoding. (¶¶ [28], [46], and [47]; Equations
(3); Fig. 6).
Tajime
4. Tajime discloses an apparatus and method for re-encoding
compressed decoded moving pictures. The disclosed apparatus and
method includes computing complexity for predetermined periods or
numbers of pictures. (Abstract).
5. Multiple related equations are disclosed by Tajime for computing
various parameters including complexity for a group of pictures in a
plurality of pictures. Two equations (Eqs. 3, 6) are disclosed for
calculating complexity. Each of these equations is a function of a
constant and two parameters. The constants for these equations are
the number of macro blocks per picture times either the number of
pictures in the picture group, or the total number of pictures being
encoded. The two parameters are summations of characteristic values
for the picture group: one parameter is the cumulative number of
picture bits for the pictures; and the other parameter is the cumulative
quantizer step size values for the pictures. (col. 8, l. 46 – col. 9, l. 20;
Equations (1)-(6)).
6. Tajime discloses two re-encoding apparatus embodiments. Both
apparatuses include a “complexity measure computing means 101.”
(col. 8, l. 45 – col. 10, l. 33; Figs. 1, 2).
7. Tajime discloses that “[i]n the complexity measure computing means
101, the picture group complexity measure in a plurality of pictures
Appeal 2009-003211
Application 10/608,411

7
and the complexity measure in all pictures for which encoding was
performed are computed . . . .” (col. 8, ll. 11-14).
8. With respect to the two re-encoding apparatus embodiments, Tajime
discloses:
In the first embodiment, in the complexity measure computing
means 101 the complexity measure and picture group complexity
measure are computed using the input bit stream quantizer step
size and input bit stream number of bits supplied from the de-
encoding path section 11. According to [the second] embodiment,
in the complexity measure computing means 101 the complexity
measure and picture group complexity measure are computed
using the post-re-encoding quantizer step size and post-re-
encoding number of bits supplied from the encoding path section
13.

(col. 10, ll. 23-33).
Kim
9. Kim discloses a video transcoding apparatus for converting a
specific bit rate for a bit stream into a different rate for transmission.
This transcoding apparatus includes a buffer for storing a processed
video signal. (¶¶ [0002], [0152]).

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
An Examiner, in rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, must
establish a factual basis to support a legal conclusion of obviousness. See In
re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1073 (Fed. Cir. 1988). The required factual
determinations are set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17
(1966) (explaining that 35 U.S.C. § 103 leads to these factual inquiries: (1)
the scope and content of the prior art; (2) the differences between the prior
art and the claims at issue; and (3) the level of ordinary skill in the art).
Appeal 2009-003211
Application 10/608,411

8
Furthermore, the Supreme Court has explained that an obviousness rejection
must be based on:
“‘some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning
to support the legal conclusion of obviousness’. . . . [H]owever,
the analysis need not seek out precise teachings directed to the
specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can
take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person
of ordinary skill in the art would employ.”

KSR Int’l v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (quoting In re Kahn,
441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006).

ANALYSIS
Obviousness Rejection over Tajime
Claims 1, 3, 7, 9, 10, 12, 13, 17, 18, 22, 23, 27, 29, 30, and 32-35
The Examiner solely relies on Tajime for this rejection (Ans.3, 4), and
concludes that it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan to
improve complexity measurement by combining the teachings of a Tajime
Fig. 1 embodiment with those of the Fig. 2 embodiment (Ans. 4). The
Examiner, without citation to Tajime, submits as the sole reasoning and
rationale for such a combination that:
Doing [so] would provide a compressed moving picture re-encoding
apparatus and a compressed moving picture re-encoding method that
realize shortening of the processing delay, improvement of the picture
quality, and improvement of the encoding efficiency, when
compressed moving picture re-encoding is performed.

(Id.).
Appeal 2009-003211
Application 10/608,411

9
We find that Tajime discloses two apparatus embodiments to re-
encode compressed moving pictures (FF 4). Both apparatuses are described
as including “complexity measure computing means 101” for determining
complexity measurements for groups of pictures (FF 6, 7).
Appellant asserts that the Examiner has not shown how a Tajime
“complexity measure computing means 101” resulting from the combined
embodiments “would calculate the claimed complexity of a picture to be
currently encoded” as recited in claim 1 (App. Br. 15). In response, the
Examiner submits that both embodiments include a complexity measure
computing means 101, and finds that “the complexity measure computing
means (101 of fig. 1) is to compute complexity of a picture to be currently
encoded” (Ans. 5). This finding is immediately followed with a citation to
Tajime column 8, lines 11-14, and an explanation that “all pictures for which
encoding was performed are computed, this would fairly suggest the
complexity of a picture to be currently encoded is computed” (Ans. 5, 6).
Appellant contests this explanation with assertions that:

Tajime expressly discloses calculating "the picture group complexity
measure in a plurality of pictures and the complexity measure in all
pictures ....” Col. 8, lines 11-13. Tajime does not mention that
complexity measures are calculated for a plurality of pictures, to
suggest that a single complexity is calculated for a single picture.
Further, Tajime does not even mention that the complexity measure is
calculated for each of a plurality of pictures.

(Reply Br. 5) (italicizing substituted for original underlining emphasis).
On these matters we find Tajime disclosing complexity computations
for a plurality of pictures (FF 4, 5, and 7), not determining any complexity
measure for a single picture. Despite the Examiner’s finding to the contrary,
Appeal 2009-003211
Application 10/608,411

10
we do not find that there is any Tajime teaching or suggestion for
determining a complexity measure for a picture, or for using a complexity
measure for a picture during re-encoding of video signals.
This Tajime deficiency, we further conclude, is not overcome through
combination of the two Tajime apparatus embodiments. We find the
differences between the two Tajime apparatus embodiments to reside in
what signals are provided to the complexity measure computing means 101,
namely, bit streams from a de-encoding path 11 for the first embodiment,
and bit streams from an encoding path 13 for the second embodiment (FF 8).
The Examiner has not indicated - nor can we find - any Tajime disclosure or
suggestion that changing the signal provided to the complexity measure
computing means 101 results in calculating a complexity measure for a
single picture.
Therefore, based on the record, we conclude that the Examiner erred
in finding that Tajime teaches or suggests a complexity estimation unit that
estimates complexity of a current picture using complexities for decoded
previous and current pictures along with the complexity of an encoded
previous picture. (See FF 1-3). In order for us to sustain the Examiner’s
rejection, we would need to resort to impermissible speculation or
unfounded assumptions or rationales to supply deficiencies in the factual
bases of the rejection before us. In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017 (CCPA
1967).
For the foregoing reasons, Appellant has persuaded us of error with
respect to the rejection of representative claim 1 under § 103(a). We,
accordingly, will also not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 3, 7, 9,
10, 12, 13, 17, 18, 22, 23, 27, 29, 30 and 32-35 for similar reasons.
Appeal 2009-003211
Application 10/608,411

11
Obviousness Rejection over Tajime and Kim
Based on the record, we are persuaded that the Examiner erred in
rejecting claim 2 over the combined references. Claim 2 is dependent from
claim 1, and covers “an output buffer which stores and outputs pictures
encoded by the video encoding unit . . . .”
Appellant asserts that claim 2 is patentable by submitting the same
reasons raised in contesting the rejection of claim 1 (App. Br. 16). Thus,
Appellant argues that Kim does not cure the asserted Tajime deficiencies.
Kim, we find, discloses a video transcoding apparatus that includes a
processed video signal storing buffer (Ans. 5; FF9). The Examiner has not
indicated - nor can we find - any Kim disclosure or suggestion concerning a
determination of a complexity measure for a picture.
Based on the record, we continue to conclude the Examiner erred in
finding Tajime teaches or suggests a complexity estimation unit that
estimates complexity of a current picture as recited in base independent
claim 1.
For the foregoing reasons, Appellant has persuaded us of error with
respect to rejection under § 103(a) of claim 2. We, accordingly, will also not
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 2.

CONCLUSION
We conclude that Tajime does not teach or suggest calculating a
complexity estimate for a picture using complexities for decoded previous
and current pictures along with the complexity of an encoded previous
picture.

Appeal 2009-003211
Application 10/608,411

12
ORDER
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-3, 5-13, 15-18, 20-23, and
25-45 is reversed.

REVERSED

KIS

SUGHRUE MION, PLLC
2100 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE, N.W.
SUITE 800
WASHINGTON, DC 20037