Ex Parte CHOI et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 20, 2016

12414251 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 20, 2016)

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.
12/414,251 03/30/2009 Kwang-Pyo CHOI 678-3663 (P16705) 1638
66547 7590 06/20/2016
THE FARRELL LAW FIRM, P.C.
290 Broadhollow Road
Suite 210E
Melville, NY 11747
EXAMINER
JEBARI, MOHAMMED
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2482
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/20/2016 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 KWANG-PYO CHOI, YUN-JE OH, YOUNG-HUN
JOO, BYEUNG-WOO JEON, BONG-SOO JUNG, and
HO-YOUNG LEE
____________________

Appeal 2015-002187
Application 12/414,251
Technology Center 2400
____________________

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

DANG, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2015-002187
Application 12/414,251

2
I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection of
claims 18–41. Appellants have previously canceled claims 1–17. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
A. THE INVENTION
According to Appellants, the disclosed and claimed invention relates
to a method and apparatus for “intra-prediction video coding/decoding.”
(Title).
B. ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
Claim 18 is exemplary:
18. A method for recovering a video signal from coded
compressed data in an intra-prediction video decoding
apparatus, the method comprising:

recovering, if a code block being a basic unit of recovering the
compressed data includes a plurality of sub-blocks, a pixel
value of each of the plurality of sub-blocks included in the code
block based on a coding mode for the code block; and

acquiring, by the intra-prediction video decoding apparatus, a
video signal corresponding to the code block using the
recovered pixel values of the plurality of sub-blocks.
C. REJECTION
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner as evidence in rejecting the
claims on appeal is:
Yoo US 2006/0222066 A1 Oct. 5, 2006
Appeal 2015-002187
Application 12/414,251

3

Claims 18–41 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Yoo.
II. ISSUE
The principal issue before us is whether the Examiner erred in finding
Yoo discloses “recovering, if a code block being a basic unit of recovering
the compressed data includes a plurality of sub-blocks, a pixel value of each
of the plurality of sub-blocks included in the code block based on a coding
mode for the code block.” (claim 18, emphasis added).
FINDINGS OF FACT
The following Findings of Fact (FF) are shown by a preponderance of
the evidence.
Yoo
1. Yoo discloses performing intra-prediction based on the prediction
value of a macroblock. (¶ 56).
2. Intraprediction of an 8X8 block is performed using intra predicting
4X4 blocks. (¶ 50).
3. Determining whether to perform intra-prediction is based on the
RD costs of the possible encoding modes. (¶ 56).
4. Intra-prediction is used in both encoding and decoding. (¶ 61, 62;
Fig. 11).
5. Performing intra-prediction based on pixel information of adjacent
blocks. (¶ 64).

Appeal 2015-002187
Application 12/414,251

4
ANALYSIS
With respect to claim 18, Appellants contend:
Specifically, Yoo describes that prediction unit 320 provides
pixel information of adjacent blocks from adjacent pixel
information providing unit 310. However, Yoo fails to disclose
that the first predictor and the second predictor use adjacent pixel
values for intra-prediction of 4x4 blocks.
(App. Br. 5).
Appellants also contend “Yoo fails to disclose performing the intra-
prediction on each of a plurality of sub-blocks included in a code block
based on a coding mode for the code block.” (App. Br. 6). Appellants
further contend “Yoo fails to disclose that a pixel value of each of a plurality
of sub-blocks included in a code block is recovered based on a coding mode
for the code block, as recited in Claim 18.” (Reply Br. 2).
However, we disagree with Appellants’ arguments with respect to
claim 18, 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 highlight and address specific
findings and arguments regarding claim 18 for emphasis as follows.
As an initial matter of claim interpretation, we give the claim its
broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the Specification. See In
re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997). We begin by noting that
Appellants’ contention that “Yoo fails to disclose that the first predictor and
the second predictor use adjacent pixel values for intra-prediction of 4x4
blocks” (App. Br. 5) is not commensurate with the recited language of
Appeal 2015-002187
Application 12/414,251

5
claim 18. In particular, claim 18 is silent as to a first predictor or a second
predictor or using adjacent pixel values.
Furthermore, we note method claim 18 recites a conditional
limitation, namely “recovering, if a code block being a basic unit of
receiving the compressed data includes a plurality of sub-blocks” (emphasis
added). That is, the claim does not require that the recovering step is
performed if the code block does not include sub-blocks. Therefore, under
the broadest reasonable interpretation, the “recovering” step or act need not
be performed if the recited predicate condition is not met. (claim 18). See
Cybersettle, Inc. v. Nat’l Arbitration Forum, Inc., 243 Fed. Appx. 603, 607
(Fed. Cir. 2007) (unpublished) (“It is of course true that method steps may
be contingent. If the condition for performing a contingent step is not
satisfied, the performance recited by the step need not be carried out in order
for the claimed method to be performed.”); see also Applera Corp. v.
Illumina, Inc., 375 Fed. Appx. 12, 21 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (unpublished)
(affirming a district court’s interpretation of a method claim as including a
step that need not be practiced if the condition for practicing the step is not
met).
Therefore, Appellants’ argument regarding Yoo’s alleged failure to
disclose this condition limitation (App. Br. 5–6, Reply Br. 2) is also not
commensurate with the scope of the claim. That is, claim 18 does not
require performing the action recited in the conditional step, for its condition
need not be satisfied to anticipate this claim.
Nevertheless, the Examiner finds, and we agree, Yoo discloses the
argued limitations. In particular, we agree with the Examiner's finding that
claim 18’s “code block” and “sub-block” encompass Yoo’s 8x8 block and
Appeal 2015-002187
Application 12/414,251

6
4x4 blocks, respectively. (Ans. 8, Final Act. 2, FF 2). We further agree
with the Examiner’s finding Yoo’s current macroblock discloses an optimal
coding mode, where such mode has the smallest RD cost. (Ans. 8; FF 1
and 3). Thus, we agree with the Examiner’s finding Yoo discloses
claim 18’s limitation “recovering . . . a pixel value of each of the plurality of
sub-blocks included in the code block based on a coding mode for the code
block” (emphasis added).
We note Yoo’s disclosure of performing intra-prediction is used in
both encoding and decoding steps. (FF 4). In particular, Yoo specifically
describes: “like in the encoder described above, the intra prediction unit 212
used in the decoder according to the exemplary embodiment of the present
invention allows some of the blocks to be intra predicted in parallel, thereby
reducing the time required for intra prediction.” (Yoo ¶ 61). Thus, we agree
with the Examiner Yoo discloses claim 18’s “recovering” method in an
“intra-prediction video decoding apparatus” (emphasis added). Furthermore,
contrary to Appellants’ contention (App. Br. 5), Yoo discloses intra-
prediction based on pixel information of adjacent blocks. (FF 5).
Therefore, based upon the findings above, on this record, we find no
error in the Examiner's rejection of independent claim 18 over Yoo.
Appellants do not provide substantive arguments for claims 19–41 separate
from those of claim 18. Accordingly, we also affirm the rejection of claims
19–41, rejected on the same basis as claim 18.

Appeal 2015-002187
Application 12/414,251

7
V. CONCLUSION AND DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 18–41 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b).
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).
AFFIRMED