Ex Parte Daian

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 24, 2016

12753356 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 24, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
121753,356 04/02/2010 Hideki Daian
22850 7590 06/28/2016
OBLON, MCCLELLAND, MAIER & NEUSTADT, LLP,
1940 DUKE STREET
ALEXANDRIA, VA 22314
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.
356906US2 4430
EXAMINER
SOSANYA, OBAFEMI OLUDAYO
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2486
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/28/2016 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):
patentdocket@oblon.com
oblonpat@oblon.com
ahudgens@oblon.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte HIDEKI DAIAN1
Appeal2014-004509
Application 12/753,356
Technology Center 2400
Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, and
MICHAEL M. BARRY, Administrative Patent Judges.
BARRY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1---6. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
1 Appellant identifies MegaChips Corporation as the real party in interest.
App. Br. 1.
Appeal2014-004509
Application 12/753,356
Introduction
Appellant states the "invention relates to ... a method of generating
image data including intra prediction for determining a prediction mode with
ease." Spec. 1 ("Field of the Invention"). Claim 1 is representative:
1. A method of generating image data for performing image
prediction subblock by subblock, the subblock being obtained
by segmenting a macroblock in a predetermined encoding size,
said image prediction being performed by a plurality of
prediction methods defined by a size of said sub block,
the method comprising:
a first step of performing interpolation on a pixel of a
second subblock serving as an encoding target in a plurality of
prediction modes, using a pixel value of a first sub block serving
as a reference target; and
a second step of obtaining a cost defined by a sum of
absolute difference between a pixel value of a first prediction
image of said second subblock obtained by said interpolation
and a pixel value of said second subblock prior to execution of
interpolation, for each of said plurality of prediction modes, to
thereby determine a minimum cost among said obtained costs,
wherein
said first and second steps are performed in a prediction
method in which said encoding size is larger to obtain a first
prediction mode leading to a first minimum cost,
said first and second steps are performed in a following
prediction method to determine a second minimum cost using a
prediction mode set in advance for said first prediction mode,
and
said first and second minimum costs are compared with
each other to determine an optimum prediction mode through
an operation of selecting the smaller minimum cost.
App. Br. Claims App'x i (key disputed claim requirement emphasized).
2
Appeal2014-004509
Application 12/753,356
Rejections
Claims 1, 3, 4, and 6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over Wada et al. (US 2010/0118945 Al, published May 13, 2010)
and Boon et al. (US 2010/0195722 Al, published Aug. 5, 2010). Final Act.
4--9.
Claim 2 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
Wada, Boon, and Shimizu et al. (US 2010/0020872 Al, published Jan. 28,
2010). Final Act. 9-10.
Claim 2 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
Wada, Boon, and Sakaguchi et al. (US 2005/0089235 Al, published Apr. 28,
2005). Final Act. 11-12.
ISSUE
The issue before us is whether the Examiner errs in rejecting claim 1,
and specifically whether Wada teaches or suggests the three wherein clauses
at the end of the claim. See App. Br. 4--7.
ANALYSIS
In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner relies on paragraphs 53, 77, and 90
of Wada as disclosing the limitations of the "wherein" clauses. Final Act 5-
6. Appellant argues Wada fails to teach or suggest the disputed requirement
of "using a prediction mode set in advance for said first prediction mode" in
the penultimate wherein clause. Appellant specifically contends that Wada,
in contradistinction with claim 1, teaches "all prediction modes are
processed and then, costs are calculated" (App. Br. 4 (citing Wada i-f 53))
and it is only "after encoding loop processing is performed ... the encoding
cost in each sub-block is calculated" (App. Br. 5 (citing Wada i-fi-177, 90)).
The Examiner answers by finding that
3
Appeal2014-004509
Application 12/753,356
Wada discloses performing encoding loop processing for [] 8x8
and 4x4 macroblocks. The 8x8 is considered as the macroblock
with the larger encoding size. According to paragraph 77, the
encoding cost for each mode is calculated. In other words, the
first mode has an encoding cost attributed to it, likewise the
second mode. The encoding costs are compared with each other
to determine the encoding cost that minimizes the block and it
is being referred to in paragraph 77 as the optimum cost.
Ans. 11-12. The Examiner also finds Wada teaches the disputed
requirement of the "second minimum cost using a prediction mode set in
advance for said first prediction mode" because "before a mode can be
determined, a cost must have been calculated." Ans. 12 (explaining this is
because "Wada discloses in paragraph 92 that 'a mode is determined based
on a thus obtained cost.'").
Appellant replies by disputing the Examiner's interpretation of
paragraph 77, explaining
there is no discussion within paragraph [0077], or the remainder
of Wada, that would suggest that that the loop processing
performed on the 4x4 size uses a prediction mode set in
advance for the prediction mode (corresponding to a minimum
cost) obtained for the 8x8 size, rather Wada teaches using all
prediction modes on the sub-blocks and only then, when all the
prediction modes are performed, selecting [the] size of the sub-
block with the optimal cost.
Reply 2. Appellant also argues that paragraph 92 of Wada is simply
"directed to determining the final optimum mode .... Nothing within the
discussion of paragraph [0092] suggest[ s] that this optimum mode is
determined in the middle of the processing of paragraph [0077] .... "
Reply 3.
Appellant persuades us that Wada's disclosure of "determin[ing] the
encoding cost of the 4x4 loop processing and compar[ing] that encoding cost
4
Appeal2014-004509
Application 12/753,356
with that of the 8x8 loop processing to determine the optimal sub-block size
leading to the minimum cost" (Reply 3) does not teach or suggest "using a
prediction mode set in advance for said first prediction mode" as required by
claim 1. We agree with Appellant that Wada' s teaching of "using all
prediction modes on the sub-blocks and only then, when all the prediction
modes are performed, selecting [the] size of the sub-block with the optimal
cost" (App. Br. 5) neither discloses nor suggests the disputed requirement.
We accordingly do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1.
We therefore also do not sustain the rejection of claims 2---6, all of which
depend, directly or indirectly, from claim 1.
DECISION
For the reasons above, we reverse the Examiner's rejection of claims
1---6.
REVERSED
5