Ex Parte Demircin et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 20, 2015

11479077 (P.T.A.B. May. 20, 2015)

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.
11/479,077 06/30/2006 M. U. Demircin SLA 1948 (7146.0368) 7924
55648 7590 05/20/2015
CHERNOFF VILHAUER MCCLUNG & STENZEL, LLP
601 SW Second Ave., Suite 1600
PORTLAND, OR 97204
EXAMINER
SENFI, BEHROOZ M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2482
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/20/2015 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 M. U. DEMIRCIN and PETRUS J. L. VAN BEEK
____________________

Appeal 2013-003386
Application 11/479,077
Technology Center 2400
____________________

Before JASON V. MORGAN, JON M. JURGOVAN, and
DANIEL J. GALLIGAN, Administrative Patent Judges.

JURGOVAN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection
of claims 1–17 and 19–27. Claim 18 was canceled. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm the rejections of claims 14–17, 19, 20, and 27, reverse the
rejection of claims 1–13 and 21–26, and enter new grounds of rejection for
claims 1–13 and 21–26.2

1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Sharp Laboratories of
America, Inc. App. Br. 2.
2 Our Decision refers to the Appeal Brief filed Aug. 31, 2012 (“App. Br.”),
the Examiner’s Answer mailed Nov. 8, 2012 (“Ans.”), the Reply Brief filed
Jan. 7, 2013 (“Reply Br.”), the Final Office Action mailed Aug. 13, 2012
(“Final Act.”), and the Specification filed Jun. 30, 2006 (“Spec.”).
Appeal 2013-003386
Application 11/479,077

2
STATEMENT OF CASE
The claims are directed to encoding video frames using a compression
rate distortion model. See claim 1. The rate distortion model relates the
number of bits used to encode a frame to the distortion that results by not
using all of the frame’s data. See Spec. ¶¶ 310–11. The claims recite
allocating bits for encoding based on modeling distortion of one frame as a
linear function of a change in bits used to encode another frame. See claim
1.
Claim 1, reproduced below with disputed language emphasized, is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method for transmitting video content comprising:
(a) encoding a plurality of frames of said video by a
sender at a data rate;
(b) transmitting said encoded video across a network
interconnection to a receiver;
(c) wherein said encoding includes allocating bits for a
plurality of frames of said video based upon a delay constraint
for said plurality of frames and a rate distortion model that
models the distortion of a first frame as a linear function of a
change in bits allocated to a second frame.

REJECTIONS
R1. Claims 1–6, 9–11, 14, 15, 17, and 19–27 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) based on Mishra (US 6,075,768; issued June 13, 2000),
Jayant (US 2004/0114817 A1; publ. June 17, 2004), and Wang I (US 2002/
0159523 A1; publ. Oct. 31, 2002). Final Act. 2.
R2. Claims 7, 8, 12, 13, and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) based on Mishra, Jayant, Wang I, and Wang II (US 6,167,084;
issued Dec. 26, 2000). Final Act. 5.
Appeal 2013-003386
Application 11/479,077

3

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
We give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent
with the specification. In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359,
1369 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Claim terms are given their ordinary and customary
meaning, as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art in the
context of the entire disclosure. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249,
1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the
specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims.
In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Any need or problem known in the field of endeavor at the time of
invention and addressed by the patent can provide a reason for combining
the elements in the manner claimed. KSR Intern. Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550
U.S. 398, 411 (2007). An improvement is obvious if it is no more than the
predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions.
Id. at 401.

ANALYSIS
CLAIMS 1–13 AND 20–26
A. Argument Concerning Lack of Explanation of How One Could Apply
Wang I’s Teaching to Linearize Jayant’s Rate Distortion Model

Appellants argue Wang I fails to teach modification of Jayant’s model
of frame variances (or errors) as a function of bit allocation so as to make
Jayant’s model linear. App. Br. 6. Appellants also assert that Jayant teaches
against such linearization. Id.
Appeal 2013-003386
Application 11/479,077

4
We agree with Appellants the Examiner does not provide sufficient
reasoning to explain how one could convert Jayant’s nonlinear rate
distortion models (see, e.g., Jayant ¶¶ 212, 216, 221) into linear models
using Wang I’s teachings (see Wang I ¶¶ 75–80). For the person of ordinary
skill to accomplish this task, it would require more than mere recognition
that use of a linear model is conventionally known (see Final Act. 3). For
this reason, we reverse the rejections of claims 1–13 and 21–26.
However, we disagree with both Appellants’ and the Examiner’s
assertions that Jayant teaches against linearization of rate distortion models
for reasons explained infra.
CLAIMS 14–17, 19, 20, AND 27
Claim 14 recites “said rate distortion model relates the bit rate
reduction of one frame of said plurality of frames to a measure of the
average distortion of said plurality of frames of said video.” The Examiner
cites Jayant, paragraphs 391–394 and 401, as teaching the limitations of
claim 14.
Jayant describes the creation of a “bit pool” by taking encoding bits
from frames with below average distortion, and allocating those bits to other
frames with above average distortion. See Jayant ¶¶ 386–403. This
equalizes the amount of distortion experienced by each frame. Id.
Paragraph 391 of Jayant sets forth the following equation:
∙ ∙ .
The mean square error (mse) is a measure of distortion by comparing a
frame’s bits before and after encoding and decoding. See, e.g., Jayant
¶¶ 84, 389. Thus, Jayant teaches reduction of a frame’s bit rate (by
Appeal 2013-003386
Application 11/479,077

5
contributing bits to the bit pool) relates to a measure of the average
distortion mseAVG (see Jayant ¶ 392) of a plurality N of video frames. The
equation at paragraph 391 of Jayant is a linear function relating distortion of
one frame to a change in bits allocated to another frame, and thus teaches a
linear rate distortion model as claimed. Under the principle of broadest
reasonable interpretation, we find these teachings sufficient to conclude that
Jayant teaches the limitations of claim 14.
Appellants do not rebut the Examiner’s findings with respect to Jayant
but merely submit the Examiner improperly cites new portions of Jayant in a
manner not found in the Final Rejection. Reply Br. 4, 6. However,
allegations that an Examiner’s answer contains undesignated new grounds of
rejection are resolved by petition. MPEP § 1207.03(IV) (8th ed., July 2010).
In light of the Examiner’s unrebutted findings, we agree with the Examiner
the combination of Mishra and Jayant teaches the limitation of claim 14.
We thus sustain the rejection of claim 14.
As no separate arguments are presented for claims 15–17, 19, 20, and
27, all dependent from claim 14, we sustain the rejections of these claims as
well.
NEW GROUND OF REJECTION FOR CLAIMS 1–13 AND 21–26
A. Explanation of New Grounds of Rejection
We enter new grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) against
claims 1–13 and 21–26 based on Mishra, Jayant, Wang I, and Wang II
pursuant to our authority under 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b).
Specifically, we apply Mishra to claim 1 in the same manner as was
done in the Answer for rejections R1 and R2. We further rely on Jayant to
teach “a rate distortion model that models the distortion of a first frame as a
Appeal 2013-003386
Application 11/479,077

6
linear function of a change in bits allocated to a second frame” as stated in
claim 1. In particular, Jayant teaches “rate distortion models” in the
equations shown in paragraphs 391, 400, and 402. Each of these equations
relates distortion (mse) of one frame to a change of bits allocated to another
frame by either adding bits to the bit pool or taking them from the bit pool
for use in encoding another frame. Each of these equations teaches a linear
function.
As for the dependent claims, we apply the same references and
reasoning as the Examiner did in the Answer.
Regarding the reasoning to combine the references, Mishra, Jayant,
Wang I, and Wang II are in the same field of endeavor as the claimed
subject matter, namely, compression rate control in video encoding (see,
e.g., Abstracts of Mishra, Jayant, Wang I, Wang II, Spec. ¶¶ 77, 310–315).
The references also address the same problem, namely, how to improve
compression efficiency and transport of video over a network by avoiding
complexity, processing delay, and data storage issues (see Mishra col. 1, ll.
51–54, Jayant ¶ 113, Wang I ¶ 5, Wang II col. 2, ll. 15–16, col. 9, ll. 39–43,
Spec. ¶ 7– 9). It is well-established that any need or problem known in the
field of endeavor at the time of invention and addressed by the patent (or
application) can provide a reason for combining the elements in the manner
claimed. See KSR supra.
The person of ordinary skill would have understood Mishra’s teaching
concerning allowing bandwidth used by streams to fluctuate over time to
match temporal image complexity variations (col. 8, ll. 45–60), and its
teaching regarding adapting the encoding rate to avoid buffer overflows or
excessive delays (col. 4, ll. 22–25), could be improved upon using Jayant’s
Appeal 2013-003386
Application 11/479,077

7
teaching of a linear rate distortion model allocating bits from one frame to
another by comparison of each frame’s distortion (“mse”) to average
distortion for a group of frames (“mseAVG”) in order to equalize frame
distortion (¶¶ 386–403). Such person would have understood the benefit of
applying these teachings to all frame types used in MPEG coding, namely,
the I-, P-, and B-frames, as taught by Wang I (¶¶ 74–91). Moreover, such
person would have understood the benefit of using these techniques to
allocate bits from current to future frames or to locations within a group of
frames, as taught by Wang II, in order to avoid buffer overflow or underflow
with resulting delays and loss of data (col. 2, ll. 15–16, col. 9, ll. 26–61, Fig.
6). Such person also would have understood the reference teachings could
be applied in the context of transcoding, as taught by Wang II (Fig. 6
transcoder 640, col. 8, ll. 25–36). In sum, the claims are directed to nothing
more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their
established functions, as exemplified by the combination of Mishra, Jayant,
Wang I, and Wang II. See KSR, supra, at 411.
We next address specific arguments raised by Appellants, but we do
so in the context of the new grounds of rejection. We do this to provide
clarity regarding our understanding of the reference teachings in relation to
the claims.
B. Argument Concerning References Failing to Teach A Linear Rate
Distortion Model

Appellants argue the references relied upon by the Examiner fail to
teach a linear rate distortion model. App. Br. 5. To the contrary, the
Examiner correctly noted that Wang I, paragraph 76, teaches a linear model
between a picture complexity measure and the number of bits required for
Appeal 2013-003386
Application 11/479,077

8
coding. Wang I, paragraph 86, teaches use of a weighting factor for bit
allocation according to frame complexity and type (I, P, or B frame3).
Appellants’ rate distortion models similarly use relationships between
complexity and number of bits required for coding. See Spec. ¶¶ 77, 122.
We find that Wang I teaches linear rate distortion models consistently
with how Appellants present such models in their Specification. In addition,
for reasons explained supra, we find Jayant also teaches linear rate distortion
models. Accordingly, we do not agree with Appellants’ argument that the
cited references fail to teach linear rate distortion models.
C. Argument Concerning the Rational Combination of Jayant and Wang I
At pages 5 and 6 of the Reply Brief, Appellants describe what they
regard as the rational way a person of ordinary skill would have combined
Jayant and Wang I. As we have agreed with Appellants the Examiner erred
in combining Wang I with Jayant under the reasoning set forth in the Final
Office Action, we need not reach this argument. Furthermore, this argument
is moot in view of the new ground of rejection set forth supra in which we
provide a detailed explanation why the person of ordinary skill in the art
would have combined the references to arrive at the claimed subject matter.

3 In Motion Picture Experts Group 2 (MPEG-2) encoding, a group of
pictures (GoP) typically includes I, P, and B frames. Independent (I) frames
can be independently decoded, predictive (P) frames require a previous
frame to be decoded, and bidirectional (B) frames require future and
previous frames to be decoded. See Spec. ¶ 300.
Appeal 2013-003386
Application 11/479,077

9

DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner’s rejections of claims 14–17, 19,
20, and 27 are affirmed.
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1–13 and 21–26 are reversed.
We enter new grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) against
claims 1–13 and 21–26 based on Mishra, Jayant, Wang I, and Wang II.
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) provides that, “[a] new ground of rejection
pursuant to this paragraph shall not be considered final for judicial review.”
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) also provides that the Appellants, WITHIN TWO
MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF THE DECISION, must exercise one of
the following two options with respect to the new grounds of rejection to
avoid termination of proceedings as to the rejected claims:
(1) Reopen prosecution. Submit an appropriate amendment of the
claims so rejected or new Evidence relating to the claims so rejected, or
both, and have the matter reconsidered by the Examiner, in which event the
proceeding will be remanded to the Examiner.
(2) Request rehearing. Request that the proceeding be reheard under
37 C.F.R. § 41.52 by the Board upon the same Record.

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b)

dw