Ex Parte Divorra Escoda et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 19, 2016

12451856 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 19, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/451,856 12/03/2009
24498 7590 09/21/2016
Robert D, Shedd, Patent Operations
THOMSON Licensing LLC
4 Research Way
3rd Floor
Princeton, NJ 08543
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Oscar Divorra Escoda
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.
PU070135 9910
EXAMINER
WERNER, DAVID N
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2487
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/21/2016 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):
uspto@technicolor.com
pat. verlangieri@technicolor.com
russell. smith@technicolor.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte OSCAR DIVORRA ESCODA and PENG YIN
Appeal2015-003920
Application 12/451,856
Technology Center 2400
Before JOHNNY A. KUMAR, JOHN P. PINKERTON, and
SCOTT E. BAIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
PINKERTON, Administrative Patent Judge
DECISION ON APPEAL
.6. .... ,1 .... ,....,-TTr'l.r-"\l\-1,....Al/'\.r'" , .. T"""1 •-, Appeuants' appeal unaer j) u.~.L. s U4~aJ rrom tne bxammer s
Final Rejection of claims 1-5, 7-11, 13-17, 19-23, and 25-34, which are
the only claims pending in the application. Claims 6, 12, 18, and 24 are
canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm.
1 Appellants identify Thomson Licensing as the real party in interest. App.
Br. 1.
Appeal2015-003920
Application 12/451,856
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellants' described and claimed invention generally relates to video
encoding and decoding and, more particularly, to methods and apparatus for
in-loop de-artifacting filtering based on multi-lattice sparsity-based filtering.
Spec. 1:10-12.2
Claim 1 is illustrative and reproduced below (with the disputed
limitation emphasized):
1. An apparatus, comprising:
an encoder for encoding picture data for a picture, the
encoder using a transform for transforming prediction residuals,
wherein the encoder includes:
an in-loop de-artifacting filter adapted to de-artifact the
encoded picture data, wherein the de-artifacting filter
transforms the encoded picture with a plurality of transforms,
wherein the plurality of transforms are translations of the
transform used for transforming the prediction residuals, and
wherein the plurality of transforms are at least translated in x
and y directions.
2 Our Decision refers to the Final Action mailed June 6, 2014 ("Final Act.");
Appellants' Appeal Brief filed Nov. 4, 2014 ("App. Br."); the Examiner's
Answer mailed Dec. 4, 2014 ("Ans."); and, the original Specification filed
Dec. 3, 2009 ("Spec.").
2
Appeal2015-003920
Application 12/451,856
Rejections on Appeal
Claims 1-3, 7-9, 13-15, 19-21, and 25-34 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over R. Samadani, A.
Sundararajan, & A. Said, Deringing and Deblocking DCT Compression
Artifacts with Efficient Shifted Transforms, Mar. 2004 Int'l Conf. on Image
Processing (ICIP '04) 1799-1802 (Oct. 2004) ("Samadani"), A. Nosratinia,
Enhancement of JPEG-compressed images by re-application of JPEG,
Journal of VLSI Signal Procesing Systems for Signal, Image, and Video
Technology, vol. 27, pp. 69-79, February 2001 ("Nosratinia"),3 and P. List,
A. Joch, J. Lainema, G. Bjontegaard, & M. Karczewicz, Adaptive
Deblocking Filter, 13 IEEE Trans. on Circuits & Sys. For Video Tech. 614--
619 (July 2003) ("List"). Final Act. 4--11.
Claims 4, 5, 10, 11, 16, 17, 22, and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable Samadani, List, and Burazerovic et al. (\VO
2004/066634 Al; published Aug. 5, 2004) ("Burazerovic"). Final Act. 11-
12.
3 As Appellants note (see App. Br. 9-10), the Examiner did not identify
Nosratinia as a reference in the rejection, but the Examiner relied on
Nosratinia in the rejection of these claims. See Final Act. 5---6. We note
Samadani cites Nosratinia as a reference. See Samadani fn. 4. We find no
error in the Examiner's failure to formally list Nosratinia in the rejection
because Appellants were provided notice ofNosratinia in the Final Office
Action and fully addressed Nosratinia in the Appeal Brief. See App. Br. 9-
11, 15-17.
3
Appeal2015-003920
Application 12/451,856
ANALYSIS
The dispositive issue raised by Appellants' arguments is whether
Nosratinia teaches or suggests the limitation "the plurality of transforms are
at least translated in x and y directions," as recited in claims 1, 7, 13, 19, and
25. Appellants argue a direct implementation ofNosratinia teaches "64
possible shifts including some shifts with a zero shift in the
horizontal/vertical direction. Thus, the shifted transforms as taught by
N osratinia are not at least translated in x and y directions as recited in [the]
pending claims." App. Br. 15-16. Appellants also argue that, in
Nosratinia' s modified implementation, "the remaining 32 shifts still include
some shifts with a zero shift in the horizontal/vertical direction" and,
therefore, Nosratinia fails to teach of suggest the disputed limitation. Id. at
16-17.
We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments that the Examiner has
erred. The Examiner finds, and we agree, the disputed limitation-the
plurality of transforms are at least translated in x and y directions-means "a
plurality of transforms, which as a whole includes a translation in the x
direction and a translation in the y direction not required to be
simultaneously." Ans. 11-12. In other words, as the Examiner explains, "a
set of translations of { (1,0), (0, 1)} would satisfy the claimed condition, since
the first translation is in the x direction and the second translation is in the y
direction." Id. at 12. We also agree with the Examiner that the disputed
limitation is broader than the embodiment described in the Specification in
which "only those translations of a transform that are at least translated in
both of the block axis [sic] are actually used," and that it would be improper
4
Appeal2015-003920
Application 12/451,856
to import limitations directed to this embodiment from the Specification into
the claims. Id. at 12-13 (citing Spec. 32:29-30); see Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
415 F.3d 1303, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en bane).
Considering the proper construction of the disputed limitation,
Appellants' argument regarding Nosratinia is not commensurate with the
scope of the limitation, and we agree with the Examiner's findings that the
limitation is "obvious in view ofNostratina, directed to a plurality of
transforms of the set translated from (-3,-3) to (4,4), as incorporated in the
Samadini reference." Ans. 13. We further note that Appellants did not file a
Reply Brief and have not presented persuasive evidence or reasoning to
rebut the Examiner's findings. Accordingly, we do not find error in: (1) the
Examiner's findings that Nosratinia teaches or suggests the disputed
limitation, or (2) the Examiner's conclusion that claims 1, 7, 13, 19, and 25
are obvious in view of the combination of Samadini, N osratinia, and List.
For these reasons, we sustain the Examiner;s rejection of claims 1, 7,
13, 19, and 25 for obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). For the same
reasons, we also sustain the Examiner's rejection of dependent claims 2, 3,
8, 9, 14, 15, 20, 21, and 26-34, which are not argued separately. See App.
Br. 12-19; see also 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
Regarding claims 4, 5, 10, 11, 16, 17, 22, and 23, we agree with the
Examiner that Appellants' general allegation that Burazerovic does do not
cure the deficiency of the references is not sufficiently specific to constitute
an argument for separate patentability of these claims. See Ans. 16; see also
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv); In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir.
2011) ("[T]he Board reasonably interpreted Rule 41.37 to require more
substantive arguments in an appeal brief than a mere recitation of the claim
5
Appeal2015-003920
Application 12/451,856
elements and a naked assertion that the corresponding elements were not
found in the prior art."). Thus, we also sustain the Examiner's rejection of
these claims.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-5, 7-11, 13-17, 19-
23, and 25-34 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
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
6