Ex Parte Doux

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jul 29, 2004

09976226 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 29, 2004)

1
The opinion in support of the decision being entered
today was not written for publication and
is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 14
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_______________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_______________
Ex parte ANNE-CLAUDE DOUX

_______________
Appeal No. 2003-2127
Application No. 09/976,226
_______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before THOMAS, BARRETT, and FLEMING, Administrative Patent
Judges.
THOMAS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant has appealed to the Board from the examiner’s
final rejection of claims 1, 2 and 7.
Representative claim 1 is reproduced below:
Appeal No. 2003-2127
Application No. 09/976,226
2
1. A method of coding a sequence of pictures, the
method comprising the steps:
establishing a motion vector indicating a block of
pixels in a previous picture which is similar to a
block of pixels in a current picture to be coded; and
compressing data relating to the block of pixels
in the current picture, the extent to which the data is
compressed depending on a quantization parameter;
controlling the quantization parameter on the
basis of the motion vector.
The following reference is relied on by the examiner:
Lavagetto 5,151,784 Sep. 29, 1992
Claims 1, 2 and 7 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being
anticipated by Lavagetto.
Rather that repeat the positions of the appellant, reference
is made to the brief (no reply brief has been filed) for
appellant’s positions, and to the first Office action in paper
no. 5 as well as the answer for the examiner’s positions.
OPINION
For the reasons set forth by the examiner in the earlier-
noted Office action as well as the answer, we sustain the
rejection of all claims on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 102. Based
upon the nature of the arguments presented in the brief as well
the statement made at page 3 of the brief, all claims fall
Appeal No. 2003-2127
Application No. 09/976,226
3
together. The only feature of representative independent claim 1
on appeal disputed by appellant is the language “controlling the
quantization parameter of the basis of the motion vector.” In
relation to figure 1 and the statements made at Lavagotto’s
column 7, lines 52 through 56, appellant asserts that only the
weights from the motion estimator 118 in this figure are
quantized by quantizer 130 and not the motion vectors themselves.
As noted by the examiner at the bottom of page 3 of the
answer, the multiplexer and buffer 117 provides feedback signals
to the quantizer 130 thus indicating that it is adaptive and
therefore varies a quantization step or size such as to provide a
quantization parameter to regulate the bit amounts to be coded by
VLC 116 in Figure 1. We agree with the examiner’s views that
this quantizer 130 is in part responsive to the weights provided
by motion estimator 118 as illustrated in figure 1. From our
study of Lavagetto, we agree with the examiner’s views at the top
of page 4 of the answer that these weights supplied by the motion
estimator 118 serve as “motion indices to the motion vectors.”
We therefore agree with the examiner’s conclusion that “Lavagetto
sufficiently discloses the step of ‘controlling the quantization
parameter on the basis of the motion vector’ as claimed.”
Appeal No. 2003-2127
Application No. 09/976,226
4
The examiner’s characterization that the weights produced by
the motion estimator 118 and supplied by the operation of switch
109 serve as “motion indices to the motion vectors” (answer, top
of page 4) is amply supported according to the teachings of
Lavagetto as well. There are numerous instances in this
reference where the motion vectors are stated to have
“corresponding optional weights” (see the bottom of column 2;
column 7, lines 20 through 26; column 13, lines 19 through 26 and
column 18, lines 17 through 24).
Moreover, from our study of this reference, we are
independently persuaded by other teachings of the anticipatory
nature of the representative subject matter of claim 1 on appeal.
The discussion of the prior art in the Background of the
Invention at columns 1 and 2 of Lavagetto indicates that motion
vectors and weighting factors are known to be “quantized or
encoded as appropriate for transmission or storage.” (column 2,
lines 43 through 47).
A second basis also exists according to the discussion in
paragraph bridging columns 5 and 6, which teaches that the motion
estimator produces motion vectors which are supplied to the
motion compensator 128 through switch 108 and eventually provided
Appeal No. 2003-2127
Application No. 09/976,226
5
to DCT 119 which in turn feed quantizer 120 before the data is
encoded by VLC 121.
A third basis exists in the discussion outlined by the
examiner at column 7, lines 1 through 61. This discussion
indicates that the motion estimator 118 supplies motion vectors
via switch element 108 and the weights via switch 109 to the
motion interpolator 129 which in turn feeds the resulting data to
the upper left portion of the circuit of figure 1 and eventually
again to the quantizer 120 as explained earlier.
A fourth basis also exists to maintain a rejection of the
claims on appeal. Although not repeated in the answer, the first
Office action indicates the examiner’s initial reliance upon the
showing in figure 10. This figure is characterized as presenting
in flow chart form the steps required by motion estimator to
generate motion vectors and weights for a block to be encoded.
The discussion at column 17 beginning at line 47 through column
18 line 24 indicates again as done throughout the reference that
the displacements d are considered to be motion vectors which,
according to step 1029, are quantized optionally by quantizer 130
as indicated at column 18, lines 17 through 21.
Appeal No. 2003-2127
Application No. 09/976,226
6
In view of the foregoing, since the examiner has provided
substantial evidence of the anticipatory nature of the subject
matter of the claims on appeal on the basis of Lavagetto, the
examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2 and 7 on appeal is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in
connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR
§ 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED
JAMES D. THOMAS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
LEE E. BARRETT ) APPEALS AND
Administrative Patent Judge ) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
MICHAEL R. FLEMING )
Administrative Patent Judge )
JDT/vsh
Appeal No. 2003-2127
Application No. 09/976,226
7
PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS
P.O. BOX 3001
BRIARCLIFF MANOR, NY 10510