Ex Parte Francois et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 27, 2017

12998921 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 27, 2017)

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.
12/998,921 05/04/2012 Edouard Francois PF080160 3351
24498 7590 05/01/2017
Robert D. Shedd, Patent Operations
THOMSON Licensing LLC
4 Research Way
3rd Floor
Princeton, NJ 08543
EXAMINER
ANYIKIRE, CHIKAODILI E
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2487
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/01/2017 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 EDOUARD FRANCOIS, DOMINIQUE THOREAU,
JEROME VIERON, and AURELIE MARTIN
Appeal 2016-008473
Application 12/998,921
Technology Center 2400
Before JASON V. MORGAN, NABEEL U. KHAN, and
KAMRAN JIVANI, Administrative Patent Judges.
JIVANI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants.1 seek our review, under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), of the
Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1—11 and 16—29. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Thomson
Licensing. Br. 4.
Appeal 2016-008473
Application 12/998,921
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
“The invention relates to a method for estimation and coding of global
motion parameters of a sequence of video pictures as well as a method and
device for coding video pictures based on global motion compensation.”
Spec. 1,11. 5-7.
Independent claim 1 is reproduced below.
1. A method for video coding at least one digital picture
sequence, the pictures of said sequence being able to be
intermediary pictures or key pictures used as references for the
coding by motion compensation of intermediary pictures, the
method comprising:
coding intermediary pictures per area based on a global motion
compensation (GMC) in the forward and backward directions
from key pictures,
constructing the areas of the intermediary picture either by
merging of areas of global motion compensated key pictures, or
by conventional coding, and
selecting between merging and conventional coding being based
on the result of a measurement of coherence between the signals
of areas of global motion compensated key pictures.
The Rejections
Claims 1—6, 16—21, and 27—29 are rejected under pre-AIA
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Yamada (US 2004/0161038 Al;
Aug. 19, 2004). Final Act. 3—5 (June 9, 2015).
Claims 7—10 and 22—25 are rejected under pre-AIA
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Yamada and Suzuki (US 2003/0202595
Al; Oct. 30, 2003). Final Act. 5—8.
2
Appeal 2016-008473
Application 12/998,921
Claims 2 and 5 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over Yamada and Jozawa (US 6,785,331 Bl; Aug. 31, 2004). Final
Act. 9-10.
Claims 11 and 26 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over Yamada, Suzuki, and Kresch (US 6,611,560 Bl; Aug. 26,
2003). Final Act. 11-12.
ANALYSIS
We have considered Appellants’ arguments in the Appeal Brief and
the Reply Brief, as well as the Examiner’s Answer thereto. We are not
persuaded by Appellants’ arguments. We agree with and adopt, as our own,
the Examiner’s findings and reasons in the Final Action and the
Answer. We emphasize the following.
ANTICIPATION OF CLAIMS 1-6, 16-21, and 27-29
First Argument
Appellants present three arguments. Appellants first argue the
Examiner has not shown Yamada discloses merging of global motion
compensated (GMC) key picture areas into an intermediate picture’s
singular area. See App. Br. 17; Reply Br. 5, 7.
The argument is not responsive to the Examiner’s interpretation of
claim l’s coding and constructing steps. Appellants advance a construction
of these steps requiring formation of “intermediary pictures per area” (claim
1) by motion-compensating the same area of a previous picture and a
succeeding picture, and then merging the results to yield the same area of an
intermediary picture. Id. The Examiner’s construction more broadly also
encompasses Yamada’s forming of an intermediary picture by motion
3
Appeal 2016-008473
Application 12/998,921
compensating two contiguous areas of key pictures, namely a region of an
F-frame (previous) and contiguous region of a B-ffame (succeeding), and
then merging the results to yield identical contiguous areas (identical
respective areas) of an intermediary picture. See Ans. 2—3 (citing Yamada
39—55), 11—12 (citing Yamada H 47—51, 66—67); Final Act. 2 (citing
Yamada 1 59).
Appellants acknowledge the above difference in constructions, but
present no rebuttal evidence or reasoning to show the Examiner’s
construction is unreasonably broad. For example, Appellants have not
shown their construction is required by claim 1 ’s plain language. Compare
Yamada 1 59 (using similar terminology to disclose “contiguous regions are
merged when . . .” (emphasis added)). Nor have Appellants shown their
construction is required by claim l’s language in view of a Specification
disclaimer or definition. At best, Appellants cite to exemplary Specification
disclosures of the claimed coding and merging. App. Br. 6, 16 (citing
Spec. 15,11. 36—16,11. 11); see also App. Br. 12—14 (addressing the
disclosed invention). We do not read into the claim language such
exemplary descriptions. See In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480
(Fed. Cir. 1994); In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184^85 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Because Appellants do not establish that their construction is required
or the Examiner’s construction is overly broad, we are not persuaded by this
argument.
Second Argument
Appellants further assert Yamada fails to meet claim l’s selecting step
because Yamada’s cited merging is performed before the motion
4
Appeal 2016-008473
Application 12/998,921
compensation and thus cannot disclose a selected merging of motion-
compensated key picture areas. See App. Br. 17—19; Reply Br. 7.
This argument is not persuasive because Yamada expressly states:
As mentioned above, either the texture of the previous key frame
F or the texture of the succeeding key frame B, upon which
temporal interpolation of global motion has been performed, is
used to compensate for unintentional non-prediction due to patch
motion compensation according to the following criteria (1) to
(4)[.]
Yamada 1 67 (emphasis added); see also id. Tffl 47—51. Thus, we are not
persuaded by this argument.
Third Argument
In response to the Answer’s discussion of Yamada’s paragraphs 47—
51, Appellants also argue via the Reply Brief:
[T]he Examiner contends that the criteria for construction and
selecting are disclosed in paragraphs [0048]—[0051] of
Yamada. However, the cited portions of Yamada merely
disclose which of the B frames or F frames are used for motion
compensation. In fact, Yamada teaches that selecting depends
on the location of the portion of the image to be motion
compensated. However, the cited portions only disclose that
either a forward prediction (e.g., using frame F) or backward
prediction (e.g., using frame B) is used, not both.
Reply Br. 6 (emphasis omitted). This argument is not responsive to the
rejection because the Examiner reads the claimed selecting step on
Yamada’s merging of two contiguous regions if the “absolute value of the
difference of average deviations of the two regions” is less than a threshold
value (Yamada 1 59). See Final Act. 2 (“Yamada teaches ... the regions
(i.e., areas) of the middle picture (i.e., intermediary) are merged when a
condition is met that indicates coherence (paragraph(s) [0059]).”).
5
Appeal 2016-008473
Application 12/998,921
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, we sustain the anticipation rejection of
claims 1—6, 16—21, and 27—29 over Yamada.
OBVIOUSNESS OVER YAMADA
Claims 2, 5, 7—11, and 22—26 are rejected as obvious over Yamada
and other references. Appellants advance no further arguments on these
claims beyond those discussed above in the context of anticipation.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejections of claims 7—10 and 22—25
over Yamada and Suzuki, claims 2 and 5 over Yamada and Jozawa, and
claims 11 and 26 over Yamada, Suzuki, and Kresch.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—11 and 16—29.
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