Ex Parte Gatepin

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 10, 2008

09836096 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 10, 2008)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________

Ex parte PHILIPPE GATEPIN
_____________

Appeal 2007-3611
Application 09/836,096
Technology Center 2600
______________

Decided: March 10, 2008
_______________

Before ANITA PELLMAN GROSS, ROBERT E. NAPPI, and CARLA M.
KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judges.

NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) the final rejection
of claims 2 through 7.
We reverse the Examiner’s rejection of these claims.
INVENTION

The invention is directed to a method of controlling a set of
transcoding channels. The method makes use of an indicator of compressed
data quality for the transcoded channel computed based upon the input
Appeal 2007-3611
Application 09/836,096

compressed data signal. See page 2 and figure 2 of Appellant’s
Specification. Claim 2 is representative of the invention and reproduced
below:
2. A method of controlling a plurality of transcoding channels,
a transcoding channel allowing an input compressed data signal
encoded at an input bit rate to be converted into an output compressed
data signal encoded at an output bit rate wherein a regulation process
uses quantization scales and the input compressed data signal to
determine a video encoding complexity, said method comprising the
steps of:
computing a weighting factor of a compressed data quality for
the respective transcoding channels, the weighting factor being
computed for a current picture of the input compressed data signal as
an average, over a set of preceding encoded pictures, of an average
quantization scale over a preceding picture and a number of bits used
to encode the same preceding picture;
determining an indicator as function of the transcoding channel
video complexity and associated weighting factor; and
allocating the output bit rate to the transcoding channel from a
total output bit rate, its corresponding indicator and a sum of the
indicators of the transcoding channels.

REFERENCES

Wang US 6,167,084 Dec. 26, 2000
Wu US 6,963,608 B1 Nov. 8, 2005

REJECTION AT ISSUE
Claims 2 through 7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Wang in view of Wu. The Examiner’s rejection is on
pages 3 through 5 of the Answer.
Throughout the opinion, we make reference to the Brief (received
October 24, 2006), and the Answer (mailed February 23, 2007) for the
respective details thereof.
2

Appeal 2007-3611
Application 09/836,096

ISSUE
Appellant contends that the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2 through
7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is in error. Appellant argues that both Wang and
Wu use characteristics of the transcoder output to determine the output bit
rate whereas the independent claims recite using the input compressed data
signal to determine a video encoding complexity. Brief 6, 8, and 9.
Thus the issue before us is whether the Examiner erred in determining
that the combination of Wang and Wu teaches or suggests using the input
compressed data signal to determine a video encoding complexity.

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
The preamble will not limit the scope of the claim if the body of the
claims “sets out the complete invention.” However the preamble will limit
the scope of the claim if “it recites essential structure that is important to the
invention or necessary to give meaning to the claim.” Bicon Inc. v.
Straumann Co. 441 F.3d 945, 952 (CAFC 2006) (internal citations omitted).

FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Wang teaches a bit allocation system for multiplexing multiple
compressed and uncompressed signals. Abstract.
2. Wang teaches that transcoders are used to change the bit rate of a
compressed video stream. Col. 5, ll. 54-58.
3. The transcoders receive a target number of bits from a rate control
processor. Wang, col. 8, ll. 54-56.
4. The target number of bits is used by the transcoder to adjust the
quantization parameter. The number of bits used and the
3

Appeal 2007-3611
Application 09/836,096

quantization parameter are fed back to the rate control processor.
The complexity processor, in the rate control processor, then uses
the values to calculate the new target number of bits. Wang, col. 8,
l. 63 – col. 9, l. 9.
5. Wu teaches a system for providing rate control of a video encoder.
Abstract.
6. The bit rate is controlled in each of the panel compressors
(encoders) by a master compression controller which collects
statistics from the output of the encoders to determine the quantizer
level for each encoder. Wu, col. 4, ll. 7-19.

ANALYSIS
Appellant’s arguments have persuaded us that the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 2 through 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is in error.
Independent claim 2 recites a method of controlling a plurality of
transcoding channels “wherein a regulation process uses quantization scales
and the input compressed data signal to determine a video encoding
complexity.” Independent claims 4 and 5 recite similar limitations.1
Independent claim 6 recites a program which includes a process to “compute
a video encoding complexity using quantization scales and an input
compressed data signal.” Thus, the scope of each of the independent claims
includes a limitation that the complexity is determined using the input
encoding compressed video signal.

1 We note that in each of these claims the limitation appears in the preamble
of the claim. In these claims we consider the preamble of the claims to
4

Appeal 2007-3611
Application 09/836,096

In response to the Appellant’s arguments the Examiner states:
Wang illustrates in figure 6 receiving a pre-compressed input data
signal into a transcoding system. This input signal is fed into the
transcoder and then from the transcoder to the rate control processor
(610). It is in the rate control processor that the complexity is
calculated (605). Wang further discloses this process in column 8,
line 37 - column 9, line 8. The pre-compressed input is retrieved from
memory and then used to determine the complexity. The examiner
notes that claim language does not recite directly/immediately using
the input signal to calculate complexity. Therefore, Wang shows
using the input signal, after one processing step, to calculate the
complexity.
Answer 5.
We disagree with the Examiner’s rationale. As discussed supra, we
consider that each of the independent claims recites that the input image
video signal is used to determine the encoding complexity. Further, we find
that Wang teaches that information output of the transcoder is used to adjust
the target bit rate and complexity. Fact 4. We disagree with the Examiner’s
characterization that Wang shows the input signal, after one processing step,
is used to calculate the complexity, as that one processing step produces the
output of the transcoder. The Examiner has not found, nor do we find, that
Wu teaches or suggests modifying Wang to use an input image video signal
to determine the encoding complexity as claimed. Accordingly, we reverse
the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 2, 4, 5, and 6 and dependent
claims 3 and 7.

recite essential structure necessary to give meaning to the claims. Thus, we
consider the preamble to limit the claims.
5

Appeal 2007-3611
Application 09/836,096

ORDER
For the foregoing reasons, we will not sustain the Examiner’s
rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). The decision of the Examiner is
reversed.

REVERSED

eld

PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS
P.O. BOX 3001
BRIARCLIFF MANOR NY 10510
6