Ex Parte Gordon

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 24, 2016

11434491 (P.T.A.B. May. 24, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO.
111434,491
16378 7590
EGL/Broadcom
P.O. Box 10395
Chicago, IL 60610
FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
05/15/2006 Stephen Elliott Gordon
05/24/2016
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.
14528.00107 2780
EXAMINER
DIEP, NHON THANH
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2487
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
05/24/2016 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 STEPHEN ELLIOTT GORDON
Appeal2014-005460
Application 11/434,491
Technology Center 2400
Before DEBRA K. STEPHENS, JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, and
JOHN R. KENNY, Administrative Patent Judges.
STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judge.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a Final Rejection of
claims 1-8 and 11-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). Claims
9 and 10 have been cancelled.
We AFFIRM.
STATEMENT OF THE INVENTION
According to Appellant, the claims are directed to a method and
system for transcoding pictures by looking ahead in a series of pictures
Appeal2014-005460
Application 11/434,491
compressed in accordance with a compression standard (Abstract; Title).
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method for encoding pictures, said method comprising:
looking ahead in a series of pictures that are compressed in
accordance with a compression standard;
selecting a particular one of the compressed pictures;
decompressing the particular one of the compressed pictures;
generating a metric, said particular one metric measuring the
complexity of the particular one of the compressed pictures;
and
allocating a number of bits for a current picture from the
series of compressed pictures, based on the metric, wherein
the particular picture and the current picture are
discontinuous.
REFERENCE
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Wells et al. US 6,310,915 Bl Oct. 30, 2001
REJECTIONS
Claims 1-5, 7, 8, 11, and 14--19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Wells (Final Act. 4--6).
Claims 6, 12, 13, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Wells (Final Act. 6-7).
2
Appeal2014-005460
Application 11/434,491
ISSUES
35 U.S.C. § 102(b): Claims 1-5, 7, 8, 11, and 14-19
Appellant argues the invention as recited is not anticipated by Wells
(App. Br. 10-11). The issues presented by the arguments are:
Issue 1: Has the Examiner erred in finding Wells discloses "wherein
the particular picture and the current picture are discontinuous," as recited in
claim 1?
Issue 2: Has the Examiner erred in finding Wells discloses "a buffer
for storing the decompressed particular one of the compressed pictures until
the particular one of the compressed pictures is compressed in accordance
with another standard," as recited in claim 8?
Issue 3: Has the Examiner erred in finding Wells discloses "wherein
generating the metric further comprises determining regions of the current
picture that are found in the particular one of the compressed pictures," as
recited in claim 15?
ANALYSIS
Issue 1: Claim 1
Appellant argues Wells does not disclose that the particular picture
and the current picture are discontinuous because to get the later picture in
Wells, a significant number of intermediary pictures would be required to be
decoded (App. Br. 11 ). According to Appellant, Wells uses MPEG
compression; thus, pictures are data dependent on each other (id.). As a
result, Appellant contends, to decode a picture X, "it is likely necessary to
decode all of pictures X-n ... X-1." (id.). Appellant further argues the
3
Appeal2014-005460
Application 11/434,491
Examiner does not identify specific portions of Wells that disclose each and
every element of the claim, but instead, speculates as to how Wells might
operate (Reply Br. 12).
We are not persuaded by Appellant's argument. Initially, as a matter
of claim construction, we note Appellant's Specification does not define
explicitly the term "discontinuous"; therefore, we determine the broadest
reasonable interpretation of discontinuous pictures, in light of the
Specification, includes any pictures, or group of pictures, not immediately
temporally adjacent. In light of this interpretation, we agree with the
Examiner that Wells discloses the look-ahead buffer stores k frame pictures,
where k> 1 frames, and in one example, stores thirty frame pictures (Ans. 7;
Wells, 8:67-9:7). We further agree that because the look-ahead buffer may
store thirty frame pictures and the scanner/ decoder 22 can gather
information, such as the stored encoded picture corresponding to the 12th
and 30th pictures, the particularly selected picture and the current picture are
discontinuous (Ans. 7-8). Accordingly, we are not persuaded Wells fails to
disclose the invention as recited in claim 1.
Issue 2: Claim 8
Appellant next argues Wells does not disclose the later picture that is
decoded is saved in decoded format until it becomes the current picture
because Wells only describes information gleaned from the decoded later
picture (App. Br. 8). According to Appellant, although "a model of the
decoder buffer" may indicate information about the buffer is maintained, this
disclosure also indicates a full buffer of decoded pictures is not saved (id. at
4
Appeal2014-005460
Application 11/434,491
9). Appellant then argues the Examiner makes unsupported conclusory
statements to find Wells discloses the disputed limitation (id.).
We are not persuaded by Appellant's argument. We agree with the
Examiner that the MPEG decoder disclosed in Wells has a decoder buff er
(Ans. 5---6; Wells, 10:28-32). We further agree that the decoder buffer stores
frames to be decoded, transmitted, and displayed (id.; Wells, 16:4--16). We
agree with the Examiner's finding that decoder 18 decompresses frames, and
stores the decompressed frames in the decoder buff er until the frames are
encoded by encoder 20 with a different standard (Final Act. 3; Ans. 5---6).
We also find the claim does not recite the argued feature "show[ing] that the
later picture that is decoded is saved in decoded format until it becomes the
current picture;" instead, claim 8 merely requires "storing the decompressed
particular one of the compressed pictures until the particular one of the
compressed pictures is compressed in accordance with another standard"
(Claim 8; App. Br. 8). In other words, the buffer only needs to store any
prior frame until a particular one is re-encoded, not until it becomes the
current picture as Appellant argues (Claim 8; App. Br. 8). Thus, Appellant's
argument is not directed to the claim language. Accordingly, we are not
persuaded the Examiner erred in finding Wells discloses the invention as
recited in claim 8.
Issue 3: Claim 15
For the disputed limitation of "generating the metric further comprises
determining regions of the current picture found in the particular one of the
compressed pictures," the Examiner identifies the use of motion vectors and
motion vector ranges by transcoder encoder unit (20) in Wells. (Final Act.
5
Appeal2014-005460
Application 11/434,491
4; Ans. 6.) Appellant argues "motion vectors only determine similarities
between the pictures, if one of the pictures is the reference picture for the
other" (App. Br. 10). Therefore, Appellant contends, Wells does not
disclose similarities between the pictures because Wells' look ahead is thirty
pictures deep (App. Br. 10). Appellant further argues the Examiner makes a
conclusory statement about what "one could determine based on motion
vectors" without identifying where Wells discloses the disputed limitation
(Reply Br. 11 ).
We are not persuaded by Appellants' argument. Initially, we note the
term "region" is not defined explicitly in the Specification. We agree with
the Examiner that a motion vector identifies a macroblock of a picture (Ans.
7). We further agree Wells' identified macro block, corresponding to the
motion vector, is representative of the claimed region (Ans. 7-8).
Appellant's claimed generating the metric, a measure of complexity,
comprises determination of region of the current picture that are found in the
particular compressed picture (Claim 15). Therefore, we determine Wells'
measured motion vector determines a region as recited. We further note
Wells does not require a look ahead buffer that stores thirty pictures, but
offers this as one example (Wells, 8:65-9:7). Accordingly, we are not
persuaded the Examiner erred in finding Wells discloses the invention as
recited in claim 15.
In conclusion, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding
Wells discloses the invention as recited in claims 1, 8, and 15. Dependent
claims 2-5, 7, 11, 14, and 16-19, were not separately argued. Therefore, we
sustain the rejection of claims 1-5, 7, 8, 11, and 14--19 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) for anticipation by Wells.
6
Appeal2014-005460
Application 11/434,491
35 U.S.C. § 103(a): Claims 6, 12, 13, and 20
Appellant does not separately argue dependent claims 6, 12, 13, and
20 instead, addressing only their respective independent claims (App. Br. 7-
11 ). Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claims 6, 12, 13, and 20 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for obviousness over Wells.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection of claims 1-5, 7, 8, 11, and 14--19 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Wells is affirmed.
The Examiner's rejection of claims 6, 12, 13, and 20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Wells is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
7