Ex Parte He et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 26, 2016

13121920 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 26, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/121,920 03/30/2011
65913 7590 09/28/2016
Intellectual Property and Licensing
NXPB.V.
411 East Plumeria Drive, MS41
SAN JOSE, CA 95134
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Haiyan He
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.
81357746 US03 3056
EXAMINER
SUH, JOSEPH JINWOO
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2485
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/28/2016 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):
ip.department.us@nxp.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte HAIY AN HE and
JOHAN GERARD WILLEM MARIA JANSSEN
Appeal2015-006415
Application 13/121,9201
Technology Center 2400
Before DEBRA K. STEPHENS, KEVIN C. TROCK, and
JESSICA C. KAISER, Administrative Patent Judges.
STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Introduction
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a non-final rejection
of claims 1-13 and 15-21. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
EXEMPLARY CLAIM
The claims are directed to compressing image data using a video
compression mode and also compressing the image data using a graphic
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is NXP B.V. (App. Br.
1 ).
Appeal2015-006415
Application 13/121,920
compression mode (Abstract). Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of
the claimed subject matter:
1. A method for embedded video compression, the method
compnsmg:
receiving image data;
compressing the image data into first compressed data
blocks with a predefined data rate by using a video compression
mode;
compressing the image data into second compressed data
blocks with the predefined data rate by using a graphic
compression mode, wherein the predefined data rate defines a
target code size;
detecting whether a code size of a particular data block
does not meet the target code size; and
quantizing at least one input pixel of the image data in case
the code size of the particular data block does not meet the target
code size, wherein both the first compressed data blocks and the
second compressed data blocks have identical content based
upon the image data.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Normile
Kondo
Ota
Weed
Tamura
Malladi
us 5,812,200
US 2002/0181586 Al
US 2004/0190618 Al
US 6,809,740 Bl
US 2007 /0206867 Al
US 2008/0112489 Al
REJECTIONS
The Examiner made the following rejections:
2
Sept. 22, 1998
Dec. 5, 2002
Sept. 30, 2004
Oct. 26, 2004
Sept. 6, 2007
May 15, 2008
Appeal2015-006415
Application 13/121,920
Claims 1--4, 7, 9-13, 15, 17, 20, and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Tamura and Normile (Non-Final Act. 5-
11).
Claim 5 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Tamura, Normile, and Weed (id. at 11).
Claim 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Tamura, Normile, and Kondo (id. at 12).
Claims 8 and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Tamura, Normile, Kondo, and Malladi (id. at 13).
Claims 16 and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Tamura, Normile, and Ota (id. at 13-15).
ISSUE
Did the Examiner err in finding Tamura teaches or suggests
compressing the image data into first compressed data blocks
with a predefined data rate by using a video compression mode;
compressing the image data into second compressed data
blocks with the predefined data rate by using a graphic
compression mode ... wherein both the first compressed data
blocks and the second compressed data blocks have identical
content[,]
as recited in claim 1 and similarly recited in claim 1 O?
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants'
arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants'
conclusions. We adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth by the
Examiner in the Non-Final Office Action from which the appeal is taken
3
Appeal2015-006415
Application 13/121,920
(Non-Final Act. 5-15) and the reasons set forth in the Examiner's Answer in
response to Appellants' Appeal Brief (Ans. 12-21 ). We highlight and
address specific findings and arguments for emphasis as follows.
Appellants contend the Examiner erred in finding Tamura teaches or
suggests
compressing the image data into first compressed data blocks
with a predefined data rate by using a video compression mode;
compressing the image data into second compressed data
blocks with the predefined data rate by using a graphic
compression mode ... wherein both the first compressed data
blocks and the second compressed data blocks have identical
content[,]
as recited in claim 1 and similarly recited in claim 10 (App. Br. 6-7; Reply
Br. 1--4). Specifically, Appellants argue Tamura's first encoding unit, which
"encodes a series of natural image[s]," does not teach video compression
(Reply Br. 2; App. Br. 6). Additionally, Appellants argue Tamura's second
encoding unit, \'l1hich encodes characters, does not teach graphic
compression "because one of ordinary skill in the art would not regard an
image 'that includes a character' to be graphic data" and "does not compress
data because the amount of data remains unchanged" (Reply Br. 2-3; App.
Br. 6). Additionally, Appellants argue the "claimed invention ensures that
video and graphic compression modes produce identical output," but
Tamura's "unit 102 performs lossy encoding while unit 103 performs
lossless encoding" so "the content produced by unit 102 cannot be identical
to the content of unit 103" (Reply Br. 3; App. Br. 6-7).
We are not persuaded. The Examiner finds, and we agree, Tamura
teaches a "first encoding unit 102" which provides video compression by
"encod[ing] a series of natural images" (Ans. 14 (citing Tamura i-fi-f 12, 212,
4
Appeal2015-006415
Application 13/121,920
Fig. 1 )). The Examiner further finds, and we agree, Tamura teaches a
"second encoding unit 103" which provides graphic compression by
"encod[ing] a character" (id. at 15 (citing Tamura i-fi-f 12, 212, Fig. 1)). The
Examiner finds, and we agree, Tamura's first encoder and second encoder
both respectively compress the same received image data (Non-Final Act. 7
(citing Tamura i196, Fig. 4)).
Appellants' argument that Tamura's first encoding unit does not
provide video compression (Reply Br. 2; App. Br. 6) is unpersuasive. As the
Examiner and Appellants point out, Tamura's first encoding unit uses "JPEG
encoding" to compress image data (Ans. 16 (citing Tamura i193); Reply Br.
2). Appellants' Specification teaches that "JPEG ... [is] well known in the
art" as an "industry compression standard[]" used "[f]or processing and
displaying video" (Spec. 1:14--15). Accordingly, Appellants' Specification
acknowledges JPEG is a video compression standard and thus, we determine
Tamura's JPEG encoding unit provides video compression. Therefore, we
are not persuaded Tamura does not teach or suggest a video compression
mode.
Additionally, Appellants' argument that character encoding by
Tamura's second unit does not provide graphic compression (Reply Br. 2-3;
App. Br. 6) is unpersuasive. Appellants do not proffer a definition of
graphic compression (see Reply Br. 2-3; see also App. Br. 6) and neither the
Specification nor the claims preclude character compression from being
encompassed within graphic compression. We agree with the Examiner's
broad, but reasonable, interpretation that "graphics [] include[] a character"
and accordingly, encoding a character in an image provides graphic
compression (Ans. 15). Further, Appellants' argument that Tamura's
5
Appeal2015-006415
Application 13/121,920
character encoding uses "lossless encoding" and, as such, "does not
compress data" (Reply Br. 3) is unpersuasive because Tamura teaches that
lossless encoding produces "compressed image data" (Tamura i-f 13
(emphasis added)). Therefore, we are not persuaded Tamura does not teach
or suggest a graphic compression mode.
Further, Appellants' argument that the "claimed invention ensures that
video and graphic compression modes produce identical output" using only
lossless compression (Reply Br. 3--4; App. Br. 7) is not commensurate with
the scope of the claims. The claims do not recite, and therefore, do not
require, identical output using only lossless compression. Instead, the claims
recite "identical content," which, based on Appellants' Summary of Claimed
Subject Matter, refers to "image data generated by the image data source 6
[that is] processed by both [video processing] units 8 and 10" (App. Br. 2
(citing Spec. 9: 10-11) ). Furthermore, Appellants' Specification does not
disclose that video and graphic compression modes produce "identical
outputs" or that the video and graphic compression modes are lossless;
instead, Appellants' Specification discloses "the same image content
compressed by [two] different compression modes" (Spec. 11 :4---6). 2 Based
on Appellants' Summary of Claimed Subject Matter and Specification, we
agree with the Examiner's broad, but reasonable, interpretation that "both
the first compressed data blocks and the second compressed data blocks
have identical content based upon the image data," as recited by the claims
2 We note that Appellants' Specification teaches that the respective outputs
are not identical because the respective outputs have different quality levels
(Spec. 4:6-12, 6:29-31, 9:24--28, 11:4---6, claim 4). Should there be further
prosecution directed to identical outputs, the Examiner should determine
whether a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, i-f 1 is appropriate.
6
Appeal2015-006415
Application 13/121,920
because, whether or not the first encoder and second encoder use lossy or
lossless compression (limitations not recited), Tamura's first encoder and
second encoder compress the same source image data (Tamura ,-r 96).
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding
Tamura teaches or suggests
compressing the image data into first compressed data blocks
with a predefined data rate by using a video compression mode;
compressing the image data into second compressed data
blocks with the predefined data rate by using a graphic
compression mode ... wherein both the first compressed data
blocks and the second compressed data blocks have identical
content[,]
within the meaning of claims 1 and 10.
Additionally, relying on the same reasoning as claims 1 and 10,
Appellants contend Tamura does not teach "video compression," "graphic
compression," or "compressed data blocks hav[ing] identical content" as
recited in dependent claim 9 and similarly recited in claims 13 and 17 (ii .. pp.
Br. 8-9). As discussed supra, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in
finding Tamura teaches or suggests "video compression," "graphic
compression," or "compressed data blocks hav[ing] identical content"
within the meaning of dependent claims 9, 13, and 1 7.
Dependent claims 2-8, 11, 12, 15, 16, and 18-21 are not separately
argued by Appellants and, thus, these claims fall with their respective
independent claims (see App. Br. 10-14). Accordingly, we sustain the
Examiner's rejections of dependent claims 2-8, 11, 12, 15, 16, and 18-21
under U.S.C. § 103(a).
7
Appeal2015-006415
Application 13/121,920
DECISION
The Examiner's rejections of claims 1--4, 7, 9-13, 15, 17, 20, and 21
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Tamura and Normile is
affirmed.
The Examiner's rejection of claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Tamura, Normile, and Weed is affirmed.
The Examiner's rejection of claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Tamura, Normile, and Kondo is affirmed.
The Examiner's rejections of claims 8 and 18 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Tamura, Normile, Kondo, and Malladi
is affirmed.
The Examiner's rejections of claims 16 and 19 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Tamura, Normile, and Ota 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)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
8