Ex Parte He et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 1, 201612617902 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 1, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 12/617,902 11113/2009 53236 7590 08/03/2016 NXP-Huffman Law Group, P,C, 6501 William Cannon Drive West Austin, TX 78735 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Zhongli 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. NM45609HS-US 5535 EXAMINER RAHAMAN, MOHAMMED S ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2486 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/03/2016 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 ZHONGLI HE, XIANZHONG LI, and PENG ZHOU Appeal2015-002171 Application 12/617,902 Technology Center 2400 Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, JOHNNY A. KUMAR, and JON M. JURGOV AN, Administrative Patent Judges. KUMAR, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection of claims 1-24.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. 1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Freescale Semiconductor Inc. (Br. 1 ). 2 Claim 25 was indicated as allowable by the Examiner (Final Act. 21 ). Appeal2015-002171 Application 12/617,902 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction Appellants' invention relates to a method and apparatus for decoding video information using reduced complexity inverse transform processing (Spec. i-f 1 ). Exemplary claim 1 under appeal reads as follows: 1. A method of reducing processing of fast inverse transform of an input transform block by a video decoder, compnsmg: determining a block type of the input transform block; when the block type is left, performing reduced complexity inverse transform of a left column of the input transform block and providing only a single column of residual coefficients representing the residual video block; and when the block type is top, performing reduced complexity inverse transform of a top row of the input transform block and providing only a single row of residual coefficients representing the residual video block. The Examiner's Rejections Claims 1, 11, 21, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Winger (US 7,366,236 Bl; Apr. 29, 2008) and Youn (US 2008/0151995 Al; June 26, 2008) (Ans. 2---6). Claims 2-9 and 12-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Winger, Youn, and Bulusu (US 2008/0050036 Al; Feb. 28, 2008) (Ans. 6-12). Claims 10, 17-20, 23, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Winger, Youn, and Lan (US 2003/0021482 Al; Jan. 30, 2003) (Ans. 13-15). 2 Appeal2015-002171 Application 12/617,902 Appellants' Contentions Appellants contend the following regarding independent claims 1 and 11:3 1. Winger uses a zig-zag pattern to organize block coefficients and relies upon the end of buffer for determining the block type, but Winger does not attempt to distinguish either a left block or top block for determining non- zero coefficients only along the left edge or the top edge, respectively (Br. 6-7). Winger further does not teach the claimed reduced complexity inverse transform performed for left and top block types (id.). 2. Youn teaches only a subset of left and top block types, and does not describe any type of reduced complexity inverse transform other than simply bypassing the transform altogether for the simplified forms (Br. 7-8). 3. The combination of Winger and Youn does not teach performing the claimed reduced complexity inverse transform for a left block type, which provides only a single column of residual coefficients, or for a top block type, which provides only a single row of residual coefficients (Br. 7). Simply assuming Winger would apply the claimed reduced complexity inverse transform if organizing by the block types of Youn, rather than zig- zag organization, is improper speculation (Br. 7-8). 4. It would not be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Winger to include reduced complexity inverse transforms of Youn' s left and 3 Independent claim 1 7 is argued on the same basis as independent claims 1 and 11 (Br. 8-9), and separate patentability is not argued for dependent claims 2-10, 12-16, and 18-24 (id.). Except for our ultimate decision, these claims are not discussed further. 3 Appeal2015-002171 Application 12/617,902 top block types, because the Examiner's proffered combination relies on improper hindsight reconstruction using Appellants' disclosure (Br. 8). ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants' arguments (Br. 4--9) that the Examiner erred. We disagree with Appellants' above contentions 1--4. In response to each of the arguments raised by Appellants, the Examiner presents detailed findings and responses, which are not rebutted by Appellants in a Reply Brief. We adopt as our own ( 1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken (Final Act. 8-20) and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner's Answer (Ans. 16-25) in response to Appellants' Appeal Brief. We concur with the conclusions reached by the Examiner. We highlight and address specific findings and arguments for emphasis as follows. Appellants' contentions 1 and 2 against Winger and Youn individually are not persuasive of error in the Examiner's rejection. Each reference cited by the Examiner must be read, not in isolation, but for what it fairly teaches in combination with the prior art as a whole (see In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986)). One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually when the rejection is based on a combination of references (see In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981)). Appellants address the combination of Winger and Youn in contention 3, arguing that it is improper speculation to assume Winger would apply the claimed reduced complexity inverse transform if organizing 4 Appeal2015-002171 Application 12/617,902 by the block types of Youn. We are not persuaded of Examiner error, and agree with the Examiner's finding that applying Winger's reduced complexity inverse transform to Youn' s block types was within the grasp of one of ordinary skill in the art (Final Act. 5; Ans. 22). The Examiner finds Winger teaches the concept of reducing the complexity of inverse transform calculations by pruning, or eliminating, zero coefficients (Final Act. 2-3; Ans. 17-19 (citing Winger col. 6, 1. 51-col. 7, 1. 2)), and finds Youn teaches left block (i.e., non-zero coefficients only in the left column) and top block (i.e., non-zero coefficients only in the top row) types were known in the art (Final Act. 4--5; Ans. 23 (citing Youn i-fi-120-21)). We agree with the Examiner's finding that, regardless of the pruning pattern used by Winger, eliminating the zero coefficients in the blocks of Youn would result in providing only a single column of residual coefficients (i.e., only the left column of the left block has non-zero coefficients remaining) or only a single row of residual coefficients (i.e., only the top row of the top block has non-zero coefficients remaining), which is all that is required by claims 1 and 11 (Ans. 22). Appellants' contention 4 that the combination of Winger and Youn is based on improper hindsight reasoning does not present sufficient evidence that the Examiner's rejection is based on knowledge gleaned only from Appellants' disclosure, or based on knowledge which was beyond the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time (see In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 1395 (CCPA 1971)). The Examiner's rejection is based on the findings from Winger and Youn, as discussed supra, and the Examiner has provided "some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness," to reduce calculations and execution time 5 Appeal2015-002171 Application 12/617,902 for video compression (Ans. 17-19, 22 (citing Winger Abstract; Youn Abstract); KSR Int'! v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417-18 (2007) (quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006))). Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent claims 1 and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). DECISION The Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-24 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 6 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation