Ex Parte HU

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Feb 10, 2004

09186754 (B.P.A.I. Feb. 10, 2004)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written for
publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 12
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte SHANE CHING-FENG HU
____________
Appeal No. 2002-1133
Application No. 09/186,754
____________
ON BRIEF
____________
Before JERRY SMITH, RUGGIERO, and DIXON, Administrative Patent Judges.
DIXON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal from the examiner's final rejection of claims 1-3, 5,
6, and 8. Claims 4 and 7 are indicated by the examiner as allowable over the prior art if
rewritten in independent form.
We REVERSE.
Appeal No. 2002-1133
Application No. 09/186,754
2
BACKGROUND
Appellant's invention relates to a motion compensation performance
improvement by removing redundant edge information. An understanding of the
invention can be derived from a reading of exemplary claim 1, which is reproduced
below.
1. A preprocessor for improving motion compensation performance in
a compression encoder comprising:
means for determining a spatial shift between a current image from
an input video signal and a reference image from the input video signal,
the spatial shift having an integer value and a high precision fractional
value;
means for calculating from the high precision fractional value and
specified constants a fractional shift value; and
means for resampling the current image according to the fractional
shift value so that the current image aligns with a quantizer motion vector
grid for the compression encoder, the resampled current image being
input to the compression encoder.
The prior art references of record relied upon by the examiner in rejecting the
appealed claims are:
Odaka et al. (Odaka) 5,317,397 May 31, 1994
Girod, Bernd, “Motion-Compensating Prediction with Fractional-Pel Accuracy,” 41 IEEE
Transactions on Communications no. 4, 604-612 (April 1993).
Claims 1, 2, 5 and 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as being anticipated
by Girod. Claims 3 and 6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Girod in view of Odaka.
Appeal No. 2002-1133
Application No. 09/186,754
3
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
appellant regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the examiner's
answer (Paper No. 9, mailed Aug. 28, 2001) for the examiner's reasoning in support of
the rejections, and to appellant's brief (Paper No. 8, filed Aug. 3, 2001) for appellant's
arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
appellant's specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by appellant and the examiner. As a consequence of
our review, we make the determinations which follow.
35 U.S.C. § 102
Appellant argues that the claimed invention is directed to a “preprocessor for a
compression encoder, i.e., manipulation of the input video signal before being input to
the compression encoder.” (See brief at page 4.) Appellant argues that the spatial shift
of the present invention has both an integer value and a high precision fractional value
wherein only the high precision fractional value is used in the preprocessing of the shift.
(See brief at page 4.) Appellant argues that this use of the high precision fractional
value only distinguishes the preprocessing of the claimed invention from the
compression encoder of Girod, which uses both the integer value and the high precision
fractional value. (See brief at page 4.)
Appeal No. 2002-1133
Application No. 09/186,754
4
The examiner maintains that the “displacement estimator and motion
compensating predictor of Girod provides and performs the same functions as the
preprocessor as claimed, and as such anticipates the claimed limitations.” (See answer
at page 7.) With respect to the high precision fractional value and specified constants,
the examiner maintains the fraction shift value calculation is being met by the further
vector refinement of Girod. (See answer at page 7.) From our review of the disclosure
of Girod, we do not find any discussion of high precision fractional values and constants
which would provide the recited functional limitations as recited in independent claim 1.
Additionally, we find no discussion of a preprocessor structure for processing of an
image for input to a compression encoder. Here, the examiner has relied upon the
structure disclosed in Girod as the compression encoder to teach the recited
functionalities of the preprocessor structure as recited in the language of independent
claim 1. While the examiner indicates that the fractional pel-accuracy is the
corresponding structure to the claimed “means for determining a spatial shift between a
current image from an input video signal and a reference image from the input video
signal, the spatial shift having an integer value and a high precision fractional value”
and the “means for calculating from the high precision fractional value and specified
constants a fractional shift value,” we find no express disclosure of structure to carry out
the recited functions, and we do not find that these functions would necessarily be
inherent in the disclosure of Girod. Therefore, we disagree with the examiner’s finding
that the “displacement estimator and motion compensating predictor of Girod provides
Appeal No. 2002-1133
Application No. 09/186,754
5
and performs the same functions as the preprocessor as claimed, and as such
anticipates the claimed limitations.” (See answer at page 7.) We do not find that the
examiner has shown that the functions are carried out in the same manner as recited in
the language of independent claim 1. Moreover, in light of appellant’s use of “means
plus function” limitations, the examiner has not performed the required analysis for
these limitations using the In re Donaldson, 16 F.3d 1189, 29 USPQ2d 1845 (Fed. Cir.
1994) analysis of the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph. (See MPEP
§ 2181.)
Therefore, we find that the examiner has not established a prima facie case of
anticipation, and we cannot sustain the rejection of independent claim 1 and dependent
claim 5. With respect to independent claim 2, as discussed above, we find no express
disclosure of structure or steps to carry out the recited functions, and we do not find that
these functions would necessarily be inherent in the disclosure of Girod. Therefore, we
find that the examiner has not established a prima facie case of anticipation, and we
cannot sustain the rejection of independent claim 2 and dependent claim 8.
Appeal No. 2002-1133
Application No. 09/186,754
6
35 U.S.C. § 103
With respect to dependent claims 3 and 6, the examiner merely relies upon the
teachings of Odaka to teach the storage of data and we do not find that the teachings
of Odaka remedy the deficiencies noted above with the teachings of Girod. Therefore,
we find that the examiner has not established a prima facie case of obviousness, and
we cannot sustain the rejection of dependent claims 3 and 6.
CONCLUSION
To summarize, the decision of the examiner to reject claims 1, 2, 5, and 8 under
35 U.S.C. § 102 is reversed, and the decision of the examiner to reject claims 3 and 6
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
REVERSED
JERRY SMITH )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
JOSEPH L. DIXON )
Administrative Patent Judge )
JLD:clm
Appeal No. 2002-1133
Application No. 09/186,754
7
FRANCIS I. GRAY
TEKTRONIX, INC
PO BOX 500, DELIVERY STATION 50-LAW
BEAVERTON, OR 97077