Ex Parte Hussain

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 28, 2015

11763797 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 28, 2015)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
111763,797 06/15/2007
109673 7590 12/30/2015
McClure, Qualey & Rodack, LLP
3100 Interstate North Circle
Suite 150
Atlanta, GA 30339
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Zahid Hussain
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.
252209-1970 4342
EXAMINER
KABIR, JAHANGIR
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2439
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/30/2015 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):
uspatents@mqrlaw.com
dan.mcclure@mqrlaw.com
gina.silverio@mqrlaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ZAHID HUSSAIN 1
Appeal2014-001084
Application 11/763,797
Technology Center 2400
Before JASON V. MORGAN, DANIEL J. GALLIGAN, and
SHARON PENICK, Administrative Patent Judges.
MORGAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Introduction
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's final
rejection of claims 1-17 and 19-21. Claim 18 is canceled. App. Br. A-7
(Claims App'x). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
1 Appellant identifies Via Technologies Inc. as the real party in interest.
App. Br. 2.
Appeal2014-001084
Application 11/763,797
Invention
Appellant discloses systems and methods for improved motion
estimation using a graphics processing unit. Abstract.
Exemplary Claims
Claims 1 and 5~ reproduced below with key limitations emphasized,
are exemplary:
1. A computer-implemented method for determining a
motion vector describing motion relative to a reference block,
the method comprising:
determining, by a computer, which of a plurality of
prediction blocks is a good match with the reference block,
according to a match criteria;
performing, by the computer, a local area exhaustive
search to produce a best match with the reference block, the
search performed in an area centered around the good match
prediction block, the best match having integral pixel
resolution;
modeling, by the computer, the degree of match between
the best match and the reference block as a quadratic surface;
analytically determining, by the computer, a minima of
the quadratic surface, the minima corresponding to a best
matching block with fractional resolution; and
computing, by the computer, a fractional motion vector
based on the best matching block with fractional resolution.
5. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein
the analytically determining further comprises:
determining the minima in a first direction;
determining the minima in a second direction
perpendicular to the first direction.
2
Appeal2014-001084
Application 11/763,797
Rejection
The Examiner rejects claims 1-1 7 and 19-21 under 3 5 U.S. C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Sohm (US 2003/00723741 Al; Apr. 17,
2003) and Selby (US 2005/0135488 Al; June 23, 2005). Final Act. 5-20.
ISSUES
1. Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Sohm and
Selby teaches or suggests "modeling ... the degree of match between the
best match and the reference block as a quadratic surface" and "computing
... a fractional motion vector based on the best matching block with
fractional resolution," as recited in claim 1?
2. Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Sohm and
Selby teaches or suggests "determining the minima in a first direction [and]
determining the minima in a second direction perpendicular to the first
direction," as recited in claim 5?
ANALYSIS
Claims 1-4 and 6-13
In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner finds Selby's motionjudder
alleviation technique, which constructs or predicts frames from a reference
frame using motion vectors and prediction error, teaches or suggests
modeling the degree of match between a best match and a reference block as
a quadratic swface. Final Act. 6-7 (citing Selby Abstract, i-fi-16, 18, 25, and
29). In particular, the Examiner finds Selby teaches or suggests estimating
motion from vector correlation values and converging vector correlation
values using quadratic approximations. Final Act. 7. The Examiner also
3
Appeal2014-001084
Application 11/763,797
finds Selby's generation of refined vertical and horizontal sub-pixel vectors
for motion estimation teaches or suggests computing a fractional motion
vector based on the best matching block with fractional resolution. Id.
(citing, e.g., Selby i-f 18).
Appellant contends the Examiner erred because "Selby fundamentally
fails to disclose the claimed feature of 'modeling, by the computer, the
degree of match between the best match and the reference block.'" App.
Br. 7. Appellant also contends "Selby fails to disclose the computation of a
fractional motion vector." Id. However, Appellant does not provide
persuasive arguments or evidence to support these conclusory allegations.
Appellant further argues the Examiner's proffered reason for
combining the teachings and suggestions of Sohm and Selby "is merely an
improper conclusory statement that embodies clear and improper hindsight
rationale." App. Br. 9. However, Appellant does not provide persuasive
arguments or evidence showing error in the Examiner's proffered reason,
which has a rational underpinning and, rather than being based on hindsight
reasoning, is based on the teachings and suggestions of Selby. Final Act. 3
(citing Selby, Abstract, i-fi-16, 18, 25, and 29).
In the Reply Brief, Appellant further argues "the 'quadratic
approximation' of Selby is not the same as, nor is it an equivalent substitute
for, the claimed quadratic surface" (Reply Br. 5) and that the Examiner's
reason for combining the teachings and suggestion of Sohm and Selby
would only "be a logical basis for the combination IF the application of
quadratic approximation to motion estimation was something that was
discovered after the invention of Sohm" (id. at 7). However, Appellant does
not identify good cause why these arguments were not raised in the Appeal
4
Appeal2014-001084
Application 11/763,797
Brief~ nor does Appellant show these arguments are responsive to arguments
raised in the Examiner's Answer. Therefore, Appellant's arguments are
untimely and will not be considered. 37 C.F.R. § 41.41(b)(2) (2012).
For these reasons, we agree with Examiner the combination of Sohm
and Selby teaches or suggests "modeling ... the degree of match between
the best match and the reference block as a quadratic surface" and
"computing ... a fractional motion vector based on the best matching block
with fractional resolution," as recited in claim 1. Accordingly, we sustain
the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claim 1, and claims 2--4 and
6-8, which Appellant does not argue separately. App. Br. 10. Appellant
makes similar arguments with respect to claims 9-13. App. Br. 13-14. For
similar reasons, we also find these arguments unpersuasive of error.
Therefore, we also sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of
claims 9-13.
Claims 5, 14-17, and 19-21
In rejecting claim 5, the Examiner finds Sohm's local minima 58 on a
sum of absolute differences (SAD) error surface 56 teach or suggest
determining minima in a first direction and determining minima in a second
direction perpendicular to the first direction. Final Act. 9 (citing Sohm
i-fi-192-94); Ans. 21 (further citing Sohm, Fig. 6).
Appellant contends the Examiner erred because "there is no mention
or suggest[ ion] in the [cited portions of Sohm] of determining the minima in
a first direction and determining the minima in a second direction
perpendicular to the first direction." App. Br. 11. We agree with Appellant
the Examiner erred.
5
Appeal2014-001084
Application 11/763,797
In particular, the Examiner's findings merely relate to Sohm's
disclosure that fast algorithms for searching for the smallest block distortion
measure (BDM) in a SAD surface "may find a local minimum 58 instead of
the global minimum." Sohm i-f 93. The Examiner finds that "there are local
minima where one direction is perpendicular to [an ]other direction among
various different positioned minima on the surface." Ans. 21 (citing, e.g.,
Sohm, Fig. 6). However, the mere existence of local minima for BDM(iJ) at
different points in the search area and the possibility of identifying multiple
local minima for BDM(i,j) are insufficient to show that Sohm teaches or
suggests both determining the minima in a first direction and determining
the minima in a second direction perpendicular to the first direction.
Therefore, the Examiner's findings do not show the combination of Sohm
and Selby teaches or suggests the disputed recitations of claim 5.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
rejection of claim 5. Claim 14 contains similar recitations. Therefore, for
these same reasons we also do not sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
rejection of claims 14--17 and 19--21.
6
Appeal2014-001084
Application 11/763,797
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1--4 and 6-13.
We reverse the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 5, 14--17, and
19--21.
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.
§ 41.50(f).
AFFIRMED-IN-P ART2
ACP
2 In the event of further prosecution, we recommend the Examiner ascertain
whether the claim 1 recitation of "a minima" (where minima is the plural
term for minimum) and the claim 5 determinations of "the minima" provide
sufficient clarity to an artisan of ordinary skill so as to meet the requirements
of 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph.
7