Ex parte Iwamura

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Dec 13, 1999

08456963 (B.P.A.I. Dec. 13, 1999)

Application for patent filed June 1, 1995. 1
THIS OPINION WAS NOT WRITTEN FOR PUBLICATION
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today (1) was not written for
publication in a law journal and (2) is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 23
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte RYUICHI IWAMURA
____________
Appeal No. 1997-3844
Application No. 08/456,9631
____________
ON BRIEF
____________
Before THOMAS, JERRY SMITH, 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 8-13 and
25-32, which are all of the claims pending in this application.
We REVERSE.
Appeal No. 1997-3844
Application No. 08/456,963
2
BACKGROUND
The appellant's invention relates to a motion picture signal compressing apparatus
which encodes the motion vector of the block of a motion picture signal picture as a motion
vector difference. An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of
exemplary claim 8, which is reproduced below.
8. Apparatus for compressing a motion picture signal, the motion
picture signal including a current picture which is divided into blocks
including a target block and a plurality of comparison blocks, the apparatus
comprising:
motion detecting means for calculating, from prediction blocks of a
prediction picture and each block of the current picture, a motion vector for
each block of the current picture;
difference determining means for determining a difference between
each prediction block of the prediction picture to provide a prediction error
block;
orthogonal transform means for orthogonally transforming the
prediction error block to provide transform coefficients;
quantizing means for quantizing the transform coefficients to provide
quantized transform coefficients;
local decoding means for locally decoding the quantized transform
coefficients to provide a block of an additional prediction picture;
motion vector encoding means, operating when respective differences
between the motion vector for the target block and each motion vector for the
comparison blocks is outside an allowable range, for generating an encoding of
Appeal No. 1997-3844
Application No. 08/456,963
3
the motion vector for the target block which represents the motion vector for the
target block as a difference between the motion vector for the target block and the
motion vector for a selected one of the comparison blocks; and
motion compensating means for producing the blocks of the prediction
picture, the motion compensating means producing each prediction block of the
prediction picture by applying motion compensation to the prediction picture in
response to the motion vectors calculated by the motion detecting means.
The prior art references of record relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the
appealed claims are:
Kondo 4,777,530 Oct. 11, 1988
Nagata et al. (Nagata) 5,113,255 May 12, 1992
Henot 5,196,933 Mar. 23, 1993
(Filing date Mar. 19, 1991)
Claims 8-12 and 25-32 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Nagata in view of Kondo. Claim 13 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
103 as being unpatentable over Nagata and Kondo in view of Henot.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the Examiner and the
appellant regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the Examiner's
answer (Paper No. 22, mailed Aug. 19, 1997) for the Examiner's reasoning in support of
the rejections, and to the appellant's brief (Paper No. 20, filed Dec. 30, 1996) for the
appellant's arguments thereagainst.
Appeal No. 1997-3844
Application No. 08/456,963
4
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to the
appellant's specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellant and the Examiner. As a consequence of
our review, we make the determinations which follow.
With respect to independent claim 8, appellant argues at page 8 of the brief that the
prior art to Nagata and Kondo do not teach the claim limitation pertaining to the
“motion vector encoding means, operating when respective differences
between the motion vector for the target block and each motion vector for the
comparison blocks is outside an allowable range, for generating an
encoding of the motion vector for the target block which represents the
motion vector for the target block as a difference between the motion vector
for the target block and the motion vector for a selected one of the
comparison blocks.”
We agree with appellant. The Examiner states that it is the “Examiner’s opinion that
Kondo . . . meets the claimed limitation of representing the motion vector for the target
block . . . and the motion vector for a comparison block of the picture (see column 5, line
62 to column 6, line 21 of Kondo).” (Examiner's answer, pg. 10). We have reviewed the
cited portion of Kondo and disagree with the Examiner's conclusion that Kondo teaches
“encoding of the motion vector for the target block which represents the motion vector for
the target block as a difference between the motion vector for the target block and the
motion vector for a selected one of the comparison blocks” as set
Appeal No. 1997-3844
Application No. 08/456,963
5
forth in the language of claim 8. Appellant argues that the prior art does not encode the
motion vector for the target as a difference. Appellant further argues that “if Kondo can be
said to be encoding a motion vector at all, it is merely encoding the motion vector as
another motion vector. There is nothing in Kondo that discloses or suggests encoding a
motion vector as a difference between motion vectors.” (See brief at page 8.) We agree
with appellant.
As pointed out by our reviewing court, we must first determine the scope of the
claim. "[T]he name of the game is the claim." In re Hiniker Co., 150 F.3d 1362, 1369, 47
USPQ2d 1523, 1529 (Fed. Cir. 1998). We find that the Examiner has not provided a
teaching or convincing line of reasoning why one skilled in the art would have desired to
encode using the difference in the motion vectors. Therefore, the Examiner has not
provided a prima facie case of obviousness with respect to claim 8 and its dependent
claims. As such, we will not sustain the rejection of claim 8 nor its dependent claims 9-11
and 25-31.
With respect to claim 12, appellant relies upon the same argument as with claim 8
regarding “the compressed picture block including coded transform coefficients and a
motion vector encoding which represents a motion vector for the target block as a
difference between the motion vector for the target block and a motion vector for a
selected one of comparison blocks, the comparison block including blocks of the
Appeal No. 1997-3844
Application No. 08/456,963
6
picture other than the target block and the motion vector encoding including an indication
of which one of comparison blocks is the selected one of the comparison blocks.” (See
claim 12.) We agree with appellant that Kondo does not teach the use of the difference in
the motion vectors. Therefore, we will not sustain the rejection of claim 12 nor its
dependent claims 32 and 13.
CONCLUSION
To summarize, the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 8-13 and 25-32 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
REVERSED
JAMES D. THOMAS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
JERRY SMITH ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
JOSEPH L. DIXON )
Administrative Patent Judge )
vsh
Appeal No. 1997-3844
Application No. 08/456,963
7
IAN HARDCASTLE
LIMBACH AND LIMBACH
2001 FERRY BUILDING
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111