Ex Parte JeonDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 8, 201311043093 (P.T.A.B. May. 8, 2013) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE 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 APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 11/043,093 01/27/2005 Byeong Moon Jeon 6111-000002/US/DVA 9700 7590 05/09/2013 Harness, Dickey & Pierce, P.L.C. P.O. Box 8910 Reston, VA 20195 EXAMINER HALLENBECK-HUBER, JEREMIAH CHARLES ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2486 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/09/2013 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ________________ Ex parte BYEONG MOON JEON ________________ Appeal 2011-007874 Application 11/043,093 Technology Center 2400 ________________ Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, JASON V. MORGAN, and STACEY G. WHITE, Administrative Patent Judges. WHITE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2011-007874 Application 11/043,093 2 SUMMARY Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a non-final rejection of claims 1-7, 9, and 10. Claims 8, 11, and 12 have been cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. STATEMENT OF CASE Appellant’s claims are directed to methods for enhancing coding efficiency in a moving picture coding system. (Spec. 0003). Enhancements are achieved through the use of short-term and long-term reference pictures. (Br. 3). Claim 1 is illustrative and is reproduced below (disputed limitation in italics): 1. A method of determining and using motion vectors for a bi- predictive image block, the method performed by a moving picture coding system and comprising: obtaining, by the moving picture coding system, a motion vector of co-located image block for the bi-predictive image block; determining, by the moving picture coding system, motion vectors of the bi-predictive image block based on a type of reference picture of the co-located image block, the type being one of long-term and short-term, the type characterizing a temporal distance of the reference picture for the co-located image block with respect to the bi-predictive block, the determining step determining the motion vectors according to a first set of expressions if the reference picture for the co-located image block is the short-term type and the determining step determining the motion vectors according to a second set of expressions if the reference picture for the co-located image block is the long-term type, the second set of expressions being different than the first set of expressions; and Appeal 2011-007874 Application 11/043,093 3 decoding, by the moving picture coding system, the bi- predictive image block based on the determined motion vectors. REJECTIONS (1) Claims 1-7, 9, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as unpatentable over T. Wiegand, Working Draft Number 2, Revision 2 (WD-2), Joint Video Team (JVT) of ISO/IEC MPEG and ITU-T VCEG, Geneva, Switzerland, February 2002 (hereinafter “WD2”) and Rhee (U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2002/0001347, Jan. 3, 2002). (2) Claims 1-7, 9, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as unpatentable over WD2. ISSUE Appellant’s response to the Examiner’s rejections presents the following issue: Did the Examiner err in finding that WD2 discloses: determining, by the moving picture coding system, motion vectors of the bi-predictive image block based on a type of reference picture of the co-located image block, the type being one of long- term and short-term, the type characterizing a temporal distance of the reference picture for the co-located image block with respect to the bi-predictive block? (Claim 1). ANALYSIS Appellant argues that the Examiner is incorrect in finding that the cited art discloses long-term and short-term type reference pictures. (Br. 15- 17). The Examiner finds that WD2’s discussion of motion vectors and their related calculations discloses the disputed limitation. (Ans. 4-5 (citing WD2 Appeal 2011-007874 Application 11/043,093 4 § 7.4.2; Figs. 21 and 25)). Appellant avers that the Examiner erred because WD2’s motion vectors are determined based on whether the reference picture is a field or a frame and not based on short-term or long-term types. (Br. 17). The Examiner finds that given their broadest reasonable construction the long-term and short-term types would include fields and frames. (Ans. 12). According to the Examiner, frames, which are displayed for 1/30th of a second, disclose long-term types and fields, which are displayed for 1/60th of a second, disclose short-term types because of the differences in length of duration. (Id.). The Appellant argues that this is incorrect and we agree. (Br. 22-23). The claim requires the long and short term types to “characterize[] a temporal distance of the reference picture for the co-located image block with respect to the bi-predictive block.” The time that an image is displayed on screen does not inform a skilled artisan regarding the temporal distance between these images as is required by the claim language. The additional cited reference, Rhee, does not overcome this deficiency. (Reply Br. 13). As such, we reverse the § 103(a) rejection of claim 1 and its dependent claims 2-7, 9, and 10. As to the second §103(a) rejection, the Examiner points out that §§ 4.3.11 – 4.3.13 of WD2 disclose long and short term reference pictures. (Ans. 6-7; 15-16). The Examiner states that one of skill in the art would read the cited portions of WD2 and seek to modify the equations in § 7.4.2 to use the long and short term reference pictures disclosed in §§ 4.3.11 – 4.3.13. (Ans. 17-18). Appellant criticizes the Examiner’s reasoning because WD2 does not determine motion vectors based on the long and short term reference pictures discussed in §§ 4.3.11 – 4.3.13. (Br. 25-26). Appellant Appeal 2011-007874 Application 11/043,093 5 argues that no explanation has been provided as to why the Examiner finds that one of skill in the art would believe that special methods would be needed to handle the long and short term reference pictures. (Reply Br. 16). In addition, Appellant asserts that it was not obvious to use the long and short term reference pictures to develop the two sets of expressions required by the claim. (Reply Br. 17-18). We agree with Appellant. The mere fact that WD2 describes short and long term reference pictures is not a reason to modify the motion vector determination equations found in § 7.4.2. “[A] patent composed of several elements is not proved obvious merely by demonstrating that each of its elements was, independently, known in the prior art.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). The Examiner has not provided sufficient evidence from the record to show why long and short term types of §§ 4.3.11 – 4.3.13 should be combined with the expressions found in § 7.4.2. Thus, the rejection falls short of showing the proposed combination would have rendered the disputed limitation obvious to one of skill in the art. Each of the independent claims recite long and short term types characterizing temporal distance and as such, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1 and its dependent claims 2-7, 9, and 10. DECISION The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-7, 9, and 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is reversed. REVERSED Appeal 2011-007874 Application 11/043,093 6 tj Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation