Ex Parte Jeon

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 8, 2013

11043093 (P.T.A.B. May. 8, 2013)

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