Ex Parte Kerofsky

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 27, 2014

11089647 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 27, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
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.
11/089,647 03/25/2005 Louis Joseph Kerofsky SLA1630 9246
7590 08/28/2014
Gerald W. Maliszewski
P.O. Box 270829
San Diego, CA 92198-2829
EXAMINER
HOLDER, ANNER N
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2483
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/28/2014 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 LOUIS JOSEPH KEROFSKY
___________

Appeal 2011-012452
Application 11/089,647
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before JOHNNY A. KUMAR, JOHN A. EVANS, and J. JOHN LEE,
Administrative Patent Judges.

EVANS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant
1
seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner’s final rejection of Claims 1, 2, 4-6, 8-17, 19-21, and 23-27
2
as
obvious. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
3

1
The Real Party in Interest is Sharp Laboratories of America.
2
App. Br. 3.
3
Our decision refers to Appellant’s Appeal Brief filed April 17, 2011 (“App.
Br.”); Reply Brief filed July 13, 2011 (“Reply Br.”); Examiner’s Answer
mailed July 1, 2011 (“Ans.”); Final Office Action mailed February 18, 2011
(Footnote continued on next page.)
Appeal 2011-012452
Application 11/089647

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The claims relate to a system and method for gracefully degrading
video quality in a video entropy decoding system. See Abstract.
Claims 1, 14, and 16 are independent; Claims 3, 7, 18, and 22 are
canceled. App. Br. 26-32. An understanding of the invention can be derived
from a reading of exemplary Claim 1, which is reproduced below:
1. A method for gracefully degrading video quality in a
video entropy decoding system, the method comprising:
a decoder accepting a sequence of coded video frames;
a resource monitor measuring decoding processing power
required to decode the video frames;
in response to the required decoding processing power,
the decoder varying the level of decoding processing for each
macroblock (MB) of the video frame, where the level of
decoding processing is sufficient to decode at least a minimal
amount of data in each MB as follows:
completely decoding each symbol in the MB using an
algorithm selected from the group including Variable Length
Code (VLC) and Context Adaptive VLC (CAVLC);
selectively performing coefficient reconstruction; and
the decoder supplying decoded video data from every
MB in the frame.

(“Final Rej.”); and the original Specification filed March 3, 2005 (“Spec.”).
Appeal 2011-012452
Application 11/089647

3
References
The Examiner relies upon the prior art as follows:
Wilson US 7,248,631 B2 Filed Feb. 1, 2002
Kato US 7,643,559 B2 Filed Sep. 12, 2002
Mizukami US 7,362,838 B2 Filed Sep. 8, 2003
Hellman US 2005/0259741 A1 Filed Jul. 6, 2004

The claims stand rejected as follows:
4

1. Claims 1, 2, 6, 8-12, 16, 17, and 23-26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as obvious over Wilson and Hellman. Ans. 4-8.
2. Claims 4, 5, and 19-21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over Wilson, Hellman, and Kato. Ans. 8-9.
3. Claims 14 and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious
over Wilson, Kato, and Hellman. Ans. 9-11.
4. Claims 13 and 27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious
over Wilson, Hellman, and Mizukami. Ans. 11-12.

APPELLANT’S CONTENTIONS
1. The failure of Wilson (claims 1, 2, 6, 8-12, 16, 17, and 23-26) to
teach or suggest “maintaining a level of computation processing

4
Based on Appellant’s arguments in the Appeal Brief, we will decide the
appeal on the basis of claims as set forth below. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii).

Appeal 2011-012452
Application 11/089647

4
power necessary to decode at least some information in each MB,”
as recited in independent claims 1 and 16, is not cured by Hellman.
App. Br. 8-12; see also App. Br. 2-4;
2. The failure of Wilson (claims 1, 2, 6, 8-12, 16, 17, and 23-26) to
teach or suggest “completely decoding each symbol in the MB
using an algorithm selected from the group including Variable
Length Code (VLC) and Context Adaptive VLC (CAVLC),” as
recited in independent Claims 1 and 16, is not cured by Hellman.
App. Br. 8-12; see also App. Br. 2-4.
3. There is no motivation to combine Wilson and Hellman (Claims 1,
2, 6, 8-12, 16, 17, and 23-26). App. Br. 17.

ISSUES ON APPEAL
Based on Appellant’s arguments in the Appeal Brief (App. Br. 6-21)
and Reply Brief (Reply Br. 2-4), the issues presented on appeal are:
1) Whether the Examiner erred in finding that asserted combinations of
references teach or suggest the disputed claim limitations including
“maintaining a level of computation processing power necessary to
decode at least some information in each MB,”
5
and “completely

5
Appellant’s Appeal Brief variously recites “maintaining a level of
computation processing power necessary to decode at least some
information in each MB” (App. Br. 8) and “a level of computation
(Footnote continued on next page.)
Appeal 2011-012452
Application 11/089647

5
decoding each symbol in the MB using an algorithm selected from the
group including Variable Length Code (VLC) and Context Adaptive
VLC (CAVLC).”
2) Whether the Examiner erred in making the asserted combination of
Wilson and Hellman.

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
arguments that the Examiner has erred. We agree with Appellant’s
conclusions.
CLAIMS 1, 2, 6, 8-12, 16, 17, AND 23-26
“maintaining a level of computation processing power necessary
to decode at least a minimal amount of data in each MB”
Appellant argues Claims 1, 2, 6, 8-12, 16, 17, and 23-26 as a group.
App. Br. 19-20.

processing power necessary to decode at least some information in each
MB” (App. Br. 9). The former recitation accords with the recitations of
independent Claims 1 and 16. Therefore, we interpret the recitations in the
Appeal Brief as equivalent to “maintaining a level of computation
processing power necessary to decode at least some information in each
MB.”

Appeal 2011-012452
Application 11/089647

6
The Examiner finds that Wilson teaches a decoder that varies the level
of decoding processing for each macroblock (MB) of the video frame, where
the level of decoding processing is sufficient to decode at least a minimal
amount of data in each MB. Ans. 5 (citing Wilson, Abstract; Figs. 1-2; col.
2:29-31; col. 2:42-50; col. 4:24-55; col. 4, l. 60 - col. 5 l. 40). The Examiner
finds that the decoder supplies decoded video data from every MB in the
frame. Ans. 5. (citing Wilson, Figs. 1-3; col. 2:32; col. 4 l:16-19; col. 4:60-
62). Ans. 5. The Examiner finds that it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to incorporate the
teachings of Hellman with the device of Wilson allowing for improved
image quality and coding efficiency. Ans. 5.
Appellant contends that the cited portions of Wilson teach that the
computational processing power may be reduced, but that no mention is
made of maintaining a level of computation processing power necessary to
decode at least some information in each MB. App. Br. 9, 10, and 12.
The Examiner notes that Appellant’s claim recites “to decode at least
a minimal amount of data in each macroblock.” The Examiner finds the
broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims includes a system that at
minimum decodes some data, but does not exclude decoding of all the data
within each macroblock. Consistent with this finding, Wilson teaches
throttling (varying the level of decoding) a decoder while continuing to
decode the data. Ans. 12.

Appeal 2011-012452
Application 11/089647

7
We agree with Appellant. The cited portions of Wilson relate to the
power required to decode bitstreams: “[s]aid throttling amount may be based
on one or more measures of the processing power required to decode one or
more bitstreams . . . .” See, e.g., Wilson, col. 2:46-48. There is no recitation
of a “macroblock.” And the Examiner fails to explain how the “bitstream”
of Wilson relates to the claimed “macroblock.” Moreover, Claim 1 recites
“decoding a minimal amount of data in each MB in the frame,” which
comprises “completely decoding each symbol in the MB . . . .” Thus, the
Examiner has not shown how or where Wilson teaches or suggests the
claimed “minimal amount of data in each MB,” including how Wilson
teaches decoding each symbol in a macroblock.
We decline to sustain the rejection of Claims 1, 2, 6, 8-12, 16, 17, and
23-26.
CLAIMS 4, 5, AND 19-21
Appellant contends that Kato does not teach or suggest completely
decoding every MB symbol. App. Br. 20. The Examiner finds that Kato
provides teachings related to maintaining synchronization between
macroblocks in a frame, but does not cite Kato as teaching or suggesting
decoding each symbol in a MB. Ans. 10.
For the reasons discussed above, we decline to sustain the rejection of
Claims 4, 5, and 19-21.

Appeal 2011-012452
Application 11/089647

8
CLAIMS 14 AND 15
Appellant contends that none of Wilson, Hellman, or Kato teach or
suggest decoding each symbol in a macroblock. App. Br. 20-21. We agree
and decline to sustain the rejection of Claims 14 and 15.

CLAIMS 13 AND 27
Appellant contends that Wilson and Hellman are not completed by the
Mizukami reference that fails to teach or suggest completely decoding some
each symbol in a macroblock. App. Br. 21-22. The Examiner does not cite
Mizukami as teaching this limitation. Ans. 11. For the reasons discussed
above, we decline to sustain the rejection of Claims 13 and 27.

DECISION
The rejection of Claims 1, 2, 4-6, 8-17, 19-21, and 23-27 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 is REVERSED.

REVERSED

ELD