Ex Parte Kim et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 30, 201813504812 (P.T.A.B. May. 30, 2018) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 13/504,812 07/17/2012 Sunyeon Kim 22429 7590 06/01/2018 HAUPTMAN HAM, LLP 2318 Mill Road Suite 1400 ALEXANDRIA, VA 22314 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. 126587-0099 5673 EXAMINER MATT, MARNIE A ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2485 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/01/2018 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): docketing@ipfirm.com pair_lhhb@firsttofile.com EAnastasio@IPFirm.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte SUNYEON KIM, JEONGYEON LIM, GYUMIN LEE, JAEHOON CHOI, YOONSIK CHOE, YUNGHO CHOI, and YONGGOOKIM Appeal2017-008420 Application 13/504,812 Technology Center 2400 Before ERIC B. CHEN, JEREMY J. CURCURI, and HUNG H. BUI, Administrative Patent Judges. CHEN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal2017-008420 Application 13/504,812 This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § I34(a) from the final rejection of claims 1, 4, 6, 9, 10, 12, 14, 17, 18, and 20. Claims 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 11, 13, 15, 16, and 19 have been cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). We reverse. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants' invention relates to encoding and decoding a motion vector by using spatial division. (i-f 1.) Claims 1, 4, 6, and 14 are independent. Claim 1 is exemplary, with disputed limitations in italics: 1. An apparatus for encoding a current motion vector of a current block in a current frame, the apparatus comprising: a motion vector selector configured to determine a plurality of motion vector candidates derived from first multiple neighboring positions in the current frame and second multiple neighboring positions in the current frame by deriving a first motion vector candidate of the plurality of motion vector candidates by using first multiple neighboring motion vectors corresponding respectively to the first multiple neighboring positions, and deriving a second motion vector candidate of the plurality of motion vector candidates by using second multiple neighboring motion vectors corresponding respectively to the second multiple neighboring positions, wherein the first multiple neighboring positions and the second multiple neighboring positions are adjacent to the current block; a predicted motion vector selector configured to select a motion vector among the plurality of motion vector candidates, and 2 Appeal2017-008420 Application 13/504,812 set the motion vector selected among the plurality of motion vector candidates, as a predicted motion vector of the current motion vector; a differential vector encoder configured to encoded a differential vector representing a difference between the current motion vector and the predicted motion vector, and a predicted motion vector encoder configured to encode an index for identifying the motion vector selected among the plurality of motion vector candidates, wherein each of the first multiple neighboring positions is different from each of the second multiple neighboring positions. REJECTIONS & REFERENCES (1) Claims 1, 4, 6, and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable over Mukerjee et al. (US 2005/0053292 Al, published; Mar. 10, 2005) and Hallapuro et al. (US 009/0304084 Al, published; Dec. 10, 2009). (2) Claims 9, 10, 12, 17, 18, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable over Mukerjee, Hallapuro, and Jeon et al. (WO 2009/051419 A2, published; Apr. 23, 2009). 1 ANALYSIS § 103 Rejection-Mukerjee and Hallapuro We are persuaded by Appellants' arguments (Reply Br. 5) that the combination of Mukerjee and Hallapuro would not have rendered obvious independent claim 1, which includes the limitation "determine a plurality of motion vector candidates derived from first multiple neighboring positions 1 Also published as US 2010/0220790 Al, published; Sept. 2, 2010. 3 Appeal2017-008420 Application 13/504,812 in the current frame and second multiple neighboring positions in the current frame." The Examiner found that the candidate motion vector predictors for a macroblock, as illustrated in Figure 5B ofMukerjee, correspond to the disputed limitation: "a motion vector selector configured to determine a plurality of motion vector candidates derived from first multiple neighboring positions in the current frame and second multiple neighboring positions in the current frame." (Final Act. 2; see also Ans. 3.) In particular, the Examiner found that "Predictor A" and "Predictor B," as illustrated in Figure 5B, correspond to the limitation "first multiple neighboring positions in the current frame" and that "Predictor B" and "Predictor C," as illustrated in Figure 5B, correspond to the limitation "second multiple neighboring positions." (Ans. 3.) We do not agree with the Examiner's findings. Mukerjee relates to "[t]echniques and tools for interlaced video coding and decoding," for example, "a video encoder [that] encodes bi- directionally predicted macro blocks in interlaced video [ shown in Figure 5B]." (if 3.) Figure 5B of Mukerjee, which illustrates a "diagram[] showing the locations of macro blocks considered for candidate motion vector predictors for a macroblock in a 1 MV [motion vector] progressive P-frame [predicted frame]" (if 23), is reproduced below. 4 Appeal2017-008420 Application 13/504,812 (Id.) Figure 5B, prior art Predictor B Predictor A Current Predictor C macmblock {last in row) Mukerjee further explains the following: Predictor B is taken from the top-left macro block instead of the top-right. For the special case where the frame is one macroblock wide, the predictor is always Predictor A (the top predictor). When Predictor A is out of bounds because the macroblock is in the top row, the predictor is Predictor C. Various other rules address other special cases such as intra- coded predictors. Although the Examiner cited to Figure 5B of Mukerjee, which diagrams the locations of macro blocks considered for candidate motion vector predictors ( e.g., Predictor A, Predictor B, and Predictor C), the Examiner has provided insufficient evidence to support a finding that Mukerjee teaches the limitation "determine a plurality of motion vector candidates derived from first multiple neighboring positions in the current frame and second multiple neighboring positions in the current frame." In particular, while Figure 5B of Mukerjee illustrates candidate motion vector predictors (e.g., Predictor A, Predictor B, and Predictor C), Mukerjee is silent with respect to further subgrouping Predictor A and Predictor B as "first multiple neighboring positions" and subgrouping Predictor B and 5 Appeal2017-008420 Application 13/504,812 Predictor C as "second multiple neighboring positions." Thus, on this record, the Examiner has not demonstrated that Mukerjee teaches the disputed limitation: "determine a plurality of motion vector candidates derived from first multiple neighboring positions in the current frame and second multiple neighboring positions in the current frame," as recited in claim 1. Moreover, the Examiner's application of Hallapuro does not cure the above-noted deficiencies of Mukerjee. Accordingly, we are persuaded by Appellants' arguments that "'Predictor A, Predictor Band Predictor C' of Fig. 5B merely indicates a single set ( or group) of the multiple blocks having 'Predictor A, Predictor B and Predictor C,' since the multiple blocks of 'Predictor A, Predictor B and Predictor C' are candidates to become the motion vector of the current macroblock" and "Mukerjee therefore fails to implicitly or inherently teach 'determine a plurality of motion vector candidates derived from first multiple neighboring positions."' (Reply Br. 5 ( emphases omitted).) Thus, we do not sustain the rejection of independent claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Independent claims 4, 6, and 14 recite limitations similar to those discussed with respect to independent claim 1. We do not sustain the rejection of claims 4, 6, and 14, for the same reasons discussed with respect to claim 1. § 103 Rejection-Muke,jee, Hallapuro, and Jeon Claims 9, 10, 12, 17, 18, and 20 depend from independent claims 4, 6, and 14. Jeon was cited by the Examiner for teaching the additional features of claims 9, 10, 12, 17, 18, and 20. (Final Act. 6-11.) However, the 6 Appeal2017-008420 Application 13/504,812 Examiner's application of Jeon does not cure the above noted deficiencies of Mukerjee and Hallapuro. DECISION The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1, 4, 6, 9, 10, 12, 14, 17, 18, and 20 is reversed. REVERSED 7 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation