Ex Parte Kishore et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 15, 2017

12776478 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 15, 2017)

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.
12/776,478 05/10/2010 Kelly Y. Kishore KF100407.US 2433
30232 7590 02/17/2017
TTSFFTTT. ARTS TP
EXAMINER
MICHAEL J. URE MUNG, ON S
1501 E. Spring Lane
Holladay, CA84117 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2486
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/17/2017 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):
mureakasolo @ gmail.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte KELLY Y. KISHORE and GERARD M. X. FERNANDO
Appeal 2016-006688
Application 12/776,478
Technology Center 2400
Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, KRISTEN L. DROESCH, and
MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges.
McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1, 3-6, 8-15, 17, 28, 39, 50, and 61, which are all the
claims pending in this application.1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We reverse.
1 Claims 2, 7, 16, 18-27, 29-38, 40^19, 51-60, and 62-71 are canceled.
Final Act. 2.
Appeal 2016-006688
Application 12/776,478
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellants’ application relates to video compression using parallel
processing by multiple computing resources. Spec. 113. Claim 1 is
illustrative of the appealed subject matter and reads as follows with the
disputed limitation in italics'.
1. A method of video compression of a sequence of video
frames comprising:
performing temporal estimation on a set of video frame
data by, for each of at least some frames of the video frame
data, comparing the frame of video frame data with at least one
other frame of video frame data, wherein the at least one other
frame of video frame data is an original frame of video frame
data that has not been compressed or decompressed in the
course of said video compression, wherein temporal estimation
of a first subset of frames of the video frame data is computed
independently of, and in parallel with, temporal estimation of a
second subset of frames of the video frame data; and
using results of said temporal estimation, performing
compensation of at least one of the first subset of frames of
video frame data and the second subset of frames of video
frame data in a manner which is dependent on compensation of
the other of the first subset of frames of video frame data and
the second subset of frames of video frame data;
wherein said compensation is performed using
reconstructed frames of video frame data that have been
compressed and decompressed in the course of said video
compression.
The Examiner’s Rejections
Claims 1, 3-6, 8-12, 15, 17, 28, 39, 50, and 61 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Madumbu et al. (US 2008/0063080
2
Appeal 2016-006688
Application 12/776,478
Al; Mar. 13, 2008) and Baba et al. (US 2009/0129688 Al; May 21, 2009).
Final Act. 4-14.
Claims 13 and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Madumbu, Baba, and Schmit et al. (US 2009/0016430
Al; Jan. 15, 2009). Final Act. 15-16.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in consideration of
Appellants’ contentions and the evidence of record. Appellants persuade us
the Examiner fails to establish the claims are unpatentable over the cited
prior art.
The Examiner finds Madumbu teaches motion estimation using an
original reference frame (Final Act. 4-5 (citing Madumbu, Fig. 7)) and
motion compensation using a reconstructed reference frame (Final Act. 5
(citing Madumbu, Fig. 5)).
Appellants argue the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 as
unpatentable over Madumbu and Baba because the Examiner has not
explained why an ordinarily skilled artisan would have combined the
improved system that uses an original reference frame for motion estimation
(depicted in Madumbu, Fig. 7) with Madumbu’s prior art system that uses a
reconstructed reference frame for motion compensation (depicted in Fig. 5).
Br. 13.
Appellants have persuaded us of Examiner error. The Examiner cites
an improved system that uses an original reference frame for both motion
estimation and compensation for the claimed “performing temporal
estimation” step. Final Act. 4-5 (citing Madumbu, Fig. 7). The Examiner
3
Appeal 2016-006688
Application 12/776,478
cites a prior art system that uses a reconstructed reference frame for both
motion estimation and compensation for the claimed “performing
compensation” step. Final Act. 5 (citing Madumbu, Fig. 5).
However, the Examiner has not provided sufficient articulated
reasoning as to why an ordinarily skilled artisan at the time of the invention
would have used motion estimation from the improved system with motion
compensation from the prior art system while using different reference
frames for each system, contrary to the teachings of both embodiments.
“[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.” KSRInt’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). In other
words, the mere fact that elements can be combined is not, in itself, a reason
to combine them. Rather, an obviousness rejection must explain the
reasoning by which those findings support the Examiner’s conclusion of
obviousness. Perfect Web Techs., Inc. v. InfoUSA, Inc., 587 F.3d 1324,
1328-30 (Fed. Cir. 2009). In this case, the rejection fails to meet this
required standard.
Accordingly, on this record we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1
or independent claims 12, 15, 17, 28, 39, 50, and 61, which recite similar
limitations. We also do not sustain the rejection of dependent claims 3-6
and 8-11.
Claims 13 and 14, which depend from claim 12, stand rejected over
Madumbu, Baba, and Schmit. Final Act. 15-16. As applied by the
Examiner, Schmit does not remedy the identified deficiencies of Madumbu
and Baba. Accordingly, we also do not sustain the rejection of claims 13
and 14.
4
Appeal 2016-006688
Application 12/776,478
DECISION
We reverse the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1, 3-6, 8-15,
17,28, 39, 50, and 61.
REVERSED
5