Ex Parte Kudana et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 15, 2018

13633292 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 15, 2018)

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.
13/633,292 10/02/2012 Arun Shankar Kudana TI-71140 1048
23494 7590 03/19/2018
TEXAS INSTRUMENTS INCORPORATED
P O BOX 655474, M/S 3999
DALLAS, TX 75265
EXAMINER
WONG, ALLEN C
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2488
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/19/2018 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):
uspto@ti.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ARUN SHANKAR KUDANA and SOYEB NAGORI1
Appeal 2017-009277
Application 13/633,292
Technology Center 2400
Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, CATHERINE SHIANG, and SCOTT E. BAIN
Administrative Patent Judges.
NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Final
Rejection of claims 1 through 3, 6, 12, through 15 and 20.2
We reverse.
INVENTION
The invention is directed to a method of quantization of video content
where the quantization parameter (QP) for the block of video data is
modulated based on the determined degree of randomness associated with
the block of video data. The randomness is determined based on the motion
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Texas Instruments
Incorporated. App. Br. 2.
2 Claims 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 11 and 16 through 19 were canceled in an After Final
Amendment, which was entered. See Advisory Action mailed on April 3,
2017. Claim 9 was canceled prior to the Final Office Action.
Appeal 2017-009277
Application 13/633,292
information associated with the block of video. Abstract, Spec. para. 4.
Claim 1 is illustrative of the invention and is reproduced below:
1. A method of quantization of video content, comprising:
determining, by a processor circuit a motion vector
and a predicted motion vector for a block of video data
associated with the video content;
determining, by the processor circuit, a degree of
randomness for the block of video data based on the
motion vector and the predicted motion vector for the
block of video data; and
modulating, by the processor circuit, a value of a
quantization parameter (QP) for the block of video data
based on the determined degree of randomness.
REJECTION AT ISSUE
The Examiner has rejected claims 1 through 3, 6, 12, through 15 and
20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as unpatentable over Ammu (US 2011/0182356
Al). Final Act. 4—13.3
ANALYSIS
Appellants argue on pages 4 through 7, 9, and 11 of the Appeal Brief
the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 1,12, and 20 is in error.
The dispositive issue presented by these arguments is: whether the Examiner
erred in finding Ammu discloses using degree of randomness to modulate a
quantization parameter value for the block of video data, where the degree
of randomness for the block of video data based the motion vector and the
predicted motion vector for the bock of video data. Specifically, Appellants
argue “[N]o mention is made in Ammu of using a motion vector for a block
3 Throughout this Opinion, we refer to the Appeal Brief, filed March 24,
2017 (“App. Br.”), the Reply Brief, filed June 20, 2017 (“Reply Br.”), the
Examiner’s Answer, mailed April 17, 2017 (“Answer”), and the Final Office
Action, mailed August 23, 2016 (“Final Act”).
2
Appeal 2017-009277
Application 13/633,292
of video and a predicted motion vector for the same block of video data for
determining a degree of randomness.” App Br. 5. Further, Appellants argue
the spatial homogeneity flags used in Ammu are derived from the deviation
of current macroblock and its surrounding macroblocks. App. Br. 6. Reply
Br. 2.
Appellants’ arguments persuade us of error. The Examiner finds
that Ammu teaches that homogeneity statistic parameter flags are used to
indicate similarity of a macroblock with its neighbors and the Manhattan
distance between motion vectors of the block and its neighbors is used to
create the distance. Answer 9—10 (citing paras. 74, and 85). The Examiner
equates the claimed degree of randomness with Ammu’s temporal
homogeneity. Answer 10. While we agree with the Examiner’s finding that
Ammu teaches generating a measure of homogeneity between blocks, we do
not find that this meets the limitations of the independent claims. As argued
by the Appellants, the claim recites the degree of randomness is based upon
the motion vector and predicted motion vector of a block, whereas the cited
teaching of Ammu is directed to a determination based upon motion vectors
of different blocks. The Examiner has not identified additional disclosures
in Ammu to demonstrate that Ammu discloses the claim limitation, as such
we are persuaded of error in the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims
1, 12 and 20. Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1,
2, 3, 6, 12, 13, 14, 15 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as unpatentable over
Ammu.
3
Appeal 2017-009277
Application 13/633,292
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1 through 3, 6, 12,
through 15 and 20 is reversed.
REVERSED
4