Ex Parte Kuroda et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jan 18, 2011

11155483 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 18, 2011)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte SHINICHI KURODA, SHUNICHI SEKIGUCHI,
KOHTARO ASAI, HIROFUMI NISHIKAWA,
YOSHIMI ISU, and YURI HASEGAWA
____________________

Appeal 2009-005320
Application 11/155,483
Technology Center 2400
____________________

Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, MARC S. HOFF,
and THOMAS S. HAHN, Administrative Patent Judges.

SAADAT, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL1

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, or for filing a request for rehearing,
as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 41.52, begins to run from the “MAIL DATE”
(paper delivery mode) or the “NOTIFICATION DATE” (electronic delivery
mode) shown on the PTOL-90A cover letter attached to this decision.
Appeal 2009-005320
Application 11/155,483

2
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a final rejection of
claims 1-6, which constitute all the claims pending in this application. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellants’ invention is directed to image processing and an image
decoder including means for encoding an image based on object display
speed information and means for multiplexing the speed information onto an
image-encoded bit stream. According to Appellants, the disclosed process is
applied to video data structure in MPEG-4 where a moving picture object
(VO) includes plural Video Object Layers (VOL) which in turn, includes
plural Video Object Planes (VOP). See Spec. 11. Claim 1 is illustrative of
the invention and reads as follows:
1. An image decoding device which decodes an encoded bit steam
formed by encoding images for each object comprising:
a VOP decoder decoding a VOP that is image data serving as
an encoding unit of a video object; and
a VOL header analyzing part decoding a VOP rate flag,
contained in encoded form in a header information part of a VOL
layer composed of several VOPs, for indicating that a display rate in
the VOL of the VOP to be decoded by the VOP decoding part is a
fixed rate.
The Examiner relies on the following prior art in rejecting the claims:
Suzuki US 6,031,575 Feb. 29, 2000
Susanna Aign et al., MPEG-4 Video Transmission via DAB: Error
Detection and Error Concealment, PROC. PICTURE CODING SYMP. 731 (Sept.
1997).
Appeal 2009-005320
Application 11/155,483

3
Claims 1-6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Suzuki and Aign.2
Appellants’ Contentions
Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting independent
claims 1 and 2 as being obvious over Suzuki and Aign because the
references, alone or in combination, do not teach all the claimed features
(App. Br. 7-10). Appellants specifically assert that the references fail to
teach or suggest the claimed “VOP rate flag” (App. Br. 7), nor that “a
display in the VOL of the VOP to be decoded by the VOP decoding part is a
fixed rate” (App. Br. 8-10). Appellants further argue that, absent
Appellants’ disclosure, one of ordinary skill in the art would not have
combined the references (App. Br. 11-12).

ISSUE
Has the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1 and 2 as being obvious
over Suzuki and Aign by failing to show that the ordinary skilled artisan
would have combined the references and the combination teaches or
suggests all the claims’ limitations?

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants’
conclusions. We adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth by the
Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken and the reasons set

2 The Examiner has withdrawn the obviousness-type double patenting
rejection of claims 1-6 in the Answer (Ans. 14).
Appeal 2009-005320
Application 11/155,483

4
forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellants’
Appeal Brief. However, we highlight and address specific findings and
arguments regarding claims 1 and 2 for emphasis as follows.
We note that the Examiner properly relied on Suzuki for disclosing
the details of an image decoding device including a VOP decoder and on
Aign for disclosing the details related to the display rate in the VOL header
as a fixed rate. The Examiner specifically cites to Figures 8A, 8B, and 33A
and column 46, lines 48-53 of Suzuki for disclosing the claimed VOP
decoder for decoding the data at the VOP layer and displaying a VOP flag
called VOP_tem_ref (Ans. 3-7). The Examiner further cites to Section 2.1
and Figures 2 and 3 of Aign as disclosing the specific MPEG-4 bitstream
consisting of a header followed by a number of the VOP data blocks wherein
the VOL header indicates the display rate of the VOP (Ans. 4, 7).
Contrary to Appellants’ contention (App. Br. 7) that Suzuki does not
specify the timing element VOP_tem_ref as a fixed rate, we agree with the
Examiner’s finding (Ans. 7) that Suzuki, in column 47, lines 10-15 and 49-
51, discloses fixed frame rate in decoding and transmitting VOP data. In
particular, we observe that Appellants rely on column 48, lines 1-12 of
Suzuki to support their challenge to the reference’s teaching of fixed VOP
display rate (App. Br. 8). However, Appellants make no reference to the
related portions of Suzuki in column 47 where transmission order for a fixed
frame rate is described. See Suzuki, col. 47, ll. 10-51. We also remain
unconvinced by Appellants’ contention (App. Br. 8-9; Reply Br. 4-5) that
the fixed frame rate disclosed by Suzuki relates to transmission rate, whereas
the claim recites fixed display rate. In fact, similar to the claimed display
Appeal 2009-005320
Application 11/155,483

5
rate, Suzuki describes the flag in relation with the display timing of the
frame (see col. 47, ll. 18-21).
With respect to VOL header information, as pointed out by the
Examiner (Ans. 9-10), Aign describes the VOL as the layer above VOP
where the header information as part of the VOL determines the display rate
of VOP data frames (see Aign, section 2.1; Fig. 2-3). Therefore, contrary to
Appellants’ contention (App. Br. 9), Aign was not relied on for teaching a
fixed display rate in the VOL. The Examiner, instead, relied on Suzuki.
Lastly, contrary to Appellants’ contention (App. Br. 10-13) that the
Examiner has not provided a proper basis for the proposed combination, we
find that the Examiner’s stated position (Ans. 4-5) provides a valid
articulated line of reasoning with a rational underpinning to support the legal
conclusion of obviousness for the proposed combination of Suzuki with
Aign. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (quoting
In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)). As such, we agree with the
Examiner’s line of reasoning in support of the combination of Suzuki and
Aign (Ans. 11-14) and find that one of ordinary skill in the art would have
used the features disclosed in Suzuki, such as the VOP rate flag to indicate a
fixed display rate, in combination with the display rate information included
in the VOL header of Aign to arrive at the invention recited in independent
claims 1 and 2.

CONCLUSIONS
(1) The Examiner has not erred in rejecting claims 1 and 2 as being
obvious over Suzuki and Aign by showing that the ordinary skilled artisan
Appeal 2009-005320
Application 11/155,483

6
would have combined the references and the combination teaches or
suggests all the claims’ limitations.
(2) The 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims 1 and 2, as well as
claims 3-6 not argued separately (App. Br. 13) over Suzuki and Aign is
sustained.

ORDER
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-6 is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(v).

AFFIRMED

babc

BIRCH STEWART KOLASCH & BIRCH
PO BOX 747
FALLS CHURCH, VA 22040-0747