Ex Parte Kutka

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

May 28, 2009

09957629 (B.P.A.I. May. 28, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte ROBERT KUTKA
____________________

Appeal 2009-001,895
Application 09/957,6291
Technology Center 2600
____________________

Decided:2 May 29, 2009
____________________

Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, JOHN A. JEFFERY, and MARC S.
HOFF, Administrative Patent Judges.

HOFF, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

1 The real party in interest is Infineon Technologies AG.
2 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, begins to run from the decided date
shown on this page of the decision. The time period does not run from the
Mail Date (paper delivery) or Notification Date (electronic delivery).
Appeal 2009-001,895
Application 09/957,629

STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1-26. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
Appellant’s invention relates to a method and device for picture
compression. The picture to be compressed is subdivided into a plurality of
picture areas, and those areas are subdivided into layers which correspond to
different sampling patterns. The pixels of a layer are predicted from adjacent
pixels of previously processed and coded layers (Abstract).
Claim 1 is exemplary:
1. Method for compressing a picture area having a plurality of pixels
described by corresponding pixel values, comprising the steps of:
subdividing the picture area to be compressed into at least a first
sampling pattern and a second sampling pattern, the first and second
sampling patterns being subsampled from the picture area, wherein the first
and second sampling patterns include different pixels of the picture area to
be compressed;
coding the pixels of the first sampling pattern;
after the coding step, determining a predicted pixel value and coding
each pixel of the second sampling pattern from pixel values of the coded
pixels of the first sampling pattern that are adjacent to the respective pixel of
the second sampling pattern in the picture area; and
outputting a difference value between the predicted pixel value and an
actual pixel value of the respective pixel of the second sampling pattern.

The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Zaccarin US 5,210,605 May 11, 1993

Claims 1-12, 14-18, and 21-26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Zaccarin.
2
Appeal 2009-001,895
Application 09/957,629

Claims 13, 19, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Zaccarin.
Throughout this decision, we make reference to the Appeal Brief
(“App. Br.,” filed January 7, 2008), the Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed
April 30, 2008) and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed March 5, 2008)
for their respective details.

ISSUE
Appellant argues that Zaccarin fails to teach or suggest a method or
device for compressing a picture area, including coding the pixels of a first
sampling pattern, then determining a predicted pixel value and coding each
pixel of a second sampling pattern from the coded pixels of the first
sampling pattern, as recited in independent claims 1 and 23 (App. Br. 4).
According to the Examiner, such teachings are found in the reference (Ans.
4-5).
Appellant’s arguments present us with the following issue:
Has Appellant shown that the Examiner erred in finding that Zaccarin
teaches a method or device for compressing a picture area, including coding
the pixels of a first sampling pattern, then determining a predicted pixel
value and coding each pixel of a second sampling pattern from the coded
pixels of the first sampling pattern?
3
Appeal 2009-001,895
Application 09/957,629

FINDINGS OF FACT
The following Findings of Fact (FF) are shown by a preponderance of
the evidence.
The Invention
1. According to Appellant, the invention concerns a method and
device for picture compression. The picture to be compressed is subdivided
into a plurality of picture areas, and those areas are subdivided into layers
which correspond to different sampling patterns. The pixels of a layer are
predicted from adjacent pixels of previously processed and coded layers
(Abstract).
Zaccarin
2. Zaccarin teaches method and apparatus for estimating motion
vectors between successive but not necessarily consecutive frames of an
imaging system (col. 2, ll. 52-54).
3. Zaccarin teaches coding the pixels of a first sampling pattern
(“sparse pixel pattern”), followed by coding the pixels of second, third, and
fourth sampling patterns (Zaccarin col. 13, ll. 41-44, 60-63).

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
“A rejection for anticipation under section 102 requires that each and
every limitation of the claimed invention be disclosed in a single prior art
reference.” See In re Buszard, 504 F.3d 1364, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2007)
(quoting In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1478-79 (Fed. Cir. 1994)).
Anticipation of a claim requires a finding that the claim at issue reads on a
prior art reference. Atlas Powder Co. v. IRECO, Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1346
4
Appeal 2009-001,895
Application 09/957,629

(Fed. Cir. 1999) (quoting Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775,
781 (Fed. Cir. 1985)).
On the issue of obviousness, the Supreme Court has stated that “the
obviousness analysis cannot be confined by a formalistic conception of the
words teaching, suggestion, and motivation.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
550 U.S. 398, 419 (2007). Further, the Court stated “[t]he combination of
familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when
it does no more than yield predictable results.” Id. at 416. “One of the ways
in which a patent’s subject matter can be proved obvious is by noting that
there existed at the time of the invention a known problem for which there
was an obvious solution encompassed by the patent’s claims.” Id. at 419-20.
ANALYSIS
Claims 1-12, 14-18, and 21-26
Appellant argues that Zaccarin does not teach or suggest coding the
pixels of the first sampling pattern, and then, after the coding step
determining a predicted pixel value and coding each pixel of the second
sampling pattern from pixel values of the coded pixels of the first sampling
patterns, as called for in independent claims 1 and 23 (App. Br. 4).
In response, the Examiner finds the claim limitations to be met,
pointing to disclosure of four different sparse sampling patterns (a, b, c, and
d), and finding further that the second sampling pattern is based on the first
sampling pattern, as it is offset from the first by a single pixel (Ans. 4-5).
Appellant points out in the Reply Brief, however, that the claims do
not require the second sampling pattern to be based on the first sampling
pattern, but rather require coding each pixel of the second sampling pattern
5
Appeal 2009-001,895
Application 09/957,629

from pixel values of the coded pixels of the first sampling pattern (Reply Br.
2).
We find Appellant’s arguments persuasive. In attempting to meet the
language of the claim, the Examiner refers the reader to Figures 11-18 of
Zaccarin as showing many of the claim limitations (Ans. 3). These Figures,
however, show only various block and pixel patterns associated with
different embodiments of the invention (col. 5, ll. 42-44), and do not amount
to evidence that Zaccarin teaches coding each pixel of the second sampling
pattern based on pixel values of the coded pixels of the first sampling
pattern. Zaccarin is directed to block based motion estimation used to
determine motion vectors for blocks of pixels in a current frame or field
(Abstract). Motion estimation involves the comparison of data from two (or
more) frames, in an effort to determine if the image represented by the data
is moving (FF 2). Zaccarin is therefore necessarily directed to interframe
coding, unlike the present invention. Appellant’s coding of each pixel of a
second sampling pattern from pixel value of the coded pixels of a first
sampling pattern is a form of intraframe coding.
The Examiner is correct that Zaccarin teaches coding the pixels of a
first sampling pattern (“sparse pixel pattern”), followed by coding the pixels
of second, third, and fourth sampling patterns (which happen to include
pixels that are adjacent to pixels of the first sampling pattern) (Ans. 4-5; FF
3). However, we have reviewed Zaccarin, and do not find any teaching or
suggestion of coding pixels of a second sampling pattern from pixel values
of coded pixels of the first sampling pattern that are adjacent to the
respective pixel of the second sampling pattern, as claims 1 and 23 require.
6
Appeal 2009-001,895
Application 09/957,629

We therefore find that Zaccarin does not teach all the limitations of
independent claims 1 and 23. Appellant has thus established error in the
Examiner’s rejection, and we will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
claims 1 and 23, as well as claims 2-12, 14-18, 21, 22, and 24-26 not
separately argued, under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
Claims 13, 19, and 20
We reverse supra the rejection of claim 1, from which claims 13, 19,
and 20 depend, under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as being anticipated by Zaccarin.
Because Appellant has established that Zaccarin does not teach all the
elements of claim 1, we will reverse the rejection of claims 13, 19, and 20
under § 103 as being unpatentable over Zaccarin, for the same reasons
expressed supra with respect to claim 1.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Appellant has shown that the Examiner erred in finding that Zaccarin
teaches a method or device for compressing a picture area, including coding
the pixels of a first sampling pattern, then determining a predicted pixel
value and coding each pixel of a second sampling pattern from the coded
pixels of the first sampling pattern.
7
Appeal 2009-001,895
Application 09/957,629

ORDER
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-26 is reversed.

REVERSED

ELD

EDWARDS ANGELL PALMER & DODGE LLP
P.O. BOX 55874
BOSTON, MA 02205
8