Ex Parte Laksono et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 20, 2014

11488482 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 20, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte INDRA LAKSONO and ZHIHUA ZENG
____________________

Appeal 2012-009876
Application 11/488,482
Technology Center 2400
____________________

Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, CARLA M. KRIVAK, and
ROBERT J. WEINSCHENK, Administrative Patent Judges.

MacDONALD, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2012-009876
Application 11/488,482

2
STATEMENT OF CASE
Introduction
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1–20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse.

Exemplary Claim
Exemplary claim 1 under appeal reads as follows (emphasis added):
1. A method comprising:
receiving, at a first device, a first video data comprising a
first quantization value associated with a first macroblock;
decoding the first video data to generate the first
macroblock;
determining a second quantization value based on the
first quantization value, a frame rate of the first video data, a
target frame rate of second video data, and a fullness of a
video buffer of a second device;
modifying the first macroblock based on the second
quantization value to generate a second macroblock;
encoding the second macroblock to generate the second
video data; and
providing the second video to the second device.

Examiner’s Rejections
The Examiner rejected claims 1–3, 5–13, and 15–20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) as being anticipated by Cote (US 7,170,938 B1, Jan. 30, 2007).1

1 Separate patentability is not argued for claims 2, 3, 5–13, and 15–20.
Except for our ultimate decision, these claims are not discussed further
herein.
Appeal 2012-009876
Application 11/488,482

3
The Examiner rejected dependent claims 4 and 14 as being
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combination of Cote and
Hiroishi (US 4,536,856, Aug. 20, 1985).2

Appellants’ Contentions
1. Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1,
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e), because “claim 1 provides that the second
quantization value is determined based on a frame rate of video data and a
target frame rate of second video data. Cote nowhere discloses that the re-
quantization value is based on a target frame rate of video data in any
manner.” (App. Br. 5). Further, “Cote discloses that the rate reduction
factor is based on a current frame size and a target frame size, not on a target
frame rate in any manner.” (App. Br. 6).
2. Further, Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 1 because:
Independent claim 1 recites the features of "determining a
second quantization value based on the first quantization value,
a frame rate of the first video data, a target frame rate of
second video data, and a fullness of a video buffer of a second
device." As explained in the Appeal Brief, Cote does not
disclose these features, but instead discloses changing a
quantization value based on a rate reduction factor that in turn
depends on a target frame size. The Examiner responds that the
rate reduction factor of Cote is a "rate to maintain or to reduce
the bits or the data from a current frame to a target frame and it
is equivalent to a 'target' frame rate as disclosed by Cote." The
Examiner further asserts that claim 1 does not recite a "frame

2 Separate patentability is not argued for claims 4 and 14. Rather, the
rejection of these claims turns on our decision as to the underlying § 102
rejection, and is not further addressed herein.
Appeal 2012-009876
Application 11/488,482

4
display rate" and therefore the rate reduction factor of Cote
corresponds to a target frame rate. Thus, the Examiner's
rejection relies on an interpretation of the term "frame rate"
that includes a change in frame size. Appellant respectfully
submits that this is an overbroad interpretation of the term
frame rate that is not in keeping with the understanding of that
term by one skilled in the art, and conflicts with the use of the
term frame rate in the Cote reference itself.
(Reply Br. 2) (emphasis added).

Issue on Appeal
Did the Examiner err in rejecting claim 1 as being anticipated because
Cote fails to disclose the argued limitations?

ANALYSIS
As to Appellants’ above cited contentions, we agree.

CONCLUSIONS
(1) Appellants have established that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claims 1–3, 5–13, and 15–20 as being anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).
(2) Appellants have established that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claims 4 and 14 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
(3) On this record, claims 1–20 have not been shown to be
unpatentable.

Appeal 2012-009876
Application 11/488,482

5
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1–20 are reversed.

REVERSED

msc