Ex Parte Liu

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 27, 2013

10987863 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 27, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte SAM LIU
____________

Appeal 2010-009288
Application 10/987,8631
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before MARC S. HOFF, JEFFREY S. SMITH, and JUSTIN BUSCH,
Administrative Patent Judges.

HOFF, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 4-11, 13-16, and 18.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

1 The real party in interest is Hewlett-Packard Development Company, LP.
2 Claims 1-3, 12, and 17 have been cancelled. Claims 19-28 stand withdrawn
from consideration.
Appeal 2010-009288
Application 10/987,863

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant’s invention is a multimedia encoder. According to one
aspect of the invention, bit rate control includes using a state transition
model to determine a noise masking factor for a frame, and assigning a
number of bits as a function of the noise masking factor (Spec. 2).
Independent claim 13, reproduced below, is representative of the
subject matter on appeal.
13. A method of controlling bit rate of a video frame, the
method comprising:
using a state transition model to determine a noise
masking factor for the frame; and
assigning a number of bits as a function of the noise
masking factor.

REFERENCES
Bist US 6,034,844 Mar. 28, 2000
Hui US 6,826,228 B1 Nov. 30, 2004
Hannuksela ‘719 US 2005/0185719 A1 Aug. 25, 2005
Hannuksela ‘576 US 7,006,576 B1 Feb. 28, 2006
Conover US 7,359,439 B1 Apr. 15, 2008

REJECTIONS
Claims 4-11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to
nonstatutory subject matter.
Claims 4 and 5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Conover in view of Hannuksela ‘719 and Appellant
Admitted Prior Art (AAPA).
Claim 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Conover in view of Hannuksela ‘576, AAPA, and Bist.
Appeal 2010-009288
Application 10/987,863

3
Claims 7-11, 13-16, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Conover in view of Hannuksela ‘719, AAPA, Bist,
and Hui.

ISSUES
Appellant argues that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 13-16
and 18 because Hui teaches an activity masking factor, rather than the noise
masking factor recited in independent claims 13 and 18.
Appellant’s arguments present us with the following issues:
1. Does the combination of Conover, Hannuksela ‘719, AAPA, Bist,
and Hui teach or fairly suggest using a state transition model to determine a
noise masking factor for the frame, and assigning a number of bits as a
function of the noise masking factor?
2. Does the combination of Conover, Hannuksela ‘719, AAPA, Bist,
and Hui teach or fairly suggest using a state transition model to determine a
noise masking factor based on scene content in a video frame, and
determining a quantizer step size for the frame as a function of the noise
masking factor?

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
Section 103 forbids issuance of a patent when “the differences
between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior
art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been
obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having
ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains.”

KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007). The question of
obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying factual determinations
Appeal 2010-009288
Application 10/987,863

4
including (1) the scope and content of the prior art, (2) any differences
between the claimed subject matter and the prior art, (3) the level of skill in
the art, and (4) where in evidence, so-called secondary considerations.
Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17-18 (1966). See also KSR, 550
U.S. at 407 (“While the sequence of these questions might be reordered in
any particular case, the [Graham] factors continue to define the inquiry that
controls.”).
ANALYSIS
§ 101 REJECTION OF CLAIMS 4-11
Appellant presents no arguments with respect to the § 101 rejection of
claims 4-11. We therefore sustain pro forma the rejection of claims 4-11
under 35 U.S.C. § 101.3
CLAIMS 13-16 AND 18
Appellant argues that the Examiner’s proposed combination is
erroneous because Hui teaches an activity masking module that produces an
“activity masking factor” rather than the “noise masking factor” recited in
claim 13 (App. Br. 12). Appellant further argues that because Hui does not
teach a noise masking factor, Hui also cannot teach assigning a number of
bits as a function of the noise masking factor (App. Br. 12). Appellant also
contends that Hui contains no discussion of states, state machines, or state
transition models (App. Br. 10).
We do not find Appellant’s arguments to be persuasive. First, we
agree with the Examiner’s finding that Bist, rather than Hui, teaches the
claimed state transition model. We agree with the Examiner’s finding that

3 Because we sustain the rejection of claims 4-11 under § 101, we need not
reach the merits of the Examiner’s rejections of claims 4-11 under § 103.
Appeal 2010-009288
Application 10/987,863

5
Bist teaches the use of a constrained trellis to perform optimization (Ans. 23;
Bist col. 2, ll. 58-60). We agree with the Examiner’s finding that Bist Fig. 2
discloses an example of a constrained trellis motivated by the syntax of the
H.263 algorithm, and that Fig. 2 discloses the behavior of the trellis for the
syntax that describes the changes in the quantization step size (Ans. 23).
With respect to the claimed noise masking factor, Appellant discloses
that said factor
is selected for each frame (block 312). The noise masking
factor is determined according to scene content. The noise
perceived by the human visual system can vary according to the
content of the scene. In scenes with high texture and high
motion, the human eye is less sensitive to noise. Therefore,
fewer bits can be allocated to frame (sic) containing such
content. Thus, the noise masking factor is assigned to achieve
the highest visual quality at the target bit rate.

(¶ [0041]).
[A] still image is assigned the highest noise masking factor
(e.g., 1) so it can be displayed with the highest visual quality.
Low motion video is assigned a lower noise masking factor
(e.g., 0.7) than still images; high motion video is assigned a
lower factor (e.g., 0.4) than low motion video, and scene
changes are assigned the lowest factor (e.g., 0.3). Thus, more
bits will be assigned to a still image than a scene change, given
the same buffer constraints.

(¶ [0042]).
Similarly, the Hui reference teaches that its A-masking factor,
determined by activity masking module 103, is “an activity scaling factor for
the determined reference quantization step-size to enhance encoding quality
based on human perception” (col. 5, ll. 5-9, emphasis added). Hui discloses
that the calculated reference quantization step-size is scaled according to
Appeal 2010-009288
Application 10/987,863

6
local activities of the macroblock (MB), “and an average MB activity
determined from the current or a previously coded picture. This scaling is
done according to a level of masking effects of coding noise by human
perception for MB with high or low activities within a picture” (col. 2, ll. 16-
21). “[M]asking can be applied conditionally to motion/scene update regions
of a picture such that coding noise is reduced and therefore bits are saved
from less propagation of this noise” (Abstract, emphasis added).
We therefore find that Hui’s A-masking factor, disclosed to enhance
encoding quality based on human perception, and masking effects of coding
noise by human perception and varying according to activities within a
picture, corresponds to the claimed “noise masking factor.”
Hui further discloses that Q Step Size Determination module 104
produces the final quantization step size, according to the formula
Qs=Qref x Amasking x Cmasking
Column 5, line 51.
Hui thus teaches that quantization step size Qs is proportional to the
A-masking factor Amasking output by activity masking module 103. We find
that Hui teaches the claimed means for determining a quantizer step size for
the frame as a function of the noise masking factor.
We further find that because Hui teaches that the number of bits used
is related to the quantizer step size, and because Hui teaches that bits are
saved from less propagation of coding noise (Abstract), Hui teaches the
Appeal 2010-009288
Application 10/987,863

7
claimed assigning a number of bits as a function of the noise masking
factor.4
Accordingly, we find that the Examiner did not err in rejecting claims
13-16 and 18 under § 103 as being unpatentable over Conover,
Hannuksela ‘719, AAPA, Bist, and Hui. We will sustain the rejection.

CONCLUSIONS
1. The combination of Conover, Hannuksela ‘719, AAPA, Bist, and
Hui fairly suggests using a state transition model to determine a noise
masking factor for the frame, and assigning a number of bits as a function of
the noise masking factor.
2. The combination of Conover, Hannuksela ‘719, AAPA, Bist, and
Hui fairly suggests using a state transition model to determine a noise
masking factor for the frame, and determining a quantizer step size for the
frame as a function of the noise masking factor.

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 4-11, 13-16, and 18 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)(iv).

AFFIRMED

4 The teachings of Conover, Hannuksela ‘719, and AAPA are considered
cumulative to the teachings of Bist and Hui, with respect to claims 13-16
and 18.
Appeal 2010-009288
Application 10/987,863

8
msc