Ex Parte Mead

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Sep 23, 2002

08745587 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 23, 2002)

1
The opinion in support of the decision being entered
today was not written for publication and
is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 19

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________
Ex parte DONALD C. MEAD
_____________
Appeal No. 2000-1501
Application No. 08/745,587
______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before KRASS, FLEMING and LALL, Administrative Patent Judges.
KRASS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal from the final rejection of claims 1-13, all of the
pending claims.
The invention is directed to the transmission of information with digital signal
processing. Signals representing aural or visual communications are encoded and
Appeal No. 2000-1501
Application No. 08/745,587
2
decoded. In order to reduce bit rate, a desired result in information transmission, the
invention compresses data by representing segments of the information by symbols
corresponding to generic objects that may be recognized from content in the aural or
video information. To the extent that portions of the content can be identified as
corresponding to generic objects housed in libraries containing generic object sets in
the encoder and decoder, only the symbol for the generic content, and the
unrecognized material need be encoded for transmission and decoded after
transmission and thereby substantially reduce the amount of information that must
actually be conveyed in the digital data stream.
Representative independent claim 1 is reproduced as follows:
1 . A system for transferring a data signal including a transmitter having
an encoder and a receiver having a decoder, comprising:
said encoder including a object selector for identifying a signal segment
from the group of speech, audio, video and graphic signals, each selected
segment comprising a representation of an information quantity;
wherein said encoder includes a plurality of encoder libraries, one
of said libraries containing a generic feature representation of an
information quantity and a symbolic code corresponding to said generic
feature representation of said information quantity; and
said decoder having a second plurality of libraries corresponding to
said plurality of encoder libraries, and one of said decoder libraries
containing said generic feature representation of said information quantity
and said symbolic code corresponding to said generic feature information
quantity.
Appeal No. 2000-1501
Application No. 08/745,587
3
The examiner relies on the following references:
Crayson 4,783,841 Nov. 08, 1988
Toyokawa 4,901,363 Feb. 13, 1990
Endoh et al. (Endoh) 4,922,545 May 01, 1990
Feng 5,592,227 Jan. 07, 1997
(filed Sep. 15, 1994)
Dachiku et al. (Dachiku) 5,592,228 Jan. 07, 1997
(filed Mar. 02, 1994)
Claims 1-13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 . As evidence of
obviousness, the examiner cites either Toyokawa or Feng with regard to claim 1, and
cites Endoh and Crayson with regard to claims 2-9 and 11, adding Dachiku to this
combination with regard to claims 9 (again), 10, 12 and 13.
Reference is made to the briefs and answer for the respective positions of
appellant and the examiner.
OPINION
We will not sustain the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on
Toyokawa because Toyokawa neither discloses nor suggests the claimed decoder
library that contains the generic feature representation and the symbol that identifies
the generic feature in the encoder library.
The examiner points to column 6, lines 45-68 of Toyokawa for a teaching of
encoder libraries containing a generic feature representation of an information quantity
and a corresponding symbolic code. The examiner relies on the tables of Toyokawa as
Appeal No. 2000-1501
Application No. 08/745,587
4
“libraries” and points out that they “both provide for symbolic codes.” We agree with
appellant’s assessment that this portion of Toyokawa teaches a comparison of
tech/graphic dominant states and dither states from bit patterns, not generic features
being recognized or compared, as claimed. Further, we find no corresponding
decoding libraries, as claimed. While the examiner relies on column 1, lines 53-56, and
the first full paragraph of column 8, in Toyokawa, for this teaching, our review of the
cited portions indicates only a “reverse” sequence from the coding steps, i.e., decoding,
but this is a far cry from suggesting that any decoding sections in Toyokawa would have
a “second plurality of libraries corresponding to said plurality of encoder libraries...,” as
claimed.
With regard to Feng, we agree with the examiner that Feng suggests libraries at
the encoder and the decoder, but these “libraries,” or tables, include entries
corresponding to information patterns. While appellant argues that there is no
suggestion therein that these patterns represent generic objects, as intended in the
instant application, because “generic objects” in the library means that the library sets
may be unrelated to the information stream to be transmitted in a compressed form
through the system, we note that instant claim 1 does not require library sets which
“may be unrelated to the information stream to be transmitted in a compressed form.”
Appeal No. 2000-1501
Application No. 08/745,587
5
The examiner points out that the encoder and decoder libraries of Feng
obviously contain a generic feature representation of an information quantity and a
corresponding symbolic code as provided by the tables in at least Figure 5, “since the
information therein is at least generic to at least the different image features of low and
sharp variations common or ‘generic’ to all images” [answer-page 6]. Thus, the
examiner has given a broad, yet apparently reasonable, interpretation to the term
“generic”
While appellant argues that Feng does not disclose “generic objects” in the
libraries, appellant has not presented any convincing argument or evidence as to why
the objects in Feng’s table may not be considered to be “generic” even though the
examiner has reasonably explained why the objects are considered to be “generic,” i.e.,
because information is common to all images.
Appellant also argues that Feng does not disclose that the claimed library sets
may be unrelated to the information stream. First, claim 1 requires no such limitation.
But, in any event, the fact that appellant is arguing that a claimed distinction is that
library sets may be unrelated to the information stream, means that even in appellant’s
view, the library sets may also be related to the information stream. Therefore, by the
language of the very argument employed by appellant, it would appear that the library
Appeal No. 2000-1501
Application No. 08/745,587
6
sets of the instant invention may be related or unrelated to the information stream,
which means that either way would meet the limitation argued (but not claimed) by
appellant.
Accordingly, while we have not sustained the rejection of claim 1 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 over Toyokawa, we do sustain the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 over Feng.
We now turn to the rejection of claims 2-9 and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over
Endoh in view of Crayson.
The examiner clearly sets forth the application of Endoh to claims 2-9 and 11, at
pages 6-8 of the answer, adding Crayson for a showing of a bit stream consisting of an
unrecognized signal and a symbolic code. The examiner contends that it would have
been obvious to provide for an unrecognized signal in Endoh since “this can provide for
using fewer groups of data, as well as fewer libraries, thus providing for less data to
transmit and for a simpler system” [answer-page 7]. The examiner appears to have set
forth a reasonable case for obviousness, shifting the burden of proof to appellant.
For his part, appellant argues that Endoh fails to provide for generic objects in a
library as defined in the claims. However, “generic objects” is not defined or given any
special meaning in the claims and the examiner has held that Endoh discloses “generic
Appeal No. 2000-1501
Application No. 08/745,587
7
objects” since a signal which is encoded is representative of an “object.” Moreover, the
examiner points to blocks 4, 6 and 7 in Figure 1 of Endoh for a showing of an “object
encoder with an object library assigning a symbolic code to the generic object
identifying a generic object from a set” [answer-page 6].
Without a specific argument as to why Endoh is not suggesting “generic objects,”
as claimed, we are unconvinced of non-obviousness by appellant. Moreover, appellant
argues that Endoh does not teach or suggest “the use of generic object libraries in
order to improve compression without any correlation between the patterns and the
image information input into the system” [principal brief-page 5]. This argument is not
persuasive as it is based on limitations not appearing in the claims, i.e., that there is no
correlation between patterns, or objects, and the image information input into the
system.
In arguing claim 11, at page 6 of the principal brief, appellant again argues that
the objects in the instant claims have no predetermined relationship to the information
to be conveyed. Again, appellant has pointed to no specific claim language which sets
forth this argued limitation.
In the reply brief, e.g., page 5, appellant argues that the recitation of a “generic”
object inherently refers to objects that are generic, and therefore composed without
Appeal No. 2000-1501
Application No. 08/745,587
8
regard to the particular information sequences being sent or the changes inherent in
those sequences. However, this appears to be a much narrower definition than the
language of the claims would appear to require. There is no claim requirement that
“generic” objects must be unrelated to the information sequences. Appellant’s
argument is unconvincing in this regard.
Accordingly, we will sustain the rejection of claims 2-9 and 11 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103.
Finally, we turn to the rejection of claims 9, 10, 12 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
over Endoh and Crayson, in view of Dachiku.
The examiner relies on Dachiku to provide the teaching of motion estimation of a
first and second video frame to a multiplexer and for variable length coding, pointing to
block 5 of Figure 1. The examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to use
the motion estimation of Dachiku since this provides for efficient motion compensation
around the contours and for estimating fine motions of human objects as provided by
Dachiku at column 4, lines 50-57.
Appellant’s arguments, at page 7 of the principal brief, relate to Dachiku failing to
provide for the generic object libraries deficiencies of the primary references. However,
for the reasons, supra, we do not regard the primary references as having such
deficiencies. Accordingly, this argument is unconvincing.
Appeal No. 2000-1501
Application No. 08/745,587
9
In arguing claims 12 and 13, appellant urges that “[d]espite the reliance on
patterns unrelated to the information content, the system generates the corresponding
generic object that was transmitted as a symbol, and generates an information
sequence combining the generic feature with the unrecognized information portion”
[principal brief-page 7].
Once again, we point out that the instant claims are not so narrow as to limit the
“generic object” to patterns or objects “unrelated to the information content.” In
accordance with the broad claim language, a generic object may or may not be related
to the information content of a signal. Therefore, this argument is unpersuasive of
nonobviousness.
While we recognize that there may, in fact, be unobvious and patentable
differences between the instant disclosed invention and that taught by the applied
references, we are unconvinced of nonobviousness of the instant claimed subject
matter based on the arguments presented by appellant.
We have not sustained the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Toyokawa but we have sustained the rejection of claim 1 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Feng and we have sustained the rejections of
claims 2-13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Appeal No. 2000-1501
Application No. 08/745,587
10
Accordingly, the examiner’s decision is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal
may be extended under 37 CFR § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED
ERROL A. KRASS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
MICHAEL R. FLEMING ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
PARSHOTAM S. LALL )
Administrative Patent Judge )
eak/vsh
Appeal No. 2000-1501
Application No. 08/745,587
11
HUGHES ELECTRONICS CORPORATION
PATENT DOCKET ADMINISTRATION
BLDG. 001M/S A109
P.O. BOX 956
EL SEGUNDO, CA 90245-0956