Ex Parte Murakami et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 26, 2013

11525131 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 26, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte TOKUMICHI MURAKAMI, KOHTARO ASAI,
YOSHIHISA YAMADA, and TAKAHIRO FUKUHARA
____________________

Appeal 2011-002171
Application 11/525,131
Technology Center 2400
____________________

Before KALYAN K. DESHPANDE, TREVOR M. JEFFERSON, and
BARBARA A. PARVIS, Administrative Patent Judges.

DESHPANDE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-002171
Application 11/525,131

2
STATEMENT OF CASE1
The Appellants seek review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of a final
rejection of claims 9-11, the only claims pending in the application on
appeal. We have jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

The Appellants invented an image coding apparatus which is used in
image communications equipment for, for instance, visual telephone and
teleconferencing and image storage/recording equipment such as a digital
VTR. Specification ¶ 0002.
An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of
exemplary claim 9, which is reproduced below [bracketed matter and some
paragraphing added]:
9. An image decoding apparatus for decoding input coded data,
comprising:
a prediction error signal decoder for decoding the coded data
and generating a prediction error signal;
a prediction section for generating a prediction signal;
a signal synthesizer for synthesizing a decoded image signal
from the prediction error signal and the prediction signal;
and
a plurality of memories for storing the decoded image signal,
wherein the prediction section generates the prediction
signal based on a signal that is decoded from the coded
data and indicates a number of one of the plurality of
memories storing the decoded image signal to be read
and an address thereon.

1 Our decision will make reference to the Appellants’ Appeal Brief (“App.
Br.,” filed Jun. 18, 2010) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed Sep. 20, 2010),
and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed Jul. 22, 2010), and Final
Rejection (“Final Rej.,” mailed Nov. 10, 2009).
Appeal 2011-002171
Application 11/525,131

3

REFERENCE
The Examiner relies on the following prior art:
Veltman US 5,386,234 Jan. 31, 1995

REJECTION
Claims 9-11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §102(b) as being
anticipated by Veltman.

ISSUE
The issue of whether the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 9-11
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Veltman turns on whether
Veltman describes the limitations of claims 9-11.

ANALYSIS
The Appellants contend that Veltman fails to describe a
prediction section generates the prediction signal based on a signal
that is decoded from the coded data and indicates a number of one of
the plurality of memories storing the decoded image signal to be read
and an address thereon.

App. Br. 4-6 and Reply Br. 1-3. The Appellants specifically argue that
Veltman fails to describe “the decoded signal indicating a number of one of
a plurality of memories and an address” (emphasis in original). App. Br. 4-
6. We disagree with the Appellants. We find that the Examiner has fully
responded to this argument and accordingly adopt the Examiner’s findings
and conclusions as our own. Ans. 4-7.
Appeal 2011-002171
Application 11/525,131

4
Thus, the issues remaining are those presented in the Reply Brief.
The Appellants argue that Veltman describes that data from all of the
memories is provided to the predictive picture generator, and therefore
Veltman fails to describe the prediction signal indicates a number of one of a
plurality of memories. Reply Br. 1-3. The Appellants further argue that
Veltman describes an indication that corresponds to which memory the data
was stored in and read from, but fails to describe the predictive picture
generator 14 reads out the information. Id.
We disagree with the Appellants. First, these issues were first raised
in a Reply Brief, was not a response to a new argument presented by the
Examiner, and the Appellants have not shown any cause as to why this issue
was first raised in the Reply Brief. Thus, it is untimely. See Ex
parte Borden, 93 USPQ2d 1473, 1474 (BPAI 2010) (Informative) (“[T]he
reply brief [is not] an opportunity to make arguments that could have been
made in the principal brief on appeal to rebut the Examiner's rejections, but
were not.”).
Furthermore, we find that Veltman specifically describes that the
predictive picture generator 14 reads from memories 11 and/or 12. Veltman
Fig. 2 and 4:37-42. Specifically, “predictive picture generator [ ] generates
predictive picture data c…from the picture data stored in the frame memory
11 or second frame memory 12” (emphasis added). Veltman 4:37-42. That
is, Veltman describes that data from only one of the memory can be used
and the data from the memory is read from that memory. As such, the
Appellants’ arguments are not found to be persuasive.

Appeal 2011-002171
Application 11/525,131

5
CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 9-11 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Veltman.

DECISION
To summarize, our decision is as follows.
 The rejection of claims 9-11 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Veltman is sustained.

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

msc