Ex parte MURATA

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Nov 9, 2001

08716615 (B.P.A.I. Nov. 9, 2001)

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publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.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. 33
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte ERI MURATA
____________
Appeal No. 1999-2051
Application No. 08/716,615
____________
HEARD: OCTOBER 9, 2001
____________
Before HAIRSTON, KRASS, and BLANKENSHIP, Administrative Patent Judges.
BLANKENSHIP, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the examiner's final
rejection of claims 1-7, which are all the claims in the application.
We reverse.
Appeal No. 1999-2051
Application No. 08/716,615
-2-
BACKGROUND
The invention is directed to a moving picture coding system. Representative claim
1 is reproduced below.
1. A moving picture coding system which includes a quantizer for quantization
processing, comprising:
generated bit amount calculation means for calculating a generated bit
amount for each coded frame;
quantization variation value calculation means for calculating a quantization
variation value, which is a variation of a quantization step size from a previous
frame to a current frame, in accordance with a difference in the generated bit
amount between two most recently coded frames;
variation value correction frame determination means for determining a
frame as a frame for which correction of the quantization variation value should be
performed when the frame involves a large amount of motion and the quantization
variation value is positive in sign or when the frame involves a small amount of
motion and the quantization variation value is negative in sign;
variation value correction means for correcting, for said frame determined as
the frame for which correction should be performed, the quantization variation value
calculated by said quantization variation value calculation means so as to increase
an absolute value of the quantization variation value; and
quantization determination means for adding the quantization variation value
corrected by said variation value correction means to a quantization step size of the
previous frame to calculate a new quantization step size for the current frame.
The examiner relies on the following reference:
Gonzales et al. (Gonzales) 5,231,484 Jul. 27, 1993
Claims 1-7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as being anticipated by
Gonzales.
Appeal No. 1999-2051
Application No. 08/716,615
-3-
We refer to the Final Rejection (mailed Nov. 12, 1997) and the Examiner's Answer
(mailed Dec. 7, 1998) for a statement of the examiner's position and to the Brief (filed Sep.
14, 1998) and the Reply Brief (filed Feb. 8, 1999) for appellant's position with respect to
the claims which stand rejected.
OPINION
In response to the section 102 rejection, appellant argues, inter alia, that a “variation
value correction frame determination means” as set forth in instant claim 1 is not disclosed
by Gonzales. The examiner, in the Answer, refers back to the rejection mailed May 27,
1997 for the statement of the rejection. For the “variation value correction frame
determination means” set forth in instant claim 1, the examiner refers to column 17, lines 5
through 53 of Gonzales.
The selected portion of Gonzales describes determination of total difficulty factor,
D , for three types of pictures. Gonzales, at column 3, lines 37 through 51 describes theK
three types of pictures, as defined by the respective compression method used, that may
appear within a group of pictures (GOP). I-pictures are compressed independently of any
other picture, and any group of pictures must start with an I-picture. P-pictures are
predictively motion compensated, and B-pictures are bidirectionally motion-compensated
pictures.
Appeal No. 1999-2051
Application No. 08/716,615
-4-
Coding difficulty factors (D ), as described at, for example, column 11, lines 54K
through 60 of Gonzales, are passed to the Picture Bit Allocation subsystem 2 (Fig. 6) prior
to the coding of the picture. The Picture Bit Allocation subsystem determines how many
bits to allocate to a picture.
The column 17 section pointed out by the examiner also describes determination of
"m(r,c)," which refers to the coding mode that will be used for each megablock (MB) in a
picture. See Gonzales at col. 15, l. 39-42. According to column 17, lines 31 through 46 of
the reference, the coding mode is selected in view of the value of )(r,c), which is a "spatial
complexity measure" defined at column 16, lines 45 through 55 of Gonzales. For P-
pictures, the "spatial complexity measure" is compared with the value of the forward
interpolative motion compensation error ) (r,c); see id. at col. 16, l. 30-33.mc,f
Instant claim 1, however, requires that the "variation value correction frame
determination means" determines that the quantization variation value of a frame should
be corrected "when the frame involves a large amount of motion and the quantization
variation value is positive in sign or when the frame involves a small amount of motion and
the quantization variation value is negative in sign" (emphasis added). As represented by
the information flow and boxes 2, 3, and 6 of instant Figure 1, two different conditions are
examined: (1) the amount of motion associated with a frame; and (2) the arithmetic sign of
the quantization variation value.
Appeal No. 1999-2051
Application No. 08/716,615
-5-
The examiner has not shown how the specific requirements of claim 1 are met by
the reference. We note that the test for anticipation is narrow, and further note that claim 1
is drafted in "means plus function" format.
Anticipation is established only when a single prior art reference discloses,
expressly or under principles of inherency, each and every element of a
claimed invention. Furthermore, with an element expressed in terms of a
means plus function, "absent structure [in a prior art reference] which is
capable of performing the functional limitation of the ‘means,' [the prior art
reference] does not meet the claim."
RCA Corp. v. Applied Digital Data Sys., Inc., 730 F.2d 1440, 1444, 221 USPQ 385, 388
(Fed. Cir. 1984) (citations omitted).
Thus, even if the examiner might deem the reference to disclose something that
could be considered a "variation value correction frame determination means," the law of
anticipation requires that the reference also associates the identical functions required by
claim 1 with that "means." A corollary to this rule is that there may be structural equivalents
as contemplated by 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph, different from the disclosed
structures corresponding to the claimed “means,” that may fall within the requirements of
anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102. However, any "equivalents" must perform the identical
function required by the claim, even though the structure associated with that function may
be different from the corresponding structure disclosed by the applicant.
We therefore cannot sustain the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102, nor of
claims 2 and 3 depending therefrom. Instant claim 4, although in language of different
Appeal No. 1999-2051
Application No. 08/716,615
-6-
scope from claim 1, requires a function associated with the "quantization step size
variation determiner" that the rejection fails to show in the reference. In particular, claim 4
sets forth the limitation that the quantization step size variation is modified to be "(i) larger
if said quantization step size variation is positive and a large amount of motion is
determined between a previous frame and a current frame and (ii) smaller if said
quantization step size variation is negative and a small amount of motion is determined
between the previous frame and the current frame." We do not find any disclosure of these
operations in the reference, and the examiner has not pointed out where the description
might lie. We therefore cannot sustain the section 102 rejection of claim 4, nor of claims 5
through 7 depending therefrom.
Appeal No. 1999-2051
Application No. 08/716,615
-7-
CONCLUSION
The section 102 rejection of claims 1-7 is not sustained.
REVERSED
KENNETH W. HAIRSTON )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
ERROL A. KRASS ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
HOWARD B. BLANKENSHIP )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Appeal No. 1999-2051
Application No. 08/716,615
-8-
FOLEY & LARDNER
SUITE 500
3000 K STREET NW
WASHINGTON , DC 20007-5109