Ex Parte Nagori et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 11, 2016

12751211 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 11, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
121751,211 03/31/2010
23494 7590 07115/2016
TEXAS INSTRUMENTS IN CORPORA TED
P 0 BOX 655474, MIS 3999
DALLAS, TX 75265
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Soyeb Nagori
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www .uspto.gov
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
TI-66892 1238
EXAMINER
BAILEY, FREDERICK D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2483
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/15/2016 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address( es):
uspto@ti.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SOYEB NAGORI, MANU MATHEW,
and PRAM OD KUMAR SW AMI
Appeal2014-008951
Application 12/7 51,211
Technology Center 2400
Before JOHNNY A. KUMAR, MELISSA A. RAAP ALA, and
KAMRAN JIVANI, Administrative Patent Judges.
RAAP ALA, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final
rejection of claims 1, 6-8, 13, and 14. 1 We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm-in-part.
1 Claims 3 and 10 have been objected to as being dependent upon a rejected
base claim, but containing allowable subject matter if rewritten in
independent format. Adv. Act. 1. Claims 2, 4, 5, 9, 11, 12, 15, and 16 have
been canceled. Amend. After Final 3--4, 6-7.
Appeal2014-008951
Application 12/7 51,211
INVENTION
Appellants' invention is directed to video encoding. Spec. 1. Claim 1
is exemplary of the subject matter on appeal:
1. A method of transforming a video into an encoded,
compressed video comprising the steps of:
receiving an input video in the form of a plurality of
sequential frames;
dividing each frame into a plurality of macro blocks;
for each macro block in each frame of the video
calculating a best measure of similarity for inter
mode predictive coding of the macro block,
comparing the calculated best measure of similarity
for inter mode predictive coding with a predetermined
threshold,
if the calculated best measure of similarity for inter
mode predictive coding is less than the predetermined
threshold, then inter mode predictive coding the
macro block,
if the calculated best measure of similarity for inter
mode predictive coding is not less than the predetermined
threshold, then
calculating a best measure of similarity for
intra mode predictive coding of the macro block,
comparing the calculated best measure of
similarity for inter mode predictive coding with the
best measure of similarity for intra mode predictive
coding,
if the calculated best measure of similarity for
inter mode predictive coding is less than the best
measure of similarity for intra mode predictive
coding, then inter mode predictive coding the
macro block,
2
Appeal2014-008951
Application 12/7 51,211
if the calculated best measure of similarity for
inter mode predictive coding is not less than the
predetermined threshold, then intra mode predictive
coding the macroblock; and
outputting an output video having the thus encoded
macro blocks.
REJECTIONS ON APPEAL
Claims 1and8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
obvious over the combination ofKusakabe (US 2009/0190660 Al; publ.
July 30, 2009) and Lee (US 2006/0133500 Al; publ. June 22, 2006). Final
Act. 6-9.
Claims 6, 7, 13, and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being obvious over the combination of Kusakabe, Lee, Wang (US
2008/0273588 Al; publ. Nov. 6, 2008), and Van Dijk (US 2005/0068465
Al; publ. Mar. 31, 2005). Final Act. 10-12.
ISSUES
Appellants' contentions present us with the following issues:
A) Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Kusakabe and
Lee teaches or suggests the following recitations of claim 1: i) if the
calculated best measure of similarity for inter mode predictive coding is less
than the predetermined threshold, then inter mode predictive coding the
macroblock ("less than threshold" limitation); and ii) if the calculated best
mode of similarity for inter mode predictive coding is not less than the
predetermined threshold, then calculating a best measure of similarity for
intra mode predictive coding of the macroblock, comparing the calculated
3
Appeal2014-008951
Application 12/7 51,211
best mode of similarity for inter mode predictive coding with the best
measure of similarity for intra mode predictive coding ("not less than
threshold" limitation)?
B) Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Kusakabe, Lee,
Wang, and Van Dijk teaches or suggests the limitations of claims 6, 7, 13,
and 14?
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in consideration of
Appellants' contentions and the evidence of record. We disagree with
Appellants' conclusions that the Examiner's rejection of claims 1 and 8 is in
error. Appellants have persuaded us the Examiner has failed to establish that
claims 6, 7, 13, and 14 are unpatentable over the cited prior art.
Issue A: Claims 1 and 8
Appellants contend the combination of Kusakabe and Lee does not
teach or suggest the "less than threshold'' and "not less than threshold"
limitations recited in claim 1. App. Br. 14--16. Specifically, Appellants
argue the "less than threshold" path unconditionally employs inter mode
predictive coding, while in contrast, Kusakabe teaches a further conditional
operation followed by selection of a skip mode or an inter mode based upon
the result of the further comparison. App. Br. 15. Appellants further argue
the "not less than threshold" path compares the best measure of similarity
for inter mode predictive coding and for intra mode predictive coding and
selects the mode based on the comparison, while Kusakabe teaches
unconditionally selecting the intra mode. App. Br. 15-16. Additionally,
Appellants argue the combination of Kusakabe and Lee is improper. App.
Br. 9-14; Reply Br. 1-3. We are not persuaded by these arguments.
4
Appeal2014-008951
Application 12/7 51,211
The Examiner finds, and we agree, that Kusakabe teaches the "less
than threshold" limitation. Final Act. 6. The cited sections of Kusakabe
teach when an inter-frame difference absolute value sum (CurrSAD) is less
than threshold Thrl (equated by the Examiner to be the claimed "threshold")
and larger than second threshold Thr2, inter mode is used. Kusakabe i-f 10.
Although Kusakabe teaches a further comparison is made to a second
threshold Thr2 before selecting inter mode, we disagree with Appellants'
argument that this differs from the disputed limitation. Claim 1 recites "[a]
method ... comprising." "'Comprising' is a term of art used in claim
language which means that the named elements are essential, but other
elements may be added and still form a construct within the scope of the
claim." Genentech, Inc. v. Chiron Corp., 112 F.3d 495, 501 (Fed. Cir. 1997)
(internal citation omitted). Thus, Claim 1 does not preclude additional steps
being performed (such as a second comparison), before inter mode coding
the block.
Appellants also do not convince us that the combination of Kusakabe
and Lee does not teach or suggest the "not less than threshold" limitation. In
particular, Appellants' argument that Kusakabe does not teach the claimed
comparison and selection of inter or intra mode coding based on the
comparison is misdirected. The Examiner relies on Lee, not Kusakabe, to
teach these limitations. Ans. 4; Final Act. 7-8. Appellants' do not present
any arguments disputing the Examiner's findings regarding Lee, and,
therefore, do not persuade us of error. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426
(CCP A 1981) ("[O]ne cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references
individually where, as here, the rejections are based on combinations of
references").
5
Appeal2014-008951
Application 12/7 51,211
Nor do Appellants persuade us that the combination of Kusakabe and
Lee is improper. Appellants argue there is no reason one skilled in the art
would be motivated to combine the references into the cited combination,
rather than any other feasible combination of Kusakabe and Lee. Reply Br.
2-3; see also App. Br. 13 ("The FINAL REJECTION sets forth no argument
why one skilled in the motivated by paragraph [0061] of Lee et al would
select the Examiner's proposed combination rather than the other feasible
combinations."). However, Appellants' misapprehend the test for
obviousness. "In determining whether the subject matter of a patent claim is
obvious, neither the particular motivation nor the avowed purpose of the
patentee controls. What matters is the objective reach of the claim. If the
claim extends to what is obvious, it is invalid under § 103." KSR Int 'l Co. v.
Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 419 (2007). The relevant inquiry is whether the
Examiner has set forth "some articulated reasoning with some rational
underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.'' In re Kahn,
441F.3d977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (cited with approval inKSR 550 U.S. at
418. Furthermore, "[t ]he combination of familiar elements according to
known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield
predictable results." Id. at 416. The Examiner finds it would be obvious to
modify the method taught by Kusakabe with the teachings of Lee "in order
to provide for performing conversion with the optimal mode satisfying the
requirements for image quality and for the amount of encoded bits." Final
Act. 8 (citing Lee i-f 61 ). The Examiner further finds Kusakabe and Lee are
both in the art of video compression and that use of Lee's known technique
to improve Kusakabe is the combination of a known technique to improve a
similar device in the same way, i.e., a predictable variation. Ans. 4. We
6
Appeal2014-008951
Application 12/7 51,211
determine this to be sufficient articulate reasoning to support the
combination.
For the reasons stated above, Appellants do not persuade us of error in
the rejection of claim 1. Accordingly, we sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
rejection of claim 1, and independent claim 8, for which Appellants rely on
the same arguments made for claim 1 (see App. Br. 9-16).
Issue B: Claims 6, 7, 13, and 14
The Examiner explicitly indicates claims 3 and 10 contain allowable
subject matter if rewritten in independent form. 2 Adv. Act. 1-2; see also
Final Act. 14.3 In an Amendment made after the Final Office Action,
Appellants amended claims 6 and 7 to depend from allowable claim 3, and
amended claims 13 and 14 to depend from allowable claim 10. Amend.
After Final 4, 7. 4 Because the Examiner has indicated claims 3 and 10 are
allowable, we do not sustain the rejection of their dependent claims 6, 7, 13,
and 14.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1 and 8.
We reverse the Examiner's decision to reject claims 6, 7, 13, and 14.
2 We observe Appellants repeatedly misconstrue the Examiner's findings
and disregard the Examiner's explicit indication that claims 3 and 10 are
allowable. See, e.g., App. Br. 16; Reply Br. 4.
3 In the Amendment after Final, claim 3 was amended to include the
limitations of dependent claim 4, and claim 10 was amended to include the
limitations of dependent claim 11. See Adv. Act. 2; see also Ans. 5.
4 The Advisory Action indicates the amendments were entered by the
Examiner. Adv. Act. 1.
7
Appeal2014-008951
Application 12/7 51,211
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.50(±).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
8