Ex parte Ogura

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jun 15, 2001

08634203 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 15, 2001)

1 Appellant waived an oral hearing by facsimile communication submitted April 18, 2001 (Paper No.
19).
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publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.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. 20
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte EIJI OGURA
____________
Appeal No. 1999-1520
Application No. 08/634,203
____________
ON BRIEF1
____________
Before HAIRSTON, GROSS, 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 1-36, which are all the claims in the application.
We reverse.
Appeal No. 1999-1520
Application No. 08/634,203
-2-
BACKGROUND
The invention relates to motion vector detecting in an MPEG (Motion Picture
Experts Group) system. Claim 1 is reproduced below.
1. An adaptive motion vector detecting apparatus for adaptively selecting
pixels employed to detect motion vectors between a first video frame and a second
video frame, said first video frame including a reference block of pixels comprised
of all of the pixels in an M x N block of said first video frame and said second video
frame including a check block of pixels, comprising:
analyzing means for adaptively determining positions of a first subset of
pixels in said reference block from a variable feature of said reference block; and
selecting means for sampling said first subset of pixels in said reference
block and a second subset of pixels in said check block at said positions
determined by said analyzing means.
The examiner relies on the following references:
Yamada et al. (Yamada) 5,475,446 Dec. 12, 1995
Kondo 5,612,751 Mar. 18, 1997
(filed Jan. 30, 1995)
Claims 1-3, 8, 19-21, and 26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as being
anticipated by Yamada.
Claims 4-7, 9-18, 22-25, and 27-36 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Yamada and Kondo.
We refer to the Final Rejection (Paper No. 8) and the Examiner's Answer (Paper
No. 14) for a statement of the examiner's position and to the Brief (Paper No. 13) and the
Appeal No. 1999-1520
Application No. 08/634,203
-3-
Reply Brief (Paper No. 15) for appellant’s position with respect to the claims which stand
rejected.
OPINION
The section 102 rejection of independent claims 1 and 19 in view of Yamada is set
forth on pages 3 and 4 of the Answer. For the “analyzing means and method step for
adaptively determining positions of a first subset of pixels in said reference block from a
variable feature of said reference block,” the rejection refers first to column 1, lines 61-62
and column 5, lines 20-21. In particular, the reference is submitted to disclose “a
decimation information setting unit (4) for variably setting interval information for pixels to
be decimated in the reference block.” The rejection also points out reference position
setter (9), and text at column 5, lines 58-63 and column 6, lines 1-17.
However, the noted text at columns 1, 5, and 6 of Yamada discloses that the
decimation interval information for decimating pixels located within the blocks is set in
advance. While we might agree that the pre-setting of the decimation interval information
could be considered “variable,” the claims require more. Claim 1 requires “analyzing
means for adaptively determining positions of a first subset of pixels in said reference
block from a variable feature of said reference block,” and further that pixels in the
reference block and the check block are sampled at positions determined by the analyzing
Appeal No. 1999-1520
Application No. 08/634,203
-4-
means. Neither decimation information setting unit 4 nor reference position setter 9,
working alone or in combination, performs the functions recited in instant claim 1.
We also note that on page 5 of the Answer, the disclosure of Kondo is added in the
section 103 rejection to show, inter alia, obviousness of particular “variable features”
specific to dependent claims. However, there is no associated discussion of where the
more general (claim 1) “variable feature” teaching may be found in Yamada.
We consider instant claim 1 to set forth at least one feature that is missing from
Yamada; the reference thus cannot support a finding of anticipation. As shown in
appellant’s Figure 1, and principally described at pages 8 and 9 of the specification,
reference block analyzing circuit 3 determines which pixels are to be selected from the
reference block (register 4) and the check block (register 5). The selection is based on a
“particular feature” of the reference block data. Two examples of “particular features” are
maximum and minimum values of the pixels, and maximum and minimum deviations from
the mean value in the reference block.
Consistent with this disclosure, instant claim 1 calls for adaptive determination of
pixels in the reference block based on a variable feature of the reference block. The
requirement is different from the disclosure of Yamada, whereby the pixels to be sampled
are set in advance of processing, rather than adaptively determined. Column 5, lines 20-
21, upon which the rejection relies, refers to the embodiment of Figure 5(a). As clearly
shown in the figure, decimation information setting unit 4 receives no data from the
Appeal No. 1999-1520
Application No. 08/634,203
-5-
reference block (picture information storage unit 2). Compare instant Figure 1, with
reference block analyzer 3 controlling selection of pixels based on reference block data
input to terminal 1.
The examiner has not pointed out where Yamada contains the above-noted
requirements of instant claim 1, and we are unable to find the relevant features disclosed in
the reference. We therefore do not sustain the rejection of claim 1, nor of the claims
dependent therefrom.
The requirements of method claim 19, in the adaptive determination of pixels in the
reference block and check block, are similar to those of apparatus claim 1. For
substantially the reasons previously noted, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 19, nor
its dependent claims. We therefore do not sustain the section 102 rejection of claims 1-3,
8, 19-21, and 26.
The examiner adds the teachings of Kondo to those of Yamada for several features
of independent and dependent claims which are deemed to be absent from Yamada.
According to the Answer at page 6, in regard to claims 13-18 and 31-36 (claims 13 and
31 independent), Kondo is relied upon for a showing of dividing reference and check
blocks into sub-block levels.
Independent claims 13 and 31, as the rejection appears to acknowledge, require
basic features which are recited in broader claims 1 and 19. Claim 13 sets forth analyzing
means for adaptive determination of pixels from reference block data, and selecting
Appeal No. 1999-1520
Application No. 08/634,203
-6-
means for sampling pixels in accordance with the analyzing means. Method claim 31 sets
forth adaptive determination of pixels based on reference block data, and sampling pixels
in accordance with the adaptive determination step.
Kondo as applied therefore fails to remedy the deficiencies we find in Yamada.
Further, we do not find any teachings in Kondo which disclose or suggest the basic
requirements of independent claims 13 and 31. We therefore do not sustain the section
103 rejection of claims 4-7, 9-18, 22-25, and 27-36 as being unpatentable over the
combined teachings of Yamada and Kondo.
CONCLUSION
The rejections of claims 1-36 are reversed.
Appeal No. 1999-1520
Application No. 08/634,203
-7-
REVERSED
KENNETH W. HAIRSTON )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
ANITA PELLMAN GROSS ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
HOWARD B. BLANKENSHIP )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Appeal No. 1999-1520
Application No. 08/634,203
-8-
FROMMER LAWRENCE & HAUG
745 FIFTH AVENUE
NEW YORK , NY 10151