Ex Parte Okada

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Sep 9, 2009

10157249 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 9, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte SHIGEYUKI OKADA
____________________

Appeal 2009-003668
Application 10/157,2491
Technology Center 2600
____________________

Decided: September 10, 2009
____________________

Before JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO, MAHSHID D. SAADAT, and MARC S.
HOFF, Administrative Patent Judges.

HOFF, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a Final Rejection of
claims 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, and 11-14.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).

1 The real party in interest is Sanyo Electric Co., Ltd.
2 Claims 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 16, and 18-20 are withdrawn from consideration.
Claims 15 and 17 have been cancelled.
Appeal 2009-003668
Application 10/157,249

We reverse.
Appellant’s invention relates to an image processing apparatus
capable of obtaining smooth reverse-reproduced pictures. The apparatus
comprises a converter which converts a first coded data sequence, which
includes I pictures, P pictures and B pictures coded in compliance with
MPEG, to a second coded data sequence comprised of I pictures and B
pictures (Spec. 7-8).
Claim 1 is exemplary of the claims on appeal:
1. An image processing apparatus, comprising:
a converter which converts a first coded data sequence, which
includes I pictures, P pictures and B pictures coded in compliance with
MPEG, to a second coded data sequence including I pictures and B pictures
but not P pictures;
a back-end decoder which decodes the second coded data sequence,
generated by said converter, in a reverse time-series manner; and
a controller which controls operations of said converter and decoder,
said converter including:
a front-end decoder which decodes at least the P pictures among
the first coded data sequence;
an encoder which codes data, decoded by said front-end
decoder, as B pictures according to MPEG; and
a storage which stores the second coded data sequence.

The Examiner relies upon the following prior art in rejecting the
claims on appeal:
Wilkinson US 5,754,239 May 19, 1998
Claims 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, and 11-14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
as being anticipated by Wilkinson.
Throughout this decision, we make reference to the Appeal Brief
(“App. Br.,” filed March 18, 2008), the Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed
2
Appeal 2009-003668
Application 10/157,249

June 2, 2008), and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed April 2, 2008)
for their respective details.
ISSUE
Appellant argues that Wilkinson is explicitly directed to using only ‘I’
and ‘B’ frames and therefore cannot anticipate a converter that converts a
first coded data sequence which includes I pictures, P pictures, and B
pictures (App. Br. 5). The Examiner finds that because “a recitation that
‘each of at least one group of input frames’ having all three different pictures
types are converted within the [group of pictures] GOP is not found in
Appellant’s claim 1,” the group of input frames may include either all three
picture types or any combination of the three picture types decoded and
stored in memory (Ans. 4).
The contentions of Appellants and the Examiner thus present us with
the following issue:
Has Appellant shown that the Examiner erred in finding that
Wilkinson teaches a converter that converts a first coded data sequence,
which includes I pictures, P pictures, and B pictures coded in compliance
with MPEG, to a second coded data sequence including I pictures and B
pictures but not P pictures?
FINDINGS OF FACT
The following Findings of Fact (FF) are shown by a preponderance of
the evidence.
The Invention
1. According to Appellant, the invention concerns an image
processing apparatus capable of obtaining smooth reverse-reproduced
pictures. The apparatus comprises a converter which converts a first coded
3
Appeal 2009-003668
Application 10/157,249

data sequence, which includes I pictures, P pictures, and B pictures coded in
compliance with MPEG, to a second coded data sequence comprised of I
pictures and B pictures (Spec. 7-8).
Wilkinson
2. Wilkinson teaches a temporal decimation method to effect
video compression in which a sequence or group of video frames is
decomposed into one still frame and the remaining frames as difference
frames. The method uses only ‘I’ and ‘B’ frames, in which an ‘I’ frame can
be considered to be a normal frame, and a ‘B’ frame can be considered to be
the result of calculating the difference between a current frame and two
neighboring frames on either side (col. 2, ll. 1-12).

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
“A rejection for anticipation under section 102 requires that each and
every limitation of the claimed invention be disclosed in a single prior art
reference.” See In re Buszard, 504 F.3d 1364, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2007)
(quoting In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1478-79 (Fed. Cir. 1994)).
Anticipation of a claim requires a finding that the claim at issue reads on a
prior art reference. Atlas Powder Co. v. IRECO, Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1346
(Fed. Cir. 1999) (quoting Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775,
781 (Fed. Cir. 1985)).
ANALYSIS
Both pending independent claims (1 and 3) recite “a converter which
converts a first coded data sequence, which includes I pictures, P pictures
and B pictures coded in compliance with MPEG, to a second coded data
4
Appeal 2009-003668
Application 10/157,249

sequence including I pictures and B pictures but not P pictures” (emphasis
added).
Wilkinson teaches that the method of his invention “uses only ‘I’ and
‘B’ frames” (FF 2). We agree with Appellant that Wilkinson thus expressly
indicates that P frames are not included in the data sequence to be converted
(App. Br. 5). Given Wilkinson’s abundantly clear and explicit non-inclusion
of P frames, we will not adopt either of the Examiner’s two proffered
possible interpretations of Appellant’s claim 1 (Ans. 5), because they are not
supported by the unequivocal language of Wilkinson. We find that
Wilkinson fails to teach every element of the invention recited in claims 1
and 3.
Thus, we find error in the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 3, 5, 7, 9,
and 11-14 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Wilkinson, and we
will not sustain the rejection.

CONCLUSION OF LAW
Appellant has shown that the Examiner erred in finding that
Wilkinson teaches a converter that converts a first coded data sequence,
which includes I pictures, P pictures and B pictures coded in compliance
with MPEG, to a second coded data sequence including I pictures and B
pictures but not P pictures.
5
Appeal 2009-003668
Application 10/157,249

ORDER
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, and 11-14 is reversed.

REVERSED

ELD

MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP
600 13TH STREET, N.W.
WASHINGTON, DC 20005-3096
6