Ex Parte Osamoto et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 27, 2014

11305504 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 27, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte AKIRA OSAMOTO and TOSHIO TAKAMIZAWA
____________________

Appeal 2012-005917
Application 11/305,504
Technology Center 2600
____________________

Before: JOSEPH L. DIXON, JAMES R. HUGHES, and ERIC S. FRAHM,
Administrative Patent Judges.

DIXON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 1,
4, 5, and 8. Claims 3 and 7 have been cancelled. Claims 2 and 6 were
objected to as allowable but as dependent upon respective rejected base
claims 1 and 5. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm-in-part.

Appeal 2012-005917
Application 11/305,504
2
The claims are directed to motion estimation with a motion vector
penalty. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A method of motion estimation in a digital video
compression system comprising the steps of:

segmenting the target picture into a grid of macroblocks;

for each macroblock choosing for test a plurality of
candidate motion vectors according to an implemented
search criteria,

for each candidate motion vector calculating a
residual error between the macroblock and a reference
macroblock displaced by a current candidate motion
vector,

for each candidate motion vector estimating a cost
of coding said current candidate motion vector dependent
upon a difference between said candidate motion vector
and a motion vector from an immediately previous
macroblock,

selecting one candidate motion vector providing a
least number of bits to encode the macroblock dependent
upon said calculated residual error and said cost of
coding, and

encoding the macroblock using the one selected
candidate motion vector.

REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Pau US 6,891,891 B2 May 10, 2005
Shen US 7,558,428 B2 July 7, 2009
Appeal 2012-005917
Application 11/305,504
3

REJECTION
The Examiner made the following rejection:
Claims 1, 4, 5, and 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Pau in view of Shen.

ANALYSIS
With respect to independent claims 1 and 5, Appellants present
arguments to the claims as a group. (App. Br. 7.) Therefore, we select
independent claim 1 as the representative claim for the group and will
address Appellants' arguments thereto. Appellants contend that the portion
of the Shen reference:
presumes that this cost of coding the motion vector can be
estimated in support of this simultaneous consideration. This
portion of Shen et al fails to teach how such an estimate of the
cost of coding the motion vector is performed. The Applicants
submit that Shen et al at column 3, lines 19 to 22 fails to teach
that the cost of coding the motion vector is "dependent upon a
difference between said candidate motion vector and a motion
vector from an immediately previous macroblock" . . . .

(App. Br. 8.) Appellants further contend that:
Thus while Shen et al makes obvious estimating "the cost in
coding the resulting motion vectors" (column 3, lines 26 and
27) it fails to make obvious the recited manner of making this
cost estimate "dependent upon a difference between said
candidate motion vector and a motion vector from an
immediately previous macroblock.”

(App. Br. 8.) The Examiner clarifies that the Pau reference is not
clear about estimating the cost of coding each candidate motion vector
of said current candidate motion vector and that the Shen reference
Appeal 2012-005917
Application 11/305,504
4
remedies this deficiency in the teachings of the Pau reference. (Ans.
5). The Examiner further clarifies in the responsive arguments of the
Examiner's Answer that the Pau reference additionally teaches cost
estimation in columns 3 and 4 and that the cost estimation is clearly
dependent upon or in association with the motion vector of the
candidate macro block and the motion vector of a reference
macroblock. (Ans. 11). Appellants did not file a Reply Brief to
respond to the Examiner's further clarifications. Therefore,
Appellants' argument does not show error in the Examiner's
conclusion of obviousness.
Appellants also contend that while the Shen reference teaches
estimating the cost of coding the resulting motion vectors "it fails to
make obvious the recited manner of making this cost estimate
'dependent upon a difference between said candidate motion vector
and a motion vector from an immediately previous macroblock.'"
(App. Br. 8.)
Appellants emphasize that the Shen reference fails to disclose
"a motion vector from an immediately previous macroblock" but
rather only teaches the candidate motion vector. (App. Br. 11.)
The Examiner maintains that the combination of the teachings and
suggestion of the Pau and Shen references teaches the claimed limitation.
(Ans. 10–11). The Examiner maintains that the Pau reference teaches use of
the current macro block and the preceding frame macro block. The
Examiner further maintains that the Shen reference teaches the current frame
compared against a reference frame. In addition, Pau teaches evaluation of
the spacial-temporal correlation existing among motion vectors belonging to
Appeal 2012-005917
Application 11/305,504
5
adjacent blocks. (Pau col. 4, ll. 39–43.) Moreover, the Pau reference
discloses:
macroblocks are normally subjected to scanning in
lexicographical order, only the vectors belonging to
macroblocks located above and to the left of the current one are
available as vectors usable as predictors.

. . . In a preferred embodiment, the solution according to
the invention uses — for a macroblock-four candidate
predictors; more precisely, these are two spatial predictors (one
to the left and one above the current macroblock) taken from
the same frame, and two temporal predictors (one homologous
with and one to the left of the current macroblock) in the
preceding frame.

(Pau col. 5, ll. 5–17). Therefore, we agree with the Examiner that the
macroblock to the left of the current macroblock and the macroblock above
the current macroblock would be "immediately previous macroblocks"
depending on your frame of reference. The Examiner has addressed the
claim interpretation (Ans. 10), and we agree with the Examiner that the Pau
reference suggests the use of the claimed "for each candidate motion vector
estimating a cost of coding said current candidate motion vector dependent
upon a difference between said candidate motion vector and a motion vector
from an immediately previous macroblock." Therefore, we find Appellants'
argument to be unpersuasive in showing error in the Examiner's conclusion
of obviousness of representative independent claim 1, and we group
independent claim 5 with representative claim 1.
With respect to dependent claims 4 and 8, Appellants contend that:
The claimed "cost of coding" is the number of bits required to
encode the current macroblock and the corresponding motion
vector. This application states at page 24, lines 1 to 3:

Appeal 2012-005917
Application 11/305,504
6
"This process thus attempts to determine the candidate
motion vector resulting requiring the least number of bits
to code the macroblock."

The amount of computation to arrive at an ideal coding
(computation cost) thus does not read on the number of bits to
code the macroblock (cost of coding).

(App. Br. 9–10.) Appellants further detail the Examiner's proffered analysis
from the advisory action with respect to the horizontal and vertical
directions. (App. Br. 10–11.) The Examiner merely reiterates the positions
advanced in the Advisory Action and does not address the detailed merits of
Appellants' arguments with respect to the limitations of dependent claims 4
and 8. We agree with the Examiner that the Pau reference discloses at least
two different summation functions which are used in the determination of
motion vector quality (Ans. 6, 12–13), but the Examiner has not addressed
the claim language:
said step of estimating a cost of coding depending upon said
difference between said candidate motion vector and said
motion vector from said immediately previous macroblock
sums separately determined cost of coding a horizontal
difference of motion vectors and cost of coding a vertical
difference of motion vectors.

Therefore, Appellants have shown error in the Examiner's proffered
combination, and we cannot sustain the Examiner's rejection based
upon the combination of the Pau and Shen references.
Appeal 2012-005917
Application 11/305,504
7

CONCLUSIONS
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1 and 5 based upon
obviousness. The Examiner erred in rejecting claims 4 and 8 based upon
obviousness.

DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims
1 and 5 is affirmed; and Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 4 and 8
is reversed.

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) (2011).

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

tj