10463243 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 29, 2010)

Ex Parte Pai et al

Board of Patent Appeals and InterferencesJul 29, 2010

10463243 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 29, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE 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 APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 10/463,243 06/16/2003 R. Lakshmikanth Pai 14995US01 1969 23446 7590 07/29/2010 MCANDREWS HELD & MALLOY, LTD 500 WEST MADISON STREET SUITE 3400 CHICAGO, IL 60661 EXAMINER DIEP, NHON THANH ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2621 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 07/29/2010 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE _____________ BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES _____________ Ex parte R. LAKSHMIKANTH PAI, CHHAVI KISHORE, and SRINIVAS CHEEDELLA _____________ Appeal 2009-006958 Application 10/463,243 Technology Center 2600 _______________ Before, ROBERT E. NAPPI, JOHN C. MARTIN, and ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judges. NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL1 1The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, or for filing a request for rehearing, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 41.52, begins to run from the “MAIL DATE” (paper delivery mode) or the “NOTIFICATION DATE” (electronic delivery mode) shown on the PTOL-90A cover letter attached to this decision. Appeal 2009-006958 Application 10/463,243 2 This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the non-final rejection of claims 6-15.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. INVENTION The invention is directed to a system, method, and apparatus used to reduce memory and bandwidth in a decoder system by receiving an encoded portion of a predicted picture. The predicted picture is predicted from a portion of the reference picture by repeating edge pixels from the portion of the reference picture. See Spec: 1-6. Claim 11 is representative of the invention and reproduced below: 11. A system for decoding pictures, said system comprising: a presentation buffer for providing an encoded portion of a predicted picture, the encoded portion of the predicted picture being predicted from a portion of a reference picture; a frame buffer for providing the portion of the reference picture; and a decoder for repeating edge pixels from the portion of the reference picture after retrieving the portion of the reference picture, the portion of the reference picture being terminated by the edge pixels and predicting the encoded portion of the predicted picture from the portion of the reference picture and the repeated edge pixels. 2 Claims 1-5 were cancelled in an Amendment After Final, filed October 17, 2007. Appeal 2009-006958 Application 10/463,243 3 REFERENCES Tan US 6,408,096 B2 Jun. 18, 2002 Nakaya US 6,560,367 B1 May 6, 2003 REJECTIONS AT ISSUE Claims 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Tan. Ans. 3-4. Claims 6-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Tan in view of Nakaya. Ans. 5-6. ISSUES Rejection of claims 11-15 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) Appellants argue on pages 5-6 of the Appeal Brief that the Examiner’s rejection of claims 11-15 is in error. Appellants select claim 11 as representative of the group comprising claims 11-15. App. Br. 5. Appellants argue that Tan does not disclose that a portion of a reference picture is terminated by edge pixels. App. Br. 6. Thus, Appellants’ contention with respect to claims 11-15 present us with the issue: Did the Examiner err in finding that Tan discloses that a portion of a reference picture is terminated by edge pixels? Rejection of claims 6-10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) Appellants argue on pages 6-7 of the Appeal Brief that the Examiner’s rejection of claims 6-10 is in error. Appellants select claim 6 as representative of the group comprising claims 6-10. App. Br. 7. Claim 6 Appeal 2009-006958 Application 10/463,243 4 contains similar limitations to claim 11 and Appellants make the same arguments with respect to claim 6 as with claim 11. App. Br. 7. Thus, Appellants’ argument with respect to claims 6-10 present us with the same issue as claim 11. ANALYSIS Rejection of claims 11-15 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) Appellants’ contentions have not persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s rejection of claims 11-15. Claim 11 recites “a decoder for repeating edge pixels from the portion of the reference picture after retrieving the portion of the reference picture, the portion of the reference picture being terminated by the edge pixels and predicting the encoded portion of the predicted picture from the portion of the reference picture and the repeated edge pixels.” Appellants argue that Tan does not disclose a portion of the reference that is terminated by edge pixels since Tan’s reference portion 430 is not terminated by edge pixels. App. Br. 6. However, the Examiner interprets the sub-region 220 as the reference image. Ans. 9. Appellants do not provide sufficient argument or evidence to show that the Examiner’s interpretation is improper. Additionally, the edge pixels in Tan’s sub-region 220 (i.e., reference picture/image) are used to predict the portion 431 residing outside of the reference image 220 by a padding method that repeats the value of the edge pixels of the sub-region 220 in order to create a motion compensated prediction 430 (i.e., predicted picture). Tan, col. 7, ll. 5-19 and Fig. 5. Therefore, Appellants’ arguments are not Appeal 2009-006958 Application 10/463,243 5 found to be persuasive and we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 11 and claims 12-15 that are grouped with claim 11. Rejection of claims 6-10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) Appellants’ arguments have not persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s rejection of claims 6-10. Representative claim 6 contains similar limitations to claim 11. Appellants present the same arguments discussed above with respect to claim 11. App. Br. 7. Therefore, we do not find Appellants’ previously presented arguments to be persuasive for the same reasons as we stated above. As such, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 6 and claims 7-10 that are grouped with claim 6. CONCLUSIONS The Examiner did not err in finding that Tan discloses that a portion of a reference picture is terminated by edge pixels. SUMMARY The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 11-15 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) is affirmed. The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 6-10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is affirmed. 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)(v) (2010). Appeal 2009-006958 Application 10/463,243 6 AFFIRMED ELD MCANDREWS, HELD & MALLOY, LTD 500 WEST MADISON STREET SUITE 3400 CHICAGO, IL 60661