Ex Parte PAI M.M et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 29, 2016

12627737 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 29, 2016)

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.
12/627,737 11/30/2009 Manohara PAI M.M 2543.737BS 4634
86636 7590 04/29/2016
BRUNDIDGE & STANGER, P.C.
2318 MILL ROAD, SUITE 1020
ALEXANDRIA, VA 22314
EXAMINER
SOSANYA, OBAFEMI OLUDAYO
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2486
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/29/2016 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 PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte MANOHARA PAI M.M.
and
KARUNAKAR ANNAPPA KOTEGAR
____________

Appeal 2014-008317
Application 12/627,737
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, CARLA M. KRIVAK, and
JEFFREY A. STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judges.

KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1, 3, 5, 7–10, 12, 13, and 15–23.1 We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

1 Claims 2, 4, 6, 11, and 14 have been canceled.
Appeal 2014-008317
Application 12/627,737

2

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ invention is directed to image processing that
“subdivide[s] the image into N subregions” and “perform[s] wavelet
decomposition on each of the N subregions” (Abstract).
Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is exemplary of the subject
matter on appeal.
1. A method for processing an image comprising:
optimizing a number N of spatially relevant subregions
of the image based upon: a spatial resolution of the image, a
lowest granularity supported for a decoder, and a level of
wavelet decomposition;
subdividing the image into N subregions based on the
optimizing of the number N, the N subregions having equal
pixel dimensions;
performing wavelet decomposition of each of the N
subregions; and
storing image data resulting from the decomposition.

REFERENCES and REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 5, 7–10, 12, 13, and 15–23 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based upon the teachings of Xu (US 2005/0094731 A1;
May 5, 2005) and Guedalia (US 2003/0135867 A1; July 17, 2003).2
The Examiner rejected claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based upon
the teachings of Xu and Wu (US 2009/0257480 A1; Oct. 15, 2009).

2 Although the Examiner listed claim 20 under the rejection based on Xu
and Guedalia (Final Act. 3), the Examiner added Wu to the claim’s rejection
(Final Act. 16).
Appeal 2014-008317
Application 12/627,737

3

ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds Xu discloses “optimizing a number N of spatially
relevant subregions of the image,” as recited in claim 1, because Xu
discloses decomposing a video frame into sub-bands by wavelet transform
and optimizing each sub-band independently (Ans. 22–23 (citing Xu Fig. 9,
¶¶ 23, 46). We do not agree.
We agree with Appellants that Xu does not optimize a number of sub-
bands (subregions); rather, Xu discloses presetting a number of sub-bands by
conventional 2-D wavelet decomposition (Reply Br. 3; App. Br. 11–12
(citing Xu ¶73)). That is, Xu does not disclose determining an optimal
number of subregions and subdividing a frame into that number of
subregions; rather, Xu discloses decomposing a frame/image into multiple
sub-bands (see Xu FIG. 9, ¶¶ 72, 73; App. Br. 11). Claim 1 requires
optimizing the number of subregions and, based on this optimization,
subdividing the image into N subregions. In contrast, Xu optimizes the bits
allocated to each sub-band and outputs independently coded sub-bands, but
does not teach or suggest optimizing the number N of spatially relevant
subregions (Reply Br. 3). The Examiner has not shown that the additional
teachings of Guedalia and Wu make up for the above-noted deficiencies of
Xu.
Thus, for the reasons set forth above, we do not sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1 and claims 3, 5, 7–10, 12, and
21 dependent therefrom. We also do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
independent claims 13 and 19, argued for substantially the same reasons as
claim 1, and claims 15–18, 20, 22, and 23 dependent therefrom (App. Br.
14–18).
Appeal 2014-008317
Application 12/627,737

4

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 3, 5, 7–10, 12, 13, and
15–23 is reversed.

REVERSED