Ex Parte Pan et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 22, 2016

12574804 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 22, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/574,804 10/07/2009 Feng Pan
93253 7590 08/24/2016
Garlick & Markison (VIXS)
P.O. Box 160727
Austin, TX 78716-0727
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
VIXS150US 8839
EXAMINER
BECK,LERON
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2487
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/24/2016 ELECTRONIC
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.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address( es):
MMurdock@texaspatents.com
ghmptocor@texaspatents.com
bpierotti@texaspatents.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte FENG PAN and YANG LIU
Appeal2014-005249
Application 12/574,804
Technology Center 2400
Before DEBRA K. STEPHENS, ERIC B. CHEN, and
JOHN R. KENNY, Administrative Patent Judges.
CHEN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal2014-005249
Application 12/574,804
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection of
claims 1, 2, 4--9, and 11-1 7. Claims 3 and 10 have been cancelled. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants' invention relates to a video filter, including a filter
parameter generator that receives a non-quantization coding parameter
corresponding to video data and in response, generates deblocking filter
parameters. An adaptive deblocking filter filters the video data to generate
processed video data, based on the deblocking filter parameters. (Abstract.)
Claim 1 is exemplary, with disputed limitations in italics:
1. A video filter that processes video data, the video
filter comprising:
a filter parameter generator, that receives a plurality of
non-quantization encoding parameters corresponding to the
video data, the plurality of non-quantization encoding
parameters including a first subset and a second subset, wherein
the first subset differs from the second subset, and that
generates a plurality of deblocking filter parameters in response
thereto, the plurality of deblocking filter parameters including a
first filter parameter and a second filter parameter, wherein the
first filter parameter is generated independently from the
second filter parameter based on the first subset of the plurality
of non-quantization encoding parameters and wherein the
second filter parameter is generated based on the second subset
of the plurality of non-quantization encoding parameters and
dependent on the first filter parameter; and
an adaptive deblocking filter, coupled to the filter
parameter generator, that filters an image of the video data to
generate processed video data, based on the plurality of
deblocking filter parameters.
2
Appeal2014-005249
Application 12/574,804
Claims 1, 2, 4---6, 8, 9, 11-13, and 15-17 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Wittmann et al. (EP 1,841,230 Al,
published Oct. 3, 2007) and Haskell et al. (US 7,453,938 B2, issued
Nov. 18, 2008).
Claims 7 and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Wittmann, Haskell, and Lim et al. (US 2006/0226337 Al,
published Oct. 12, 2006).
ANALYSIS
§ 103 Rejection-Wittmann and Haskell
We are unpersuaded by Appellants' arguments (App. Br. 7; see also
Reply Br. 4--5) that the combination of Wittmann and Haskell would not
have rendered obvious independent claim 1, which includes the limitation
"wherein the first filter parameter is generated independently from the
second filter parameter."
The Examiner found that the separately encoded image sequences of
Wittmann, in which filter parameters for each image block are determined
separately, correspond to the limitation "the plurality of deblocking filter
parameters including a first filter parameter and a second filter parameter,
wherein the first filter parameter is generated independently from the second
filter parameter." (Ans. 5.) In particular, the Examiner found "Wittmann
teaches in [0071], that it is possible to determine a separate set of filter
parameters" and "[t]his is equivalent to having independently generated
filter parameters." (Id.) We agree with the Examiner.
Independent claim 1 recites "the first filter parameter is generated
independently from the second filter parameter" (emphasis added). One
3
Appeal2014-005249
Application 12/574,804
relevant plain meaning of "independent" is "not subject to control by others"
or "not requiring or relying on something else." MERRIMAN-WEBSTER'S
COLLEGIATE DICTIONARY 631 (11th ed. 2007). Likewise, one relevant
synonym for "independent" is "separate." MERRIMAN-WEBSTER'S
COLLEGIATE THESAURUS 399 (1988). These definitions for "independent"
are consistent with Appellants' Specification, which states the following:
Block-based coding, such as Moving Picture Experts
Group (MPEG) coding introduces blocking artifacts between
block boundaries. The reason is that the transform does not
consider the correlation between block boundaries when blocks
are independently coded. As result, the boundary area belonging
to different blocks may be differently processed in the
quantization step creating visual artifacts.
(Spec. 1:23-27 (emphases added).) Accordingly, under the broadest
reasonable interpretation consistent with the Specification, we interpret
"independent" in the context of the limitation "the first filter parameter is
generated independently from the second filter parameter," as recited in
claim 1, as generating the first filter parameter that is not subject to control
by the second parameter or generating the first filter parameter separately
from the second filter parameter.
Wittmann relates to "encoding and decoding video data, including an
adaptive filtering of the image data." (i-f l.) Wittmann explains that an
encoder "compare[ s] the original undisturbed input image data, the
corrupted image data obtained by encoding and subsequently decoding the
image data, and the result of filtering the corrupted image data" and "a
particular set of filter parameters can be determined, in order to obtain
filtered image data which comes close to the uncorrupted image data."
(i-f 52.) Furthermore, Wittmann explains that "when an image sequence is
4
Appeal2014-005249
Application 12/574,804
encoded each image is separated into a plurality of image blocks, and each
image block is encoded separately" and "it is possible to determine a
separate set of filter parameters for each image data block." (i-f 71.) Because
Wittmann explains that encoders determine filter parameters for uncorrupted
image data and that "each image block is encoded separately," Wittmann
teaches the limitation "wherein the first filter parameter is generated
independently from the second filter parameter."
Appellants argue that "[ t ]he word separate used by Wittmann does not
imply either mathematical dependence or mathematical independence"
because separate parameters can be dependent on one other. (App. Br. 7;
see also Reply Br. 4--5.)
Initially, we determine Appellants' arguments are not commensurate
in scope with claim 1. Specifically, taking a broad, but reasonable
interpretation of "independently," in light of the Specification, we find
Wittmann discloses that the parameters are generated independently.
Moreover, we are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments that
Wittmann does not disclose generating independently. Appellants provide
an example where one parameter is used to generate another, asserting such
example yields two separate parameters having some dependence on one
another. (App. Br. 7; see also Reply Br. 4--5.) This example, however, is
not applicable to the cited disclosure. More specifically, the disclosure cited
in Wittman does not use one parameter to generate another. (i-f 71 ). Indeed,
Wittman does not even utilize the data that generates one parameter to
generate another; rather, Wittman generates parameters using data from
image blocks that are each encoded separately-generated independently.
5
Appeal2014-005249
Application 12/574,804
(Id.) Appellants have not set forth any persuasive evidence or arguments to
persuade us that the parameters in Wittman are not generated independently.
Thus, we agree with the Examiner that the combination of Wittmann
and Haskell would have rendered obvious independent claim 1, which
includes the limitation "wherein the first filter parameter is generated
independently from the second filter parameter."
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of independent claim 1 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a). Claims 2, 4--6, and 16 depend from claim 1, and
Appellants have not presented any substantive arguments with respect to
these claims. Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claims 2, 4--6, and 16
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), for the same reasons discussed with respect to
independent claim 1.
Independent claims 8 and 15 recite limitations similar to those
discussed with respect to independent claim 1, and Appellants have not
presented any substantive arguments with respect to these claims. We
sustain the rejection of claims 8 and 15, as well as dependent claims 9, 11-
13, and 1 7, for the same reasons discussed with respect to claim 1.
§ 103 Rejection-Wittmann, Haskell, and Lim
Although Appellants nominally argue the rejection of dependent
claims 7 and 14 separately (App. Br. 8), the arguments presented do not
point out with particularity or explain why the limitations of these dependent
claims are separately patentable. Instead, Appellants merely argue "the
reasons that distinguish claims 1 and 8 over Wittmann and Haskell are
applicable in distinguishing claims 7 and 14 over the additional combination
with Lim." (Id.) Accordingly, Appellants have not presented any
6
Appeal2014-005249
Application 12/574,804
substantive arguments with respect to these claims. We are not persuaded
by these arguments for the reasons discussed with respect to claims 1 and 8,
from which claims 7 and 14 depend. Accordingly, we sustain this rejection.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1, 2, 4--9, and 11-17 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)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
7