Ex Parte Park

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Feb 15, 2002

08763733 (B.P.A.I. Feb. 15, 2002)

-1-
The opinion in support of the decision being entered
today was not written for publication and is not
binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 21
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
________________
Ex parte PAN-GIE PARK
________________
Appeal No. 2000-0980
Application 08/763,733
________________
ON BRIEF
________________
Before KRASS, JERRY SMITH and FLEMING, Administrative Patent
Judges.
JERRY SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134
from the examiner’s rejection of claims 1-14, which constitute
all the claims in the application. An amendment after final
rejection was filed on March 8, 1999 and was entered by the
examiner.
Appeal No. 2000-0980
Application 08/763,733
-2-
The disclosed invention pertains to a video data decoding
method and apparatus for high-speed reproduction for decoding and
reproducing digital video data encoded according to a Moving
Picture Experts Group (MPEG) standard. More particularly, the
invention determines units of picture data which are to be
skipped based on predetermined picture size information contained
at a user data region of the encoded picture information.
Representative claim 1 is reproduced as follows:
1. A video data decoding apparatus for high-speed
reproduction for decoding and reproducing digital video data
encoded according to a Moving Picture Experts Group (MPEG)
standard and recorded on a recording medium, the video data
decoding apparatus comprising:
a microprocessor unit for analyzing input MPEG video data,
for judging whether each unit of picture data of said MPEG video
data corresponds to a picture which is to be decoded or to be
skipped during high-speed reproduction, and for controlling
decoding of units of said picture data which are judged to be
decoded and skipping reading of units of said picture data which
are judged to be skipped based on predetermined picture size
information, contained at a user data region corresponding to
each of said units of said picture which are judged to be
skipped;
a buffer for storing said input MPEG video data; and
decoding means for decoding video data read from said buffer
under control of said microprocessor unit.
The examiner relies on the following references:
Iwamura et al. (Iwamura) 5,305,113 Apr. 19, 1994
Okada et al. (Okada) 5,754,241 May 19, 1998
(filed Nov. 14, 1995)
Appeal No. 2000-0980
Application 08/763,733
1 It is not clear whether the examiner withdrew the final
rejection of claim 5 or simply made a typographical error in the
statement of the rejection. Appellant has assumed that the
examiner intended to maintain the rejection of claim 5 [reply
brief, page 3], and we will do the same.
-3-
Claims 1, 2, 6-11, 13 and 14 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by the disclosure of Okada.
Claims 3-51 and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103. As
evidence of obviousness the examiner offers Okada in view of
Iwamura.
Rather than repeat the arguments of appellant or the
examiner, we make reference to the briefs and the answer for the
respective details thereof.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the subject matter on
appeal, the rejections advanced by the examiner and the evidence
of anticipation and obviousness relied upon by the examiner as
support for the rejections. We have, likewise, reviewed and
taken into consideration, in reaching our decision, the
appellant’s arguments set forth in the briefs along with the
examiner’s rationale in support of the rejections and arguments
in rebuttal set forth in the examiner’s answer.
It is our view, after consideration of the record before
Appeal No. 2000-0980
Application 08/763,733
-4-
us, that the evidence relied upon supports each of the rejections
made by the examiner. Accordingly, we affirm.
We consider first the rejection of claims 1, 2, 6-11, 13
and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by the
disclosure of Okada. Anticipation is established only when a
single prior art reference discloses, expressly or under the
principles of inherency, each and every element of a claimed
invention as well as disclosing structure which is capable of
performing the recited functional limitations. RCA Corp. v.
Applied Digital Data Systems, Inc., 730 F.2d 1440, 1444, 221 USPQ
385, 388 (Fed. Cir.); cert. dismissed, 468 U.S. 1228 (1984); W.L.
Gore and Associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1554,
220 USPQ 303, 313 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 851
(1984). This rejection is argued by appellant in a first group
(claims 10, 11, 13 and 14) and a second group (claims 1, 2 and 6-
9) [brief, page 3].
The examiner’s rejection is set forth on pages 3-7 of the
examiner’s answer. With respect to the claims of the first group
as represented by claim 10, appellant argues that Okada does not
disclose the claimed feature of controlling skipping of units of
picture data based on predetermined picture size information,
corresponding to the units of pictures, contained at a user data
Appeal No. 2000-0980
Application 08/763,733
-5-
region. Appellant argues that his invention can determine the
starting point of the next picture and skip to the start of the
next picture, while Okada cannot perform this function [brief,
pages 3-4]. The examiner responds that since each of the I, P or
B-pictures of Okada have a different data size, and since Okada
determines whether the incoming data is an I, P or B-picture,
then Okada is determining whether picture data is to be skipped
based on picture size information as recited in claim 10. The
examiner also responds that the capability of determining the
starting point of the next picture and to skip to that picture is
not recited in claim 10. Appellant responds that the claimed
predetermined picture size information is not the same as an
assumed range of picture size information based on picture type
as disclosed by Okada [reply brief].
We agree with the position argued by the examiner.
Representative claim 10 does not recite the step of skipping to
the start of the next picture using detected picture size
information. Rather, claim 10 recites skipping units of encoded
picture information based on predetermined picture size
information. Okada shows in Figure 6 that register 13
sequentially stores the picture headers detected by analyzer 12,
and register 14 sequentially stores information on the amount of
Appeal No. 2000-0980
Application 08/763,733
-6-
data of each picture analyzed by analyzer 12 [column 14, lines
22-28]. We agree with the examiner that the data amount analyzer
of Okada constitutes an analysis of predetermined picture size
information because each of the I, P and B-pictures have a
corresponding known predetermined size range. There is nothing
in claim 10 that precludes a range of known predetermined values
from representing the picture size information. Therefore, we
agree with the examiner’s findings. Accordingly, we sustain the
examiner’s rejection of claims 10, 11, 13 and 14.
With respect to the claims of the second group as
represented by claim 1, appellant argues that Okada does not
disclose the claimed feature of skipping the reading of units of
picture data based on predetermined picture size information,
corresponding to the units of pictures, contained at a user data
region. Appellant argues that Okada must read out all data until
a picture header is detected even if the information is to be
skipped [brief, page 4]. The examiner responds that since each
of the I, P or B-pictures of Okada have a different data size,
and since Okada determines whether the incoming data is an I, P
or B-picture, then Okada is determining whether picture data is
to be skipped based on picture size information. The examiner
also responds that the size determination in Okada determines
Appeal No. 2000-0980
Application 08/763,733
-7-
whether or not picture data will be read into the decoding
circuit. The examiner notes that Okada, therefore, skips reading
of data information into the decoding circuit when the data
information is to be skipped [answer, page 10]. Appellant
reiterates that Okada reads the picture from buffer 2 even when
the data is to be skipped [reply brief].
We again agree with the position argued by the examiner.
Representative claim 1 broadly recites that a reading of units of
picture information is skipped. We agree with the examiner that
Okada performs two different types of reading. One reading is
into buffer 2 and the second reading is into decoder 4. Although
it appears that Okada always performs the first read, Okada only
performs the second read when the information is not to be
skipped. Thus, Okada discloses skipping a reading of units of
picture data when that information is to be skipped. We find
this disclosure of Okada sufficient to meet the language of
appealed claim 1. Therefore, we sustain the examiner’s rejection
of claims 1, 2 and 6-9.
We now consider the examiner’s rejection of claims 3-5
and 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the
teachings of Okada and Iwamura. In rejecting claims under 35
U.S.C. § 103, it is incumbent upon the examiner to establish a
Appeal No. 2000-0980
Application 08/763,733
-8-
factual basis to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.
See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1073, 5 USPQ2d 1596, 1598 (Fed.
Cir. 1988). In so doing, the examiner is expected to make the
factual determinations set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383
U.S. 1, 17, 148 USPQ 459, 467 (1966), and to provide a reason why
one having ordinary skill in the pertinent art would have been
led to modify the prior art or to combine prior art references to
arrive at the claimed invention. Such reason must stem from some
teaching, suggestion or implication in the prior art as a whole
or knowledge generally available to one having ordinary skill in
the art. Uniroyal, Inc. v. Rudkin-Wiley Corp., 837 F.2d 1044,
1051, 5 USPQ2d 1434, 1438 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 825
(1988); Ashland Oil, Inc. v. Delta Resins & Refractories, Inc.,
776 F.2d 281, 293, 227 USPQ 657, 664 (Fed. Cir. 1985), cert.
denied, 475 U.S. 1017 (1986); ACS Hosp. Sys., Inc. v. Montefiore
Hosp., 732 F.2d 1572, 1577, 221 USPQ 929, 933 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
These showings by the examiner are an essential part of complying
with the burden of presenting a prima facie case of obviousness.
Note In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444
(Fed. Cir. 1992). If that burden is met, the burden then shifts
to the applicant to overcome the prima facie case with argument
and/or evidence. Obviousness is then determined on the basis of
Appeal No. 2000-0980
Application 08/763,733
-9-
the evidence as a whole and the relative persuasiveness of the
arguments. See Id.; In re Hedges, 783 F.2d 1038, 1039, 228 USPQ
685, 686 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1472,
223 USPQ 785, 788 (Fed. Cir. 1984); and In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d
1048, 1052, 189 USPQ 143, 147 (CCPA 1976). Only those arguments
actually made by appellant have been considered in this decision.
Arguments which appellant could have made but chose not to make
in the brief have not been considered [see 37 CFR § 1.192(a)].
Appellant groups claims 3-5 together and argues claim 12
separately. Representative claims 3 and 12 recite that the
decoding means comprises a variable length decoder, an inverse
quantizer and an inverse discrete cosine transformer. The
examiner cites Iwamura as teaching that these components are
conventionally part of an MPEG decoding means. The examiner
finds that it would have been obvious to the artisan for the MPEG
decoder of Okada to have these conventional elements. With
respect to claims 3 and 12, appellant argues that Iwamura does
not overcome the deficiencies of Okada discussed above with
respect to claims 1 and 10, respectively. Appellant does not
challenge the examiner’s finding that Iwamura teaches a decoding
means as recited in claims 3 and 12.
Since appellant’s only argument of substance is that
Appeal No. 2000-0980
Application 08/763,733
-10-
Iwamura does not overcome the deficiencies of Okada, and since we
found no deficiencies in Okada as discussed above, we sustain the
examiner’s rejection of claims 3-5 and 12.
In summary, we have sustained each of the examiner’s
rejections of the claims on appeal. Therefore, the decision of
the examiner rejecting claims 1-14 is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in
connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR
§ 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED

ERROL A. KRASS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
JERRY SMITH ) BOARD OF PATENT
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
MICHAEL R. FLEMING )
Administrative Patent Judge )
JS/ki
Appeal No. 2000-0980
Application 08/763,733
-11-
Sughrue, Mion, Zinn, MacPeak & Seas
2100 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20037-3202