Ex Parte Park et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 19, 2016

12884676 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 19, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/884,676 09/17/2010
23373 7590 08/23/2016
SUGHRUE MION, PLLC
2100 PENNSYLVANIA A VENUE, N.W.
SUITE 800
WASHINGTON, DC 20037
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Sung-bum PARK
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.
Ql20810 7178
EXAMINER
SENF!, BEHROOZ M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2482
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/23/2016 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):
PPROCESSING@SUGHRUE.COM
sughrue@sughrue.com
USPTO@sughrue.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Exparte SUNG-BUM PARK, JUNG-WOO KIM, DAI-WOONG CHOI,
JAE-WON YOON, and JUN-HO CHO
Appeal2015-002239
Application 12/884,676
Technology Center 2400
Before LINZY T. McCARTNEY, NATHAN A. ENGELS, and
KAMRAN JIVANI, Administrative Patent Judges.
JIV ANI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner's final decisions rejecting claims 1-22. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
1 Appellants identify SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. as the real
party in interest. App. Br. 2.
Appeal2015-002239
Application 12/884,676
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The present application relates to encoding and decoding mode
information of an image that is encoded in a plurality of modes. Spec. i-f 2.
Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A method of decoding mode information of a
current block of an image, the method comprising:
decoding first information that indicates
whether the current block is encoded in a first
encoding mode, from a bitstream;
in response to decoding first information
indicating the current block is not encoded in the
first encoding mode, decoding second information
that indicates an encoding mode of the current block
from among a second encoding mode and a third
encoding mode; and
determining a decoding mode to be used to
decode the current block, based on at least one of
the decoded first information and the decoded
second information,
wherein the first encoding mode indicates
that the current block is identical to a second block
that is encoded prior to the current block, the current
block adjacent to the second block in a slice of the
image.
The Rejection
Claims 1-22 stand rejected for non-statutory obviousness-type double
patenting over claims 1-18 of Park (US 8,588,307 B2; Nov. 19, 2013).
2
Appeal2015-002239
Application 12/884,676
ANALYSIS
Claim 1
With regard to claim 1, Appellants contend the Examiner fails to
establish a prima facie case of obviousness-type double patenting. App. Br.
6; Reply Br. 7-8. Appellants further contend Park's claims 1and2 are of "a
wholly distinct scope" from claim 1 of the present application. Reply Br. 8.
We have considered Appellants' arguments in the Appeal Brief and
Reply Brief, as well as the Examiner's Answer thereto. We are not
persuaded by Appellants' arguments for at least the following reasons.
First, the Examiner maps each limitation of claim 1 to corresponding
teaching in Park claims 1 and 2. Ans. 5-11. The Examiner further
articulates sufficient rationale for the specific mapping of particular claim
limitations. See, e.g., Ans. 9 ("Appellant should note that 'parsing the first
information' in the patented claim, is equivalent to 'decoding first
information' as specifie[d] in the claim of present application. Since parsing
takes effect in decoding side, and therefore consider[ ed] as part of decoding
process."). Thus, we are not persuaded that the Examiner has failed to
articulate a prima facie case of obviousness-type double patenting.
Second, we are not persuaded by Appellants' argument regarding
differing claim scope. Appellants contend:
[Park claims 1 and 2] require a determination that
the encoding mode is identical to encoding codes of
multiple previously encoded blocks. On the other
hand, claim 1 of the present application describes
information is decoded indicating that the current
block is identical to a single, adjacent previously
encoded block, a wholly distinct scope.
3
Appeal2015-002239
Application 12/884,676
Reply Br. 8. Claims 1 and 2 of Park recite "determining whether an
encoding mode of the current block is identical to both a first previous
encoding mode of a first previously encoded block and a second previous
encoding mode of a second previously encoded block," and Appellants fail
to substantively rebut the Examiner's finding that Park's determination of
identity with a first previously encoded block and a second previously
encoded block teaches or suggests the determination of identity with only a
first previously encoded block. Contrary to Appellants' arguments, we
agree with the Examiner that Park's determination of identity with two
previous blocks teaches or suggests the claimed determination of identity
with a single previous block.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's non-statutory obviousness-
type double patenting rejection of claim 1.
Claims 2-22
The Examiner fails to map the limitations of claims 2-22 to
corresponding teachings or suggestions in claims 1-18 of Park. See
generally, Final Act. 2--4; Non-Final Act. 3. Accordingly, we do not sustain
the Examiner's obviousness-type double patenting rejection of claims 2-22.
4
Appeal2015-002239
Application 12/884,676
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claim 1.
We reverse the Examiner's decisions rejecting claims 2-22.
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-IN-PART
5