Ex Parte Ramanzin

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Aug 16, 2010

09989248 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 16, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________

Ex parte YVES RAMANZIN
_____________

Appeal 2009-006944
Application 09/989,248
Technology Center 2600
______________

Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, JOHN C. MARTIN, and
ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judges.

NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL1

1 The 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 2009-006944
Application 09/989,248

This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the rejection
of claims 1 through 4.
We reverse.
INVENTION
The invention is directed to a decoding method for decoding a video
bit stream. See page 1 of Appellant’s Specification.
Claim 1 is reproduced below:
1. For use in a video decoder comprising processing circuitry
capable of receiving from a transmitting and/or storing medium a
video bitstream which itself includes base layer coded video signals
and enhancement layer coded video signals and decoding said
bitstream for generating decoded signals corresponding either only to
the base layer signals, to be then displayed alone, or to the base layer
signals and the enhancement layer signals, to be then displayed
together, a method of decoding said video bitstream including said
base layer and enhancement layer coded video signals, comprising the
steps of:
decoding the base layer coded video signals to produce decoded
base layer frames;
decoding the enhancement layer coded video signals to produce
decoded enhancement layer frames;
displaying the decoded base layer frames either alone or with
the decoded enhancement layer frames to form video frames;

said method being characterized in that the displaying step itself
comprises:
a decision sub-step, for examining on the basis of a given
criterion the quality of each successive base layer frame to be
displayed and selecting the poor quality frames;
a replacement sub-step, for replacing each poor quality base
layer frame by at least one of the two frames of the enhancement layer
preceding and following said poor quality frame base layer frame.

2

Appeal 2009-006944
Application 09/989,248

REFERENCES
Wu 6,700,933 B1 Mar. 2, 2004
James K. Han, Multi-resolution Layered Coding for Real-Time Image
Transmission: Architectural and Error Control Considerations 4 Real Time
Imaging, 275-298 (1998).

REJECTION AT ISSUE
The Examiner has rejected claims 1 through 4 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Wu in view of Han. Answer 3-4.2

ISSUE
Appellant argues on pages 6 through 11 of the Appeal Brief3 that the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 through 4 is in error.
Appellant’s arguments present us with the issue: Did the Examiner err
in finding that the combination of Wu and Han teaches replacing poor
quality base layer frames with frames from the enhancement layer as
claimed?

ANALYSIS
Appellant’s arguments have persuaded us that the Examiner erred in
finding that the combination of the references teaches replacing poor quality
base layer frames with frames from the enhancement layer as claimed.

2 Throughout this decision we refer to the Answer dated October 22, 2007.
3 Throughout this decision we refer to the Appeal Brief dated August 2,
2007.

3

Appeal 2009-006944
Application 09/989,248

Independent claim 1 recites “a replacement sub-step, for replacing
each poor quality base layer frame by at least one of the two frames of the
enhancement layer preceding and following said poor quality frame base
layer frame.” Independent claim 4 recites a limitation which similarly calls
for the replacement of a base layer frame to be replaced with an
enhancement layer frame.
In rejecting these claims the Examiner relies upon Han’s teaching of
temporal replacement (case II) described on pages 291-292 to show that it
was known to replace base layer frames with enhancement layer frames.
Answer 4. We do not find that the disclosure of Han on pages 291 and 292
supports the Examiner’s finding. Specifically, Han states on page 291, first
column, and first paragraph, temporal replacement is “replacing the lost
block with the corresponding block in the previous frame.” Further, Han
states in the paragraph bridging pages 291 and 292 that “the superposition of
the subsequent enhancement layer to the base layer in an n-layer coded
image is equivalent to the base layer of the (n-1) st layer image in its
quality.” These passages do not teach replacing a base layer frame with an
enhancement layer frame.
Further, contrary to the Examiner’s statement on page 5 of the
Answer, we do not find that Wu suggests in column 21, lines 41-56, and
figure 20, that the base layer is replaced by an enhancement layer. This
passage of Wu discusses reconstructing the enhancement layer and not using
an enhancement layer to replace a base layer.
For the forgoing reasons, we find that the Examiner has not shown
that all of the limitations of independent claims 1 and 4 are taught by the
4

Appeal 2009-006944
Application 09/989,248

references. Thus, we will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1
through 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

CONCLUSION
Appellant has persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s rejection of
claims 1 through 4.
ORDER
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1 through 4 is reversed.
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).

5

Appeal 2009-006944
Application 09/989,248

REVERSED

tkl
NXP, B.V.
NXP INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & LICENSING
M/S41-SJ
1109 MCKAY DRIVE
SAN JOSE, CA 95131

6