Ex Parte Rusert et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 13, 2016

13022133 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 13, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/022, 133 02/07/2011
27045 7590
ERICSSON INC
6300 LEGACY DRIVE
MIS EVR 1-C-11
PLANO, TX 75024
09/15/2016
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Thomas Rusert
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.
P31108-US2 6093
EXAMINER
BELA!, NAOD W
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2481
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/15/2016 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):
kara.coffman@ericsson.com
kathryn.lopez@ericsson.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte THOMAS RUSERT, JACOB STROM, KENNETH
ANDERSSON, PER WENNERSTEN, and RICKARD SJOBERG
Appeal2015-000114 1
Application 13/022,133
Technology Center 2400
Before JEAN R. HOMERE, MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, and KEVIN TROCK,
Administrative Patent Judges.
HOMERE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner's final rejection of claims 1-13. App. Br. 1. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Appellants' Invention
Appellants invented a method and system for managing predicted
motion vector (PMV) candidates in a video encoding/decoding apparatus.
1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Telefonaktiebolaget LM
Ericksson. App. Br. 1.
Appeal2015-000114
Application 13/022,133
Spec. 1 :5-7. In particular, a variable length coding technique is utilized to
assign a code value to each of the PMV candidates in the order of expected
usage such that the candidate with the highest probability of usage is
assigned one of the shortest code values, whereas the candidate with the
lowest probability of usage is assigned one of the longest code values. Id. at
3:26-32.
Illustrative Claim
Independent claim 1 is illustrative, and reads as follows:
1. A method of managing Predicted Motion Vector
candidates (PMV candidates), the method comprising:
selecting a set of PMV candidates as a subset of
previously coded motion vectors;
assigning a code value to each PMV candidate in the set
of PMV candidates, wherein the code values vary in length and
are assigned to the Pl\1V candidates in order of expected usage
such that the PMV candidate having the highest expected usage
has one of the shortest code values.
Iwata
Takeshima
Hallapuro
Prior Art Relied Upon
US 2006/0153299 Al
US 2009/0129703 Al
US 2009/0304084 Al
Rejections on Appeal
July 13, 2006
May 21, 2009
Dec. 10, 2009
Claims 1-5 and 10-13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as
being anticipated by Hallapuro.
Claims 6 and 7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Hallapuro and Iwata.
2
Appeal2015-000114
Application 13/022,133
Claims 8 and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Hallapuro, Iwata, and Takeshima.
ANALYSIS
We consider Appellants' arguments seriatim, as they are presented in
the Appeal Brief, pages 4--9, and the Reply Brief, pages 1--4.2
Anticipation Rejection
Appellants argue Hallapuro does not describe assigning a code value
from a plurality of variable length code values to each PMV candidate in a
set of candidates in an order of expected usage such that the PMV candidate
having the highest expected usage has one of the shortest code values, as
recited in independent claim 1. App. Br. 4---6, Reply Br. 10-11. We have
reviewed the Examiner's rejection in light of Appellants' arguments. We
are unpersuaded by Appellants' contentions. Except as otherwise indicated
hereinbelow, we adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth in the
rejection from which the appeal is taken and in the Examiner's Answer in
response to Appellants' Appeal Brief. See Ans. 2-14. However, we
highlight and address specific arguments and findings for emphasis as
follows.
2 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner, we
refer to the Appeal Brief (filed March 12, 2014), the Reply Brief (filed
September 18, 2014) and the Answer (mailed July 18, 2014) for their
respective details. We have considered in this Decision only those
arguments Appellants actually raised in the Briefs. Any other arguments
Appellants could have made but chose not to make in the Briefs are deemed
to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2013).
3
Appeal2015-000114
Application 13/022,133
First, Appellants argue even if Hallapuro discloses a variable length
Huffman coding for signaling which one of the motion vector predictors has
been used, and may inherently associate longer code words with less
probable symbols, and shorter code words with more probable symbols, as
proffered by the Examiner, such properties of Huffman coding do not
describe the disputed limitations. App. Br. 5 (citing Hallapuro i-fi-1 41--43).
According to Appellants, Hallapuro is devoid of any disclosure of how the
Huffman code values are assigned to the vector candidates, let alone
assigning such values in order of expected usage. Id. This argument is not
persuasive.
At the outset, we note although Appellants do not concede the
Examiner's finding of inherency, Appellants do not rebut such a finding
either. That is, Appellants do not particularly rebut the Examiner's finding
that variable length Huffman coding, as disclosed in Hallapuro, inherently
assigns longer code words to less probable symbols (i.e., lowest expected
usage), and shorter code words to more probable symbols (i.e., highest
expected usage). Ans. 2. Further, as correctly noted by the Examiner,
Hallapuro discloses using variable length Huffman coding to signal the
selection motion vector candidates from a set of candidates. Id. (citing
Hallapuro i-fi-1 42--43).
We have previously held that "[i]n relying upon the theory of
inherency, the examiner must provide a basis in fact and/or technical
reasoning to reasonably support the determination that the allegedly inherent
characteristic necessarily flows from the teachings of the applied prior art."
Ex parte Levy, 17 USPQ2d 1461, 1464 (BPAI 1990) (citations omitted).
Further, our reviewing court has held that "after the PTO establishes a prima
4
Appeal2015-000114
Application 13/022,133
facie case of anticipation based on inherency, the burden shifts to appellant
to 'prove that the subject matter shown to be in the prior art does not possess
the characteristic relied on."' In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1327 (Fed. Cir.
1986) (quoting In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 212-13 (CCPA 1971)). See
also MPEP §§ 2112 (IV), (V).
This reasoning is applicable here. In our view, the cited technical
reasoning provided by the Examiner, along with corroborating evidence3 are
sufficient to support a prima facie case of anticipation based on inherency
thereby shifting the burden to Appellants. However, Appellants have failed
to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the variable Huffman
coding disclosed by Hallapuro, does not necessarily involve the assignment
of one of the shortest code words to a selected one of the motion vector
candidates having the highest expected usage. Appellants are reminded that
merely reciting the claim language, and asserting that the Examiner's
findings do not describe such limitations is not a persuasive argument.
Because Appellants fail to rebut the Examiner's finding of inherency,
Appellants have therefore failed to show error in the Examiner's anticipation
rejection of claim 1.
Regarding the rejection of claims 2-5, and 10-13, because Appellants
have either not presented separate patentability arguments or have reiterated
substantially the same arguments as those previously discussed for
patentability of claim 1 above, claims 2-5 and 10-13 fall therewith. See
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2013).
3 Ans. 2 (citing to" 'Introduction to H.264 advanced video coding"').
5
Appeal2015-000114
Application 13/022,133
Obviousness Rejections
Regarding the rejection of claim 6, Appellants argue that the
combination of Hallapuro and Iwata does not teach or suggest "the expected
usage of a PMV candidate is obtained from distances of their respective
previous blocks from a current block." App. Br. 7. According to
Appellants, Iwata teaches the distance between two motion vectors
corresponding to a top field and a bottom field, as opposed to a distance
between a previous block and a current block. Id. at 7-8, Reply Br. 6-8.
This argument is not persuasive. Hallapuro discloses the candidate motion
vector predictors correspond to two neighboring blocks (a current block, and
a previous block). Hallapuro i-f37. Further, Iwata discloses calculating the
distance between the motion vectors. Iwata i-f 141. Because Hallapuro and
Iwata disclose known elements that perform their ordinary functions to
predictably result in a video/encoding/decoding system wherein the distance
between motion vectors corresponding to neighboring blocks is calculated,
we agree with the Examiner that Hallapuro and Iwata are properly combined
to teach the disputed limitations. Ans. 3. KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550
U.S. 398, 416 (2007).
Regarding the rejection of claims 7-9, because Appellants have either
not presented separate patentability arguments or have reiterated
substantially the same arguments as those previously discussed for
patentability of claim 6 above, claims 7-9 fall therewith. See 3 7 C.F .R.
§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2013).
6
Appeal2015-000114
Application 13/022,133
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's anticipation rejection of claims 1-5 and
10-13 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e). We also affirm the Examiner's
obviousness rejections of claims 6-9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
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