Ex Parte Sasai et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 29, 2016

14041043 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 29, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/041,043 09/30/2013
125044 7590 07/01/2016
Wenderoth, Lind & Ponack, LLP,
1030 15th Street, NW, Suite 400 East
Washington, DC 20005
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Hisao SASAI
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.
2013-1322 2771
EXAMINER
DOBBS, KRISTIN SENSMEIER
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2486
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/01/2016 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):
eoa@wenderoth.com
ddalecki@wenderoth.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte HIS AO SASAI, T AKAHIRO NISHI, YOU JI SHIBAHARA,
TOSHIY ASU SUGIO, KYOKO TANIKA WA, and TORU MATSUNOBU
Appeal 2016-003250
Application 14/041,043
Technology Center 2400
Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, and
CATHERINE SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judges.
SAADAT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 20 and 23-30, which are all the claims pending in this application.
We have jurisdiction over the pending claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Panasonic Intellectual
Property Corporation of America (App. Br. 2).
Appeal2016-003250
Application 14/041,043
STATEivIENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellants' invention relates to image coding methods for coding
images using motion vectors (see Spec. 1: 15-17). Claim 20, which is
illustrative of the invention, reads as follows:
20. A method for decoding a difference motion vector
which indicates a difference between a motion vector used to
predict a picture and a predicted motion vector that is a
prediction of the motion vector, the method comprising:
performing context adapted binary arithmetic decoding
on first grouped data that includes (i) first prefix data of a
horizontal component of the difference motion vector and (ii)
second prefix data of a vertical component of the difference
motion vector, the context adapted binary arithmetic decoding
being performed by using a variable probability;
performing bypass decoding on second grouped data that
includes (i) first suffix data of the horizontal component of the
difference motion vector and (ii) second suffix data of the
vertical component of the difference motion vector, the bypass
decoding being performed using a fixed probability, and the
bypass decoding being performed on the second grouped data
subsequent to the context adapted binary arithmetic decoding
performed on the first grouped data; and
deriving the horizontal component of the difference
motion vector from a combination of the first prefix data and
the first suffix data, and deriving the vertical component of the
difference motion vector from a combination of the second
prefix data and the second suffix data.
The Examiner's Rejection
The Examiner rejected claims 20 and 23-30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
over George et al. (WO 2012/172113 Al; Pub. Dec. 20, 2012, Filed June 16,
2011 and July 15, 2011) ("George") (see Ans. 2-15).
2
Appeal2016-003250
Application 14/041,043
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejection in light of Appellants'
contentions that the Examiner has erred. We are not persuaded by
Appellants' contentions. The Examiner has provided a comprehensive
response, supported by sufficient evidence, to each of the contentions raised
by Appellants. We adopt as our own (1) the findings and reasons set forth
by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken and (2) the
reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner's Answer in response to
Appellants' Appeal Brief (see Ans. 2-17). We highlight the following for
emphasis.
Appellants do not dispute the teachings of George with respect to "(i)
encoding/decoding of horizontal and vertical components of a motion vector
difference to generate prefix data using a variable probability and (ii)
encoding/decoding of the horizontal and vertical components of the motion
vector difference to generate suffix data using a fixed probability" (see App.
Br. 6). Instead, Appellants contend:
George contains no disclosure related to (i) the prefix data of
the horizontal component of the motion vector difference and
the prefix data of the vertical component of the motion vector
difference are grouped into first grouped data and the first
grouped data is encoded/decoded using variable probability and
(ii) the suffix data of the horizontal component of the motion
vector difference and the suffix data of the vertical component
of the motion vector difference are grouped into second
grouped data and the second grouped data is encoded/ decoded
using fixed probability.
(App. Br. 6). Appellants further argue that George includes no disclosure
related to:
(i) decoding first grouped data that includes the prefix data of
the horizontal component of the motion vector difference and
3
Appeal2016-003250
Application 14/041,043
(Id.).
the prefix data of the vertical component of the motion vector
difference and then (ii) decoding second grouped data that
includes the suffix data of the horizontal component of the
motion vector difference and the suffix data of the vertical
component of the motion vector difference.
Based on our review of the George reference, we agree with the
Examiner's findings and explanation with respect to each of the disputed
limitations discussed above (see Ans. 2-5 (citing George Fig. 16, 54:7-55:8,
72: 13-37)). In particular, we agree with the Examiner's findings regarding
George's disclosure of binarization of the horizontal and vertical
components within a first interval and a second interval of the domain of the
horizontal and vertical components as teaching the recited decoding on first
and second grouped data (Ans. 16). We further agree with the Examiner that
"George teaches 'decoding first grouped data' and then 'decoding second
grouped data"' because "George teaches a 'first interval' and 'second
interval', the 'first interval' is interpreted as being earlier in time than the
'second interval"' (Ans. 16-17). Moreover, Appellants do not identify any
basis in George to support their contentions, other than presenting
conclusory statements addressed above. Thus, Appellants' conclusory
contentions amounts to unsupported attorney argument, which is entitled to
little probative value. See In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir.
1997).
We also observe that, for the first time in the Reply Brief, Appellants
Contend that George, which claims priority to (i) US Provisional
Application No. 61/497,794 filed on June 16, 2011 and (ii) US Provisional
Application No. 61/508,506 filed on July 15, 2011, "is only entitled to the
benefit of the filing date of the above-noted provisional applications if the
4
Appeal2016-003250
Application 14/041,043
above-noted prov1s10nal applications properly support the subject matter
relied upon in the rejection of the claims" (Reply Br. 3). Appellants further
assert that US Provisional Application No. 61/497,794, which is the basis for
George's qualification as prior art,
(Id.).
fails to provide support for the "first interval" and the "second
interval" taught on page 72, lines 13-37 of George related to
horizontal and vertical components of motion vector
differences, which are relied upon by the Examiner as
respectively corresponding [to] the "first grouped data" and the
"second grouped data"
This argument is entitled to no consideration because it was not
presented for the first time in the opening brief, and Appellants have not
shown good cause why it should be considered, as required by our
procedural rule. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.4l(b)(2) (2012); accord Ex parte
Borden, 93 USPQ2d 1473, 1473-74 (BPAI 2010) (informative opinion)
(absent a showing of good cause, the Board is not required to address an
argument newly presented in the reply brief that could have been presented
in the principal brief on appeal).
For the above-stated reasons, we are not persuaded by Appellants'
arguments that the Examiner erred in finding George teaches or suggests the
disputed features of claim 20. We therefore sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
rejection of independent claim 20, other independent claims 23 and 24, as
well as dependent claims 25-30, which are not argued separately (see App.
Br. 7).
DECISION
We affirm the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 20 and 23-30.
5
Appeal2016-003250
Application 14/041,043
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
6