Ex Parte Sasai et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 10, 2017

13976637 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 10, 2017)

United States Patent and Trademark Office
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
13/976,637 06/27/2013 Hisao Sasai 2013-0973A 8980
125044 7590 08/14/2017
Wenderoth, Lind & Ponack, L.L.P.
1030 15th Street, NW, Suite 400 East
Washington, DC 20005
EXAMINER
AGHEVLI, REZA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2485
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/14/2017 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 HISAO SASAI, TAKAHIRO NISHI,
YOUJI SHIBAHARA, and TOSHIYASU SUGIO
Appeal 2017-004162
Application 13/976,637
Technology Center 2400
Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, NORMAN H. BEAMER, and
ADAM J. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 5—8, 10, 12, and 13, which constitute all the claims
pending in this application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Appeal 2017-004162
Application 13/976,637
THE INVENTION
Appellants’ claimed invention is directed to an image coding and
decoding method that includes “segmenting a block including coefficients of
frequency components, into groups corresponding to frequency ranges based
on types of the coefficients, and determining a context corresponding to each
of the groups” (Abstract, Title).
Independent claim 5, reproduced below, is representative of the
subject matter on appeal:
5. An image decoding method for decoding coded
image data on a block-by-block basis, the image decoding
method comprising:
segmenting a block including a current signal to be
decoded that is part of the coded image data, into groups
corresponding to a frequency component range according
to a type of the current signal, and determining a context
corresponding to each of the groups;
performing binary arithmetic decoding on the
current signal according to a probability information item
corresponding to the context, to generate binarized
coefficients, the context being corresponding to the group
having the current signal; and
updating, for each of probability information items,
the probability information item corresponding to the
context, based on the coefficient included in the group
corresponding to the context,
wherein in the segmenting, the block is segmented
into the groups with various numbers of coefficients, and
wherein, for a first block that is smaller than a
second block, a total number of coefficients in each of the
groups of the first block is less than a total number of
2
Appeal 2017-004162
Application 13/976,637
coefficients in each of the corresponding groups of the
second block.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Kobayashi US 7,251,371 B2 July 31, 2007
Lee US 2007/0237240 A1 Oct. 11, 2007
Karczewicz US 2009/0175332 A1 July 9,2009
THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner made the following rejections:
Claims 5—7, 10, 12, and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Kobayashi and Lee. Final Act. 4.
Claim 8 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Kobayashi, Lee, and Karczewicz. Final Act. 9.
ISSUE
The pivotal issue is whether the Examiner erred in finding the
combination of Kobayashi and Lee teaches or suggests “for a first block that
is smaller than a second block, a total number of coefficients in each of the
groups of the first block is less than a total number of coefficients in each of
the corresponding groups of the second block,” as recited in claim 5.
ANALYSIS
We adopt the Examiner’s findings in the Answer, Advisory Action,
and Final Action and we add the following primarily for emphasis. We note
3
Appeal 2017-004162
Application 13/976,637
that if Appellants failed to present arguments on a particular rejection, we
will not unilaterally review those uncontested aspects of the rejection. See
Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential); Hyatt v.
Dudas, 551 F.3d 1307, 1313—14 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (The Board may treat
arguments Appellants failed to make for a given ground of rejection as
waived).
Appellants argue the Examiner erred because “while it is disclosed
that a 4x4 block is divided into frequency groups [in solution 3 of Lee], there
is absolutely no disclosure or suggestion in Lee regarding the use of other
block sizes despite the mention of the use of the other block sizes in solution
1 and solution 2” (App. Br. 6). Particularly, Appellants contend that
the rejection of claim 5 is based purely on a hypothetical
example that has been fabricated by the Examiner of the
manner in which an 8 x 8 block could be divided into a plurality
of frequency groups. This hypothetical example fabricated by
the Examiner, however, is clearly based on Appellant’s own
disclosure (e.g., see Fig. 9B of the present application)
(App. Br. 7).
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments. The Examiner finds,
and we agree, that in Lee “FIG. 6 shows only one 4x4 block” but upon
performing the “extension of the same procedure shown in FIG. 6 to an 8x8
block” by “drawing two arrow lines (similar to arrow lines in FIG. 6),” the
resulting number of coefficients teaches Appellants’ claimed limitation.
Final Act. 5—6, citing Lee Figs. 5—6,167. Here, Lee teaches “dividing the
4x4 block into three groups” corresponding to a “low frequency area,”
“normal frequency area,” and “high frequency area” (Lee 1 67) with
grouping boundaries along the diagonals, because the diagonal elements
4
Appeal 2017-004162
Application 13/976,637
have “identical frequency” (Lee 1 66, describing Fig. 5). The Examiner’s
extension to 8x8 blocks can similarly be seen when Lee’s grouping method
is applied to the 2x2 block corresponding to elements Cn, Cn, C21, and C22
in Figure 6, and two groups are formed. One skilled in the art would
consider groupings at different block sizes, particularly when Lee explicitly
teaches that
[s]ince the coefficients have similar features for each frequency,
it may be more efficient to divide and group the coefficients for
each frequency location and then apply a context adaptive
binary arithmetic coding
(Lee 1 65), and as admitted by Appellants, Lee teaches a related method in
which “a 4x4 or an 8x8 DCT block and a 16x16 macroblock size are used”
(App. Br. 4, citing Lee 148). The Examiner’s determination then follows as
a “predictable use of prior art elements according to their established
functions” (KSR Intern. Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 389, 417 (2007)), and
is not a “fabrication” based upon Appellants’ disclosure.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent
claim 5, and independent claim 10 commensurate in scope, and claims 6—8
and 13 not separately argued. See App. Br. 8—9.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in finding the combination of Kobayashi
and Lee teaches or suggests “for a first block that is smaller than a second
block, a total number of coefficients in each of the groups of the first block
is less than a total number of coefficients in each of the corresponding
groups of the second block,” as recited in claim 5.
5
Appeal 2017-004162
Application 13/976,637
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 5—8, 10, 12, and 13 is
affirmed.
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