Ex Parte Sato

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 24, 2019

13264320 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jan. 24, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/264,320 10/13/2011 Kazushi Sato
142241 7590 01/25/2019
Paratus Law Group, PLLC
1765 Greensboro Station Place
Suite 320
Tysons Corner, VA 22102
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.
1946-0292 9657
EXAMINER
BRUMFIELD, SHANIKA M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2487
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/25/2019 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte KAZUSHI SATO 1
Appeal 2018-005768
Application 13/264,320
Technology Center 2400
Before JASON V. MORGAN, JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, and
DAVID J. CUTITTA II, Administrative Patent Judges.
CUTITT A, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection
of claims 19--24, 26-32, and 34--38, all the pending claims in the present
application. See Appeal Br. 2. We have jurisdiction over the appeal under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 Appellant names Sony Corporation as the real party in interest. See
Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2018-005768
Application 13/264,320
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Invention
Appellant indicates the invention relates to "image processing ...
[that] enable[s] encoding efficiency in intra prediction to be improved."
Spec., Abstract. 2
Exemplary Claim
Claims 19, 26, 27, 34, 35, and 36 are independent claims. Claim 19 is
exemplary and is reproduced below with limitations at issue emphasized:
19. An image processing device comprising:
a phase shift unit configured to select, in accordance
with a direction of an intra prediction mode, whether or not to
horizontally shift a phase of an upper adjacent pixel adjacent to
an intra prediction block as a reference pixel of intra prediction
according to a shift amount corresponding to the direction of
the intra prediction mode;
a prediction image generating unit configured to perform
the intra prediction using the upper adjacent pixel as the
reference pixel and to generate a prediction image of the intra
prediction block; and
an encoding unit configured to encode the intra
prediction block using the prediction image generated by the
prediction image generating unit,
wherein an interpolated pixel is generated as the
reference pixel of intra prediction and the interpolated pixel
falls between the upper adjacent pixel and another upper
adjacent pixel that is horizontally adjacent to the upper adjacent
2 This Decision refers to: (1) Appellant's Specification ("Spec.") filed
October 13, 2011; (2) the Final Office Action ("Final Act.") mailed July 15,
2016; (3) the Appeal Brief ("Appeal Br.") filed March 10, 2017; (4) the
Examiner's Answer ("Ans.") mailed March 12, 2018; and (5) the Reply
Brief ("Reply Br.") filed May 14, 2018.
2
Appeal 2018-005768
Application 13/264,320
pixel in a condition that the phase shift unit selects to
horizontally shift the phase of the upper pixel adjacent to the
intra prediction block.
REFERENCES AND REJECTIONS
Claims 19--22, 26-30, and 34--36 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ I03(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Drugeon et al., High
Precision Edge Prediction for Intra Coding, ICIP, 15th IEEE International
Conference on Image Processing ICIP, pp. 1620-23 (2008) ("Drugeon") in
view of Zhou et al., An Interpolation Method by Prediction the Direction of
Pixel Texture Changing Trend/or H264/AVC Intra Prediction, Second
International Symposium on Intelligent Information Technology Application
IIT A, Vol. 1, IEEE, pp. 884--88, (2008) ("Zhou"). Final Act. 4--14.
Claims 23, 24, 31, 32, 37, and 38 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ I03(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Drugeon, Zhou, and
Thoreau et al. (WO 2007 /093629 Al; pub. Aug. 23, 2007) ("Thoreau").
Final Act. 14--20.
Our review in this appeal is limited only to the above rejections and
the issues raised by Appellant. Arguments not made are waived. See
37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv) (2016).
ANALYSIS
We refer to, rely on, and adopt the Examiner's findings and
conclusions, insofar as they relate to issues raised in this appeal, as set forth
in the Office Action and Answer. See Final Act; 3-8; Ans. 2-3. Our
discussion here will be limited to the following points of emphasis.
3
Appeal 2018-005768
Application 13/264,320
Issue: Does the Examiner err in finding the combination of Zhou and
Drugeon teaches or suggests
a phase shift unit configured to select, in accordance with a
direction of an intra prediction mode, whether or not to
horizontally shift a phase of an upper adjacent pixel adjacent to
an intra prediction block as a reference pixel of intra prediction
according to a shift amount corresponding to the direction of
the intra prediction mode,
as recited in independent claim 19?
Appellant disputes the Examiner's factual findings. Appellant argues
that "Drugeon does not at all consider the intra prediction mode in making a
determination to select whether or not an adjacent pixel is to be linearly
interpolated, because [i]n Drugeon, the linear prediction is always made
such that the prediction result is calculated based on the angle a." Appeal
Br. 14; see Reply Br. 4--5. Appellant further argues "Drugeon is also silent
as to any 'shift amount' corresponding to the direction of the intra prediction
mode, for which a phase of an adjacent pixel is selected to be shifted in
accordance with the direction of the intra prediction mode."
We find these arguments unpersuasive because the Examiner's
findings are supported by a preponderance of the evidence. The Examiner
finds "Drugeon directly teaches that the system chooses which adjacent
pixels are to be horizontally interpolated according to the intra prediction
mode" and "[t]hese selected adjacent pixels are in accordance with a
direction of the intra prediction mode." Ans. 2, 3 (citing Drugeon § 3, pgs.
1621-22). The Examiner further finds "Drugeon teaches that this horizontal
phase shift is done according to a shift amount corresponding to the
direction of the intra prediction mode ... [and] [t]here, Drugeon teaches
determining a shift amount based on the direction of the intra prediction
4
Appeal 2018-005768
Application 13/264,320
mode." Ans. 2-3 (citing Drugeon § 3, pgs. 1621-22). That is, the Examiner
finds, and we agree, that Drugeon's selection of surrounding pixels a and b
for linear interpolation along an X coordinate is performed in accordance
with a direction of an intraprediction mode. See Ans. 2-3. Moreover, any
interpolation amount along the X-axis of the pixels in Drugeon is sufficient
to suggest Appellant's broad recitation of "a shift amount." Appellant's
arguments, thus, fail to establish persuasively that the Examiner's factual
findings from Drugeon are erroneous.
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of
claim 19. We also sustain, for similar reasons, the Examiner's§ 103(a)
rejections of independent claims 26, 27, 34, 35, and 36, which are not argued
separately from independent claim 19. See Appeal Br. 18. Dependent
claims 20-24, 28-32, 37, and 38 are not argued separately, or are nominally
argued separately, and fall with their respective independent claims. Id.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's§ 103(a) rejections of claims 19-24, 26-32,
and 34--38.
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
5