Ex Parte Schwarz et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 25, 201612428151 (P.T.A.B. May. 25, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 12/428,151 0412212009 24131 7590 05/27/2016 LERNER GREENBERG STEMER LLP PO BOX 2480 HOLLYWOOD, FL 33022-2480 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Reiko Schwarz 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. S&ZFH030507C2 8350 EXAMINER PEREZ FUENTES, LUIS M ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2481 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/27/2016 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): boxoa@patentusa.com docket@patentusa.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte REIKO SCHWARZ, DETLEF MARPE, and THOMAS WIEGAND Appeal2014-000921 Application 12/428, 151 Technology Center 2400 Before STEPHEN C. SIU, DAVID M. KOHUT, and ERIC B. CHEN, Administrative Patent Judges. KOHUT, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Final Rejection of claims 1-28. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). We AFFIRM-IN-PART. Appeal2014-000921 Application 12/428, 151 INVENTION The invention is directed to "coding transform coefficients in picture and/or video coders and decoders." Abstract. Claims 1 and 2 are representative of the invention and are reproduced below: 1. A method, performed in a processor, for coding transform coefficients wherein for blocks of (video) pictures containing transform coefficients being unequal to zero, a coding of transform coefficients takes place in such a way that, for each block, a significance map is coded, the significance map specifying the positions of transform coefficients being unequal to zero in the block in a scan order in a context-dependent way using contexts depending on the corresponding scan position of the transform coefficient considered, and subsequently, in a reverse scan order - starting with the last transform coefficient being unequal to zero within the block - the values (levels) of the transform coefficients being unequal to zero are coded. 2. The method according to claim 1, wherein when coding the significance map, each transform coefficient being unequal to zero in the scan order is characterized by a first one- bit symbol (SIG) serving to characterize transform coefficients being unequal to zero, i.e. each transform coefficient being unequal to zero including the last transform coefficient being unequal to zero in the scan order if it is different from the last transform coefficient of the block in the scan order, or excluding the last transform coefficient being unequal to zero in the scan order if it is the last transform coefficient of the block in the scan order, and the last transform coefficient being unequal to zero is characterized by a second one-bit symbol (LAST) indicating that the respective transform coefficient being unequal to zero is the last transform coefficient being unequal to zero in the scan order if it is different from the last transform coefficient of the block in the scan order. 2 Appeal2014-000921 Application 12/428, 151 Auyeung Creusere Said REFERENCES us 5,473,376 Dec. 5, 1995 US 6,466,698 Bl Oct. 15, 2002 US 7,190,840 B2 Mar. 13, 2007 REJECTIONS Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Said and Creusere. Final Act. 2; Ans. 5-10. Claims 19-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Said and Creusere and further in view of Auyeung. Final Act. 8; Ans. 10-13. Claims 1-19 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting. Final Act. 2; Ans. 4. 1 ISSUES Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Said and Creusere teaches or suggests, subsequent to coding/ decoding a significance map, respectively coding/decoding the values of transform coefficients being unequal to zero "in a reverse scan order - starting with the last transform 1 Although not before us on appeal, we note that claims 1-19 were rejected, in a Non-Final Office Action mailed April 25, 2012, on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-23 of U.S. Patent 7,702,013 B2, claims 1-19 of Application 12/428,154, and claims 1-19 of Application 12/428,157. Subsequent to the mailing of the April 25, 2012 Office Action, claims 20-28 were added by amendment, however the double patenting rejection was not updated to include these claims. Should there be further prosecution, we leave it to the Examiner to decide whether claims 20-28 should be included in the double patenting rejection of record. 3 Appeal2014-000921 Application 12/428, 151 coefficient being unequal to zero within the block," as recited in claim 1, and similarly recited in independent claims 10, 11, 12, and 19? Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Said and Creusere teaches or suggests coding/ decoding a significance map in "a context-dependent way using contexts depending on the corresponding scan position of the transform coefficient," as recited in independent claim 1 and similarly recited in independent claims 10, 11, 12, and 19? Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Said and Creusere teaches or suggests "a first one-bit symbol (SIG) serving to characterize transform coefficients being unequal to zero," as recited in dependent claim 2? ANALYSIS Independent Claims 1, 10, 11, 12, and 192 Claim 1 recites "subsequently, in a reverse scan order - starting with the last transform coefficient being unequal to zero within the block - the values (levels) of the transform coefficients being unequal to zero are coded." The Examiner finds Said teaches the claimed reverse scan order, as required by the claim. See Final Act. 3. Appellants disagree because Appellants contend that Said only codes the last non-zero coefficient in each of the three scans and is therefore not the claimed reverse scan order. App. Br. 11. We disagree with Appellants. 2 With respect to independent claims 10, 11, 12, and 19, Appellants' arguments present the same dispositive issue as independent claim 1. Except for our ultimate decision, these claims are not discussed further herein. 4 Appeal2014-000921 Application 12/428, 151 The Examiner finds that Said teaches processing the coefficients in the scan in a reverse order "from the last non-zero coefficient in the scan to the first." Final Act. 3; see also Said, col. 3, 11. 8-10. We agree with the Examiner's reasoning and do not find Appellants' argument to be persuasive because processing the last non-zero coefficient to the first is processing more than just the last non-zero coefficient. Appellants also argue that because Said specifies the position of the last non-zero coefficient in the first scan from DC to high frequency, Said does not teach "scan order" and "reverse scan order," as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 12. This argument is unpersuasive because claim 1 places no limitation on the scan order in regard to DC or high frequency. Furthermore, Said, column 3 lines 8-10, teaches "[t]hen, the coefficients in the scan are processed (322) in reverse order." (Emphasis added). While Said teaches three scans (See App. Br. 11; Said fig. 2) "the scan" as stated in Said column 3 is a single scan. Thus, we are unpersuaded that the Examiner erred in finding the "reverse order" of the scan is "a reverse scan order" as recited in claim 1. See Final Act. 3. Appellants argue Said fails to teach the limitation "subsequently." App. Br. 13; Reply Br. 1-2. We disagree. The word "then" in Said column 3 line 8 indicates that coefficient processing occurs subsequently to the previous steps. See Final Act. 3; Said col. 3:8. Therefore we are unpersuaded of error in the Examiner's finding that Said column 3 teaches "subsequently" as recited in claim 1. See Final Act. 3. For the above reasons we are unpersuaded of error in the Examiner's finding that Said teaches "subsequently, in a reverse scan order - starting with the last transform coefficient being unequal to zero within the block - 5 Appeal2014-000921 Application 12/428, 151 the values (levels) of the transform coetlicients being unequal to zero are coded," as recited in claim 1. See Final Act. 3. Claim 1 also recites "for each block, a significance map is coded, the significance map specifying the positions of transform coefficients being unequal to zero in the block in a scan order in a context-dependent way using contexts depending on the corresponding scan position of the transform coefficient considered." Appellants argue that Said teaches a relative position dependency based on immediately preceding positions. See App. Br. 13; Reply 2. Paragraph 54 of Appellants' Specification recites a formula for a dependency based on a scan position("= i"). However, no claims recite this formula and we refrain from improperly importing limitations from Appellants' Specification into the claims. "[A]lthough the specification often describes very specific embodiments of the invention, we have repeatedly warned against confining the claims to those embodiments .... [C]laims may embrace different subject matter than is illustrated in the specific embodiments in the specification." Phillips v. A WH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en bane) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). Rather, "[i]t is the claims that measure the invention." SRI Int'! v. Matsushita Elec. Corp. of Am., 775 F.2d 1107, 1121 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (en bane) (citations omitted). Accordingly the claim language "contexts depending on the corresponding scan position" encompasses dependencies based on both absolute scan positions and relative scan positions. Therefore the context depending on the immediately preceding transform coefficient (a relative scan position) taught by Said column 2 lines 23-50, see App. Br. 13, 6 Appeal2014-000921 Application 12/428, 151 is within the scope of the claim limitation "contexts depending on the corresponding scan position," as recited by claim 1. Independent claims 10 and 11 contain claim limitations substantially similar to claim 1 discussed above. Independent claims 12 and 19 are similar to claim 1 except decoding instead of coding. Appellant's arguments regarding claim 19 are substantially identical to Appellant's arguments regarding claims 1, 10, 11, and 12. See App. Br. 15-21. Accordingly, the analysis is the same. For the above reasons we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 10, 11, 12 and 19. Dependent Claim 2, 7, 8, 13, and 26--28 Claim 2 recites "each transform coefficient being unequal to zero in the scan order is characterized by a first one-bit symbol (SIG) serving to characterize transform coefficients being unequal to zero." Claims 7, 13, and 26-28 contain limitations substantially similar to claim 2 and claim 8 depends from claim 7. Appellants argue that Said never even mentions a one-bit symbol (SIG). App. Br. 14. Additionally, Appellants argue that the Examiner does not indicate where the one-bit symbol (SIG) is taught in either Said or Creusere. App. Br. 14. We agree with Appellants. The Examiner cites to Said, Figures 2 and 3 to teach the disputed limitation. Final Act. 3. While Said's Figure 3 (318) teaches adding symbols to each non-zero coefficient, the Examiner has not established that Said teaches a "one-bit symbol." Instead, Said explicitly indicates values that are larger than one-bit. See Said, col. 3, 1. 24, and Table 1. The 7 Appeal2014-000921 Application 12/428, 151 Examiner has failed to show, and we do not find, that Said or Creusere teaches sending an undefined symbol from the target device. The additional references were not cited to teach or suggest this limitation and we will not engage in any inquiry as to whether the references cure the noted deficiency. As such, we cannot sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 2, 7, 8, 13, and 26-28. Dependent Claims 3--6, 9, 14--18, and 20--25 Appellants have not argued claims 3---6, 9, 14--18, and 20-25 separately or with any reasonable specificity. Accordingly we sustain the Examiner's rejection of dependent claims 3---6, 9, 14--18, and 20-25. See In re Nielson, 2 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1987). Belated Arguments Appellant argues for the first time in the Reply Brief that Creusere would not be combined with Said or Auyeung. Reply Br. 3. However, this argument is not based on any new arguments or grounds of rejection in the Examiner's Answer. See Final Act. 3; Ans. 15. Specifically, the Examiner's reliance on Creusere column 10 lines 35--47 was cited in the Final Action on page 3 and is therefore not new when restated in the Examiner's Answer on page 15 under item 4. As a result, Appellants have waived such untimely argument because Appellants have not shown any good cause for the belated presentation. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.41(b)(2). 8 Appeal2014-000921 Application 12/428, 151 CONCLUSION The Examiner did not err in finding that the combination Said and Creusere teaches or suggests "and subsequently, in a reverse scan order - starting with the last transform coefficient being unequal to zero within the block - the values (levels) of the transform coefficients being unequal to zero are coded[/decoded]," as recited in claim 1, and corresponding claims 10, 11, 12, and 19. The Examiner did not err in finding that the combination Said and Creusere teaches or suggests "a context-dependent way using contexts depending on the corresponding scan position of the transform coefficient," as recited in claim 1, and corresponding claims 10, 11, 12, and 19. The Examiner erred in finding that the combination Said and Creusere teaches or suggests "a first one-bit symbol (SIG) serving to characterize transform coefficients being unequal to zero," as recited in claim 2. SUMMARY The Examiner's decision to reject claims 1, 3---6, 9-12, and 14--25 is affirmed. The Examiner's decision to reject claims 2, 7, 8, 13, and 26-28 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)(l )(iv). AFFIRM-IN-PART 9 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation