Ex Parte Schweiger et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 31, 2016

12926383 (P.T.A.B. May. 31, 2016)

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.
12/926,383 11/12/2010 Florian Schweiger 10745/378 7072
79510 7590 06/01/2016
BGL/NTT DoCoMo, Inc
P.O. Box 10395
Chicago, IL 60610
EXAMINER
LI, TRACY Y
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2487
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/01/2016 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 FLORIAN SCHWEIGER, MICHAEL EICHHORN,
GEORG SCHROTH, ECKEHARD STEINBACH,
MICHAEL FAHRMAIR, and WOLFGANG KELLERER
____________________

Appeal 2014-008129
Application 12/926,3831
Technology Center 2400
____________________

Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, NORMAN H. BEAMER, and
JOHN D. HAMANN, Administrative Patent Judges.

HAMANN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants file this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1–5 and 7–14. Claim 6 was canceled.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.

THE CLAIMED INVENTION
Appellants’ claimed invention relates to determining the temporal
relationship between video sequences, including by matching entropy related
parameters associated with each of the video sequences. See Abstract.

1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is NTT DOCOMO, Inc.
App. Br. 2.
Appeal 2014-008129
Application 12/926,383

2
Claim 1 is illustrative of the subject matter of the appeal and is
reproduced below with emphasis added to highlight disputed limitations.
1. A computer-implemented method for determining the
temporal relationship between a first video sequence and a
second video sequence, said method comprising:
obtaining from said first video sequence a first parameter
such that the evolvement of said first parameter over time
corresponds to the change of the entropy of said first video
sequence over time;
obtaining from said second video sequence a second
parameter such that the evolvement of said second parameter
over time corresponds to the change of the entropy of said
second video sequence over time,
matching the evolvement of said first parameter over
time to the evolvement of said second parameter over time,
wherein said matching of said evolvement of said first
and said second parameter over time is performed by
calculating a cross-correlation function between the
evolvement of said first parameter over time with the
evolvement of said second parameter over time to thereby
determine the temporal relationship between the two video
sequences.

REJECTIONS ON APPEAL
(1) The Examiner rejected claims 1, 2, 8, and 9 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Suzuki et al. (US 6,389,173 B1; May 14,
2002) (hereinafter “Suzuki”).
(2) The Examiner rejected claims 3, 10, and 14 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Suzuki and
Yamazaki et al. (US 6,704,455 B1; Mar. 9, 2004).
(3) The Examiner rejected claims 4 and 11 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Suzuki and Tzirkel-
Hancock et al. (US 7,062,435 B2; June 13, 2006).
Appeal 2014-008129
Application 12/926,383

3
(4) The Examiner rejected claims 5 and 12 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Suzuki and Ahiska
et al. (US 8,139,896 B1; Mar. 20, 2012).
(5) The Examiner rejected claims 7 and 13 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Suzuki and Kim et
al. (US 2010/0329334 A1; Dec. 30, 2010).

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
contentions that the Examiner erred. In reaching our decision, we consider
all evidence presented and all arguments made by Appellants.
We disagree with Appellants’ arguments and we incorporate herein
and adopt as our own for these claims: (1) the findings, conclusions, and
reasons set forth by the Examiner in the April 23, 2013 Final Office Action
(Final Act. 2–8), (2) the findings, conclusions, and reasons set forth by the
Examiner in the August 1, 2013 Advisory Action (Adv. Act. 2), and (3) the
reasons, conclusions, and rebuttals set forth in the Examiner’s Answer (Ans.
2–8). We incorporate such findings, conclusions, reasons, and rebuttals
herein by reference unless otherwise noted. We, however, highlight and
address specific findings and arguments below for emphasis.
(1) Entropy related parameters
Appellants contend Suzuki fails to disclose a “first parameter such
that the evolvement of said first parameter over time corresponds to the
change of the entropy of said first video sequence over time” and “a second
parameter such that the evolvement of said second parameter over time
corresponds to the change of the entropy of said second video sequence over
Appeal 2014-008129
Application 12/926,383

4
time,” as recited in claim 1. See App. Br. 13. Specifically, Appellants argue
the Examiner cited portions of Suzuki relate to picture size parameters (e.g.,
FSZ_B and FSZ_E) which “have nothing to do with entropy of the pictures.”
See App. Br. 12–13 (citing Suzuki 18:43–44, 20:31–56, 25:65–26:4).
The Examiner finds Suzuki discloses these disputed limitations. See
Ans. 7. The Examiner first finds Suzuki discloses pictures, and
corresponding video object planes (VOPs), with a lower layer picture having
its size denoted as FSZ_B and an upper layer picture having its size denoted
as FSZ_E. See Ans. 7 (citing Suzuki Figs. 15, 22, 23; 19:23–39, 22:23–24).
The Examiner then finds Suzuki discloses the VOPs are (i) encoded using a
variable length coding (“VLC”) using “a pre-set table . . . for variable length
encoding/decoding [which] is modified in keeping with changes in size of a
picture” and (ii) the sizes of the VOPs are changing with time. See Ans. 7
(citing Suzuki Figs. 15, 22, 23; 14:43–53, 19:23–39, 22:23–24). The
Examiner thus concludes picture size is related to the variable length coding
and, thus, FSZ_B and FSZ_E are entropy related parameters in accordance
with claim 1. See Ans. 7. The Examiner also finds VLC is an entropy
compression technique well-known to one of the ordinary skill in the art.
See id.; see also Reply Br. 3 (noting that VLC is a procedure for entropy
coding).
We are not apprised by Appellants of any error in the Examiner’s
findings, conclusions, and reasoning. We agree with the Examiner Suzuki
discloses the disputed limitations, including disclosing FSZ_B and FSZ_E
are entropy related parameters in accordance with claim 1. See Suzuki Figs.
15, 22, 23; 14:43–53, 19:23–39, 22:23–24.
Appeal 2014-008129
Application 12/926,383

5
(2) Frame size as an exemplary entropy related parameter
Appellants argue Suzuki fails to disclose that the first and second
entropy related parameters are, inter alia, frame sizes for encoding the
signals in accordance with claim 2. See App. Br. 13. Appellants argue
Suzuki instead discloses “FSZ_B and FSZ_E . . . indicate the size of the
picture F2 to be projected on the background picture Fl, or how large or how
small the picture F2 should be shown in the picture F1.” App. Br. 13–14.
The Examiner finds Suzuki discloses this disputed limitation. See
Ans. 8. Specifically, the Examiner finds Suzuki discloses:
[T]he size parameter FSZ_B of the lower layer is set so that the
size of the enlarged picture obtained from enlarging the frame
of the lower layer by multiplying factor FR will be coincident
with the initial frame size, that means the size parameter FSZ_B
is used in setting the enlarged frame of lower layer to be
coincident with the original frame size.
Ans. 8 (citing Suzuki 20:44–56); see also Final Act. 5 (citing Suzuki 20:57–
21:5).
We are not apprised by Appellants of any error in the Examiner’s
findings, conclusions, and reasoning. We agree with the Examiner Suzuki
discloses the disputed limitations. See Suzuki 20:44–21:5 (disclosing, inter
alia, setting FSZ_B and FSZ_E relating to frame size).
Appeal 2014-008129
Application 12/926,383

6
(3) Cross correlation
Appellants argue Suzuki fails to disclose matching the first and
second parameters by “calculating a cross-correlation function between the
evolvement of said first parameter over time with the evolvement of said
second parameter over time to thereby determine the temporal relationship
between the two video sequences,” as recited in claim 1. Reply Br. 3–4.2
Appellants argue that for VLC two codes assigned to two characters are
never compared to each other to determine matching thereof, nor are two
codes assigned to two characters ever compared by calculating a cross-
correlation between them. See id. Appellants assert instead the purpose of
variable length coding is “to compress a series of information pieces” and
“[t]he resulting codes are never compared for matching.” See Reply Br. 3–4.
The Examiner finds Suzuki discloses the disputed limitation. See
Adv. Act. 2 (citing Suzuki Figs. 22, 23; 22:16–32 (disclosing “FPOS_B,
FPOS_E, the positions of lower layer VOP and upper layer VOP
respectively are the changing time-to-time parameters between which the
cross correlation is calculated”); Suzuki Fig. 44, 36:16–50 (disclosing
“calculating or estimating motion vectors for forward and backward
prediction that defines temporal reference or cross correlation between lower

2 Appellants argue the Examiner raised a new ground of rejection in the
Answer. See Reply 2–3 (citing Ans. 8). We disagree because the Final
Action cites to, inter alia, the size parameters changing with time, which
corresponds to change of entropy of the sequences and VLC entropic
encoding. See Final Act. 3–4 (citing Suzuki Figs. 22, 23, 29–31; 14:43–53,
18:29–36, 21:27–31, 22:16–22) — the Examiner providing additional
examples of entropy coding (e.g., Huffman coding) does not change the
thrust of the rejection.
Appeal 2014-008129
Application 12/926,383

7
layer and upper layer”)); see also Final Act. 4 (citing Suzuki 20:22–21:5;
21:32–44).
We are not apprised by Appellants of any error in the Examiner’s
findings, conclusions, and reasoning. Appellants do not provide evidence to
support their assertions regarding VLC and whether parameters encoded
using VLC can be compared by calculating a cross-correlation between
them. See In re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1405 (CCPA 1974) (“Attorney’s
argument in a brief cannot take the place of evidence.”). Moreover,
Appellants fail to address substantively the Examiner cited portions of
Suzuki for this disputed limitation. See Reply Br. 4 (asserting merely, other
than additional attorney argument, “the Examiner fails to determine whether
the codes devised by variable length coding satisfy the claim limitations”);
see also 37 C.F.R. § 412.37(c)(1)(iv); In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357
(Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[W]e hold that the Board reasonably interpreted Rule
41.37 to require more substantive arguments in an appeal brief than a mere
recitation of the claim elements and a naked assertion that the corresponding
elements were not found in the prior art.”).

CONCLUSION
In accordance with our above findings, conclusions, and reasoning we
sustain the Examiner’s rejections of (i) claim 1, as well as claim 8 which
Appellants did not separately argue, (ii) claim 2, as well as claim 9 which
Appellants did not separately argue, and (iii) claims 3–5, 7, and 10–14 for
which Appellants did not separately argue the patentability. Accordingly,
we sustain the Examiner’s rejections of the claims on appeal.
Appeal 2014-008129
Application 12/926,383

8
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1–5 and 7–14.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED