Ex Parte Shimada et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Oct 29, 2008

09210775 (B.P.A.I. Oct. 29, 2008)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte TOSHIAKI SHIMADA,
HIDEO OHIRA and KENICHI ASANO
____________

Appeal 2007-3664
Application 09/210,775
Technology Center 2800
____________

Decided: October 29, 2008
____________

Before KENNETH W. HAIRSTON, MAHSHID D. SAADAT
and KEVIN F. TURNER, Administrative Patent Judges.

HAIRSTON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a final rejection of
claims 1 to 14. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We will sustain the obviousness rejection.
Appellants have invented a moving picture encoding system that
includes an encoding control means that encodes each picture in a sequence
Appeal 2007-3664
Application 09/210,775

2
of moving pictures formed in a unit group. When the unit group of moving
pictures includes a plurality of different types of pictures that require
encoding by different encoding methods, the encoding control means sets a
target quantizer step size that is used to encode each of the different types of
pictures included in the unit group. A ratio among the target quantizer step
sizes that are set for the different picture types is predetermined. The control
operation performed by the encoding control means is not totally dependent
on an allocation of quantity of a target amount of codes based on a global
complexity measure for each of the pictures, but is performed in according
with features of the sequence of moving pictures (Fig. 1; Spec. 9 to 12, 18,
19, and 42 to 44).
Claim 1 is the only independent claim on appeal, and it reads as
follows:
1. A moving picture encoding system for encoding each picture
included in a sequence of moving pictures in units of a unit group comprised
of a plurality of pictures including said each picture, said system comprising:
encoding control means for, when said unit group includes a plurality
of different types of pictures which are to be encoded with different
encoding methods, setting a target quantizer step size used to encode each of
the different types of pictures included in said unit group, and for performing
a control operation to generate and furnish a quantizer step size so that a
ratio among the target quantizer step sizes set for the different picture types
is a predetermined one, said control operation not being totally depending on
the allocation of quantity of the target amount of codes based on the global
Appeal 2007-3664
Application 09/210,775

3
complexity measure for each of the picture, but in accordance with features
of the sequence of moving pictures; and
encoding means for encoding said each picture included in said
sequence of moving pictures including said each picture using said quantizer
step size furnished by said encoding control means and using either said
each picture or prediction from a past intra-coded image and/or a predictive
coded picture.
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Odaka US 5,317,397 May 31, 1994
Lee US 5,592,226 Jan. 7, 1997
The Examiner rejected claims 1 to 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based
upon the teachings of Odaka and Lee.

ISSUE
Appellants contend inter alia that the applied references lack a
teaching of an encoding control operation that is performed in accordance
with features of the sequence of moving pictures (Br. 7, 13, and 14). Thus,
the issue before us is whether or not the applied references teach or would
have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art the claimed feature of an
encoding control operation being performed in accordance with features of
the sequence of moving pictures?

Appeal 2007-3664
Application 09/210,775

4
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. As seen in Figure 1 of Appellants’ drawing, the claimed encoding
control operation is performed by the encoding control unit 14, and the
encoding is performed by the encoding unit 6.
2. The Examiner has made findings that Odaka describes all of the
moving picture encoding system with the exception of the control operation
of the encoding control means being performed “‘in accordance with
features of the sequence of moving pictures’” (Ans. 3, 4, and 7).
3. The Appellants have not challenged the Examiner’s findings in
finding of fact number 2 (Br. 7 and 15).
4. Odaka describes a moving picture encoding system (Fig. 17) for
encoding each picture included in a sequence of moving pictures of a unit
group comprised of a plurality of pictures (col. 15, ll. 1 to 34). The system
includes an encoding control means 717 that sets a target quantizer step size
used to encode each of the different types of pictures (i.e., I, P, and B)
included in a group of pictures (GOP) (col. 15, ll. 35 to 48). The encoding
control means 717 generates and furnishes a quantizer step size so that a
ratio among the target quantizer step sizes set for the different picture types
is a predetermined one (col. 15, ll. 48 to 53). As acknowledged by
Appellants in findings of fact 2 and 3, the encoding control means 717 in
Odaka is not “totally depending on the allocation of quantity of the target
amount of codes based on the global complexity measure for each of the
picture.” (Br. 8)
5. Appellants repeat the phrase “feature of the sequence of moving
pictures” throughout the disclosure, but do not give specific examples of
Appeal 2007-3664
Application 09/210,775

5
what is considered a “feature” or “features” of the sequence of moving
pictures (Spec. 9 to 11, 33, 39, 41, and 42). One feature of the sequence of
moving pictures may be the amount of motion between pictures (Spec. 11,
and 42 to 44).
6. Odaka is concerned with the amount of motion between pictures
(col. 14, ll. 13 to 63).
7. Lee was cited by the Examiner for a teaching of determining
distances between frames and motion between frames (col. 19, ll. 48 to 61)
in a group of pictures (GOP) (col. 20, l. 39 to col. 21, l. 52) “to adapt to the
changing scene complexity found within a sequence of moving pictures
(i[.]e. group of pictures) to be encoded (col. 35, lines 20-22)” (Ans. 7 and 8).

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
The Examiner bears the initial burden of presenting a prima facie case
of obviousness. In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992). If that
burden is met, then the burden shifts to the Appellants to overcome the
prima facie case with argument and/or evidence. See Id.
The Examiner’s articulated reasoning in the rejection must possess a
rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness. In re
Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006).
During ex parte prosecution, claims must be interpreted as broadly as
their terms reasonably allow since Applicants have the power during the
administrative process to amend the claims to avoid the prior art. In re Zletz,
893 F.2d 319, 322 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
Appeal 2007-3664
Application 09/210,775

6
“An obviousness determination is not the result of a rigid formula
disassociated from the consideration of the facts of a case.” Leapfrog
Enterprises Inc. v. Fisher-Price Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1161 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
The test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of the
references would have suggested to the artisan. Accordingly, one can not
show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the
rejection is based on a combination of references. In re Keller, 642 F.2d
413, 425 (CCPA 1981).

ANALYSIS
For all of the reasons expressed by the Examiner (Ans. 3 to 10), and
for the additional reasons set forth infra, we agree with the Examiner that the
claim 1 moving picture encoding system is either taught by or would have
been suggested by the applied references.
We agree with the Examiner’s conclusions that Odaka discloses the
system structure set forth in claim 1, and that Odaka never specifically states
that the control operation of the encoding control means 717 is in
accordance with features of the sequence of moving pictures (Ans. 4)
(Findings of Fact 2 to 4). Notwithstanding the Examiner’s findings, when
the claim is given its broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with
Appellants’ disclosure, we find that the motion between frames in Odaka is a
specific recitation of a “feature” of the sequence of moving pictures
(Findings of Fact 5 and 6). In re Zletz, 893 F.2d at 322 (Fed. Cir. 1989). As
indicated supra, a “feature” of the sequence of moving pictures in Lee is
also motion between frames (Finding of Fact 7). Thus, we agree with the
Appeal 2007-3664
Application 09/210,775

7
Examiner that it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan based upon
the teachings of the applied references for the encoding control means in
Odaka to operate “in accordance with features of the sequence of moving
pictures” as set forth in claim 1 on appeal (Ans. 5, 8, and 9).
Appellants’ arguments (Br. 13 and 14) concerning the shortcomings in
the teachings of Lee are not convincing of the nonobviousness of the
claimed invention set forth in claim 1 because one can not show
nonobviousness by attacking references individually when the rejection is
based on a combination of references. In re Keller, 642 F.2d at 425 (CCPA
1981).
Appellants’ arguments concerning lack of motivation and
impermissible hindsight are without merit in view of the teachings of the
applied references (Br. 14 to 17).
Appellants have not presented patentability arguments for dependent
claims 2 to 14 apart from those presented for independent claim 1.
In view of the teachings of the applied references noted supra,
Appellants’ arguments are not convincing of the nonobviousness of the
claimed invention since the skilled artisan is presumed to possess the skill to
appreciate that the applied references are both concerned with the same
“feature” of the sequence of moving pictures. Leapfrog Enterprises Inc. v.
Fisher-Price Inc., 485 F.3d at 1161 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
In summary, Appellants’ arguments throughout the brief do not
convince us of any error in the Examiner’s positions in the rejections. In re
Oetiker, 977 F.2d at 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992). The Examiner’s rationale for
combining the teachings of the references involves nothing more than
Appeal 2007-3664
Application 09/210,775

8
common knowledge and common sense in the art. In re Kahn, 441 F.3d at
988 (Fed. Cir. 2006).

CONCLUSION OF LAW
The Examiner has established the obviousness of claims 1 to 14.

ORDER
The obviousness rejection of claims 1 to 14 is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

KIS

BIRCH STEWART KOLASCH & BIRCH
P. O. BOX 747
FALLS CHURCH, VA 22040-0747