Ex Parte Sievers

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 23, 2015

12906761 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 23, 2015)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte JOHN SIEVERS
____________________

Appeal 2012-009368
Application 12/906,761
Technology Center 2400
____________________

Before JOHNNY A. KUMAR, MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, and
JOHN P. PINKERTON, Administrative Patent Judges.

STRAUSS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2012-009368
Application 12/906,761
2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims
1–20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
THE INVENTION
The claims are directed to digital video encoding, including correction
of divergence or a reference block in a decoder while minimizing overhead
required to update the reference block. Abst. Claim 4, reproduced below, is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
4. A method of decoding a video signal comprising:
receiving a video signal representative of a scene, the video
signal comprising a plurality of macro blocks, wherein
one or more of the macroblocks is assigned to a first slice
group and the remaining macroblocks are assigned to one
or more other slice groups, and a map indicating what
macroblocks were assigned to the first slice group, the
map comprising a list of numbers, one for each coded
macroblock, specifying the slice group to which each
coded macroblock belongs;
decoding the one or more macroblocks assigned to the first
slice group as Intra encoded without referring to
macroblocks not assigned to the first slice group;
decoding the remaining macroblocks assigned to one or
more other slice groups; and
generating a frame of video from the decoded macro blocks.

REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Dixit
Kurobe
Gandhi
US 5,260,783
US 6,333,948 B1
US 6,842,484 B2
Nov. 9, 1993
Dec. 25, 2001
Jan. 11, 2005
Appeal 2012-009368
Application 12/906,761
3
Fukuda US 2003/0227972 A1 Dec. 11, 2003
International Telecommunication Union, “Recommendation
H.264: Advanced Video Coding For Generic Audiovisual
Services,” May 2003. (“H.264”)

REJECTIONS
1

The Examiner made the following rejections:
Claims 4–6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Dixit, Fukuda, and H.264. Ans. 5–9.
Claims 1–3 and 7–10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Dixit and Gandhi. Ans. 9–14.
Claims 11–13 and 16–19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Kurobe, Dixit, and Gandhi. Ans. 14–18.
Claims 14, 15, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Kurobe, Dixit, Gandhi, and H.264. Ans. 18.

APPELLANT’S CONTENTIONS
1. A slice group of macroblocks as required by claim 4 is a term of art
having a special meaning that is not disclosed by Dixit’s vertical strip of
macroblocks. App. Br. 10–11.
2. Dixit’s vertical-strip location subfield identifies a vertical strip to be Intra
refreshed, but does not identify a slice group to which each coded

1
Appellant argues the rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, and 11. Separate
patentability is not argued for claims 3, 5–10, and 12–20. Therefore, based
on Appellant’s arguments, we decide the appeal of claims 1, 9 and 10 based
on claim 1 alone, the appeal of claims 2, 3, 7, and 8 based on claim 2 alone,
the appeal of claims 4-6 based on claim 4 alone, and the appeal of claims
11–20 based on claim 11 alone. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(2011).

Appeal 2012-009368
Application 12/906,761
4
macroblock belongs as required by claim 4. Fukuda is similarly
deficient. App. Br. 11–12.
3. The combination of Dixit and Fukuda applied in rejecting claim 4 is
improper because modifying Dixit to include Fukuda’s implementation of
Intra refresh selection would require a re-design of Dixit. App. Br. 12.
4. Reliance on the H.264 standard for teaching slice groups does not cure
the deficiency of the combination to teach or suggest “receiving a video
signal . . . comprising . . . a map indicating what macroblocks were
assigned to the first slice group . . . specifying the slice group to which
each coded macroblock belongs [as required by claim 4.]” Id.
5. A slice group is a term of art which, as required by claim 1, neither Dixit
nor Gandhi teach or suggest. App. Br. 13.
6. Because Gandhi’s pseudo-random macroblock location arrays do not
involve slices and because Gandhi’s Intra refresh mechanism operates
differently, Gandhi does not teach or suggest a map indicating which
macroblocks are assigned to a first slice group as required by claim 1.
App. Br. 14.
7. Because Gandhi’s sequence of Intra refreshed macroblocks is pseudo-
random, it fails to “teach or suggest a ‘same pattern of Intra refresh
blocks’ that can be referenced by ‘a corresponding previously
transmitted map’ [as required by claim 1.]” App. Br. 15.
8. Because Kurobe’s group of blocks (GOB) are arranged in a grid-like
pattern, unlike slice groups which can comprise non-contiguous, non-
adjacent macro blocks, Kurobe’s GOB fails to teach or suggest the slices
of claim 11. App. Br. 18.
Appeal 2012-009368
Application 12/906,761
5
9. Kurobe’s grid-like pattern of GOBs fails to teach or suggest the map of
claim 11 “compris[ing] ‘a list of numbers, one for each coded
macroblock, specifying the slice group to which each coded macroblock
belongs’ that may be transmitted ‘only once at the start of
communication.’” App. Br. 19.
10. Kurobe’s RCOUNT value establishes a minimum refresh rate for a GOB
but “has nothing to do with the steps for ‘at least one subsequent picture
representative of scene’ as claimed [by claim 11.]” Id.

ISSUES ON APPEAL
Based on Appellant’s arguments in the Appeal Brief (App. Br. 10–20)
and Reply Brief (Reply Br. 5–8), the issues presented on appeal are:
Whether the Examiner erred in interpreting the (i) slice groups and (ii)
map of the disputed claims to include and be taught or suggest by the (i)
groupings of macroblocks and (ii) indicator of a particular group to which
each macroblock belongs, respectively, as disclosed by the applied prior art.
Whether the Examiner erred by combining the applied references in
concluding the rejected claims would have been obvious.
Whether the Examiner erred in finding, under a broad but reasonable
interpretation, the disputed limitations of claims 1, 2, 4, and 11 are taught or
suggested by the applied combinations of references.

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s
arguments the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellant’s
conclusions. We adopt as our own (1) the findings and reasons set forth by
Appeal 2012-009368
Application 12/906,761
6
the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken (Ans. 5–18) and
(2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer in
response to Appellant’s Appeal Brief (Ans. 19–30) and concur with the
conclusions reached by the Examiner. We highlight the following arguments
seriatim as they are presented in the Appeal Brief, pages 5–14.

Claim 4
Appellant argues “[a] ‘slice’ is a term of art that is not merely an
arbitrary collection of clocks, but rather a particular processing unit in
certain video encoding standards.” App. Br. 11. Appellant concludes that
Dixit’s intra-coded blocks are not a “slice group.” Id. The Examiner
responds by finding, although “the Dixit group of intra-coded blocks as
analogous to a claimed slice, the Final Rejection at page 6 referred to H.264
as teaching ‘slice groups’ according to the definition within the art.” Ans.
19. Appellant replies by arguing, although H.264 describes slices, because
Dixit and Fukuda do not operate on slices, “their operation, individually or
collectively, does not disclose the claimed ‘a map indicating what
macroblocks were assigned to the first slice group.” Reply Br. 5–6.
We are unpersuaded by Appellant’s argument. In particular, Appellant
argues neither Dixit nor Fukuda teach or suggest a “slice,” but fail to address
the Examiner’s finding the H.264 standard teaches “slice groups.” See Ans.
8–9, 19. Therefore Appellant’s contention 1 is unpersuasive of Examiner
error.
In connection with contention 2, Appellant argues Dixit’s vertical-strip
location subfield, although identifying the vertical strip to be Intra refreshed,
fails to specify the slice group to which each coded macroblock belongs.
Appeal 2012-009368
Application 12/906,761
7
App. Br. 11. The Examiner responds by finding, in Dixit’s vertical-strip
embodiment, each macroblock belongs to a vertical strip such that
identification of a particular vertical strip location identifies each
macroblock within that strip. Ans. 20, see also Ans. 24. The Examiner
concludes claim 4 only requires identification to which slice group (i.e.,
Dixit’s strip) each macroblock is assigned, not identification of the location
of each macroblock within a slice group. Id. The Examiner further finds
Fukuda teaches or suggests the specific map syntax required by claim 4, i.e.
a list of macroblock numbers. Ans. 7–8, 20.
We are unpersuaded by Appellant’s argument. Appellant’s
Specification discloses a “slice group map (Fig. 6A & 6B) is a way of
mapping macroblocks of a picture into slice groups.” Spec. ¶ 22. Absent
persuasive rebuttal evidence or argument, under a broad but reasonable
interpretation of a map consistent with the Specification, we find Dixit’s
identification of a particular vertical strip functions to map the constituent
macroblocks of the identified vertical strip by identifying macroblocks
belonging to the strip and thereby teaches or suggests the disputed map
limitation. See Ans. 7, 20. Furthermore, Fukuda teaches a map in the form
of a refresh table including image block numbers 0–98 thereby teaching or
suggesting the disputed map syntax, i.e., a list of numbers, one for each
coded macroblock, specifying the group (i.e., Fukuda’s importance level) to
which each coded macroblock belongs. See Ans. 7–8, 20–21. Because
H.264 discloses slice groups, we agree with the Examiner the combination
of Dixit, Fukuda, and H.264 teaches or suggests the disputed map, including
the claimed syntax and requirement that it specify the slice group to which
Appeal 2012-009368
Application 12/906,761
8
each coded macroblock belongs. Therefore, Appellant’s contention 2 is
unpersuasive of Examiner error.
In connection with contention 3, Appellant argues it would be
improper to combine Fukuda and Dixit because the combination would
require redesign of Dixit to accommodate Fukuda’s quantitative analysis in
determining which blocks should be replaced. App. Br. 11–12. The
Examiner responds by explaining “the test for obviousness is not whether
the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the
structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must
be expressly suggested in anyone or all of the references.” Ans. 21.
We agree with the Examiner. “It is well-established that a
determination of obviousness based on teachings from multiple references
does not require an actual, physical substitution of elements.” In re Mouttet,
686 F.3d 1322, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (citing In re Etter, 756 F.2d 852, 859
(Fed. Cir. 1985) (en banc)). “[I]t is not necessary that the inventions of the
references be physically combinable to render obvious the invention under
review.” In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1550 (Fed. Cir. 1983). “Combining the
teachings of references does not involve an ability to combine their specific
structures.” In re Nievelt, 482 F.2d 965, 968 (CCPA 1973). Accordingly,
absent persuasive evidence or technical reasoning explaining why modifying
Dixit according to the teaching of Fukuda would have been “uniquely
challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art” or “represented an
unobvious step over the prior art” (see Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-
Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing KSR Intern. Co. v.
Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418–19), we conclude the Examiner did not err
in combing the references.
Appeal 2012-009368
Application 12/906,761
9
We are also not persuaded of error by Appellant’s contention 4
arguing the H.264 standard fails to teach or suggest the disputed limitation
of “receiving a video signal . . . comprising . . . a map indicating what
macroblocks were assigned to the first slice group . . . specifying the slice
group to which each coded macroblock belongs [as required by claim 4.]”
App. Br. 12. As found by the Examiner and explained supra, the
combination of Dixit and Fukuda teaches or suggests the disputed limitation;
H.264 is applied only for disclosing a slice group organization of
macroblocks.
For the reasons supra, we are unpersuaded of Examiner error in
connection with the rejection of claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Dixit,
Fukuda, and H.264 and, therefore, sustain the rejection of claim 4 together
with the rejection of dependent claims 5 and 6, which were not separately
argued.

Claim 1
In connection with contention 5, Appellant argues the disputed
limitation “slice group” is a term of art entitled to special meaning. App. Br.
13. The Examiner responds by finding Appellant’s Specification, although
discussing slices in term of the H.264 standard, is not so limited and, instead,
is consistent with a broader interpretation, i.e., a sequence of macroblocks.
Ans. 24.
We agree with the Examiner. Appellant’s Specification discloses “in
the H.264 standard, a group of macroblocks may be combined into a larger
processing unit known as a slice” (Spec. ¶ 6) and that “[a] slice is a sequence
of macroblocks (or macroblock pairs if macroblock-adaptive frame/field”
Appeal 2012-009368
Application 12/906,761
10
(Spec. ¶ 17.) Therefore, we further agree with the Examiner that “both the
macroblocks that make up a type I cell in Dixit, such as a group of
randomly-selected blocks or a vertical strip, and a region of blocks as in fig.
4 of Gandhi, qualify as slices.” Ans. 24.
In connection with contention 6, Appellant argues Gandhi fails to
disclose the disputed map of claim 1. The Examiner responds by finding
Dixit teaches the disputed map with Gandhi relied on to show that it would
have been obvious to modify Dixit’s map so that it is transmitted once at
initiation, rather than once for each frame. Ans. 25.
We agree with the Examiner. For the reasons supra in connection
with claim 4, we find Dixit discloses the disputed map. Therefore,
Appellant’s contention arguing a failure of Gandhi to disclose the disputed
limitation is unpersuasive of Examiner error.
In connection with contention 7, Appellant argues:
[B]ecause the regions disclosed in Gandhi contain different numbers
of macroblocks while the number of refreshed macroblocks is the
same across all regions for any given frame, the sequence of Intra
refreshed macroblocks is pseudo-random or random. Because of this
operation, Gandhi cannot teach or suggest a “same pattern of Intra
refresh blocks” that can be referenced by “a corresponding previously
transmitted map.”
App. Br. 15. The Examiner responds by finding that having differing
numbers of macroblocks does not negate Gandhi’s teaching “lists of blocks
in regions [are] not reloaded but the next macroblock in each region in the
existing arrays in memory is addressed.” Ans. 26. The Examiner concludes
Gandhi teaches the disputed limitation of claim 1 including a “map . . . sent
only once at the start of communication and subsequent frames using the
same pattern of Intra refresh blocks can reference a corresponding
Appeal 2012-009368
Application 12/906,761
11
previously transmitted map.” Ans. 26. The Examiner further finds Dixit,
not Gandhi, was relied upon for teaching the map of claim 1, Gandhi only
for transmission of the map at the sequence, rather than frame level. Id.
We find the Examiner’s explanation to be reasonable and fully
responsive to Appellant’s argument. In contrast, although Appellant
contends the regions disclosed by Gandhi contain different numbers of
macroblocks and that, as such, Gandhi cannot teach or suggest the disputed
limitation (App. Br. 15), Appellant fails to adequately explain the
conclusion, i.e., why the latter follows from the former. Therefore,
Appellant’s contention 7 is unpersuasive of Examiner error.
For the reasons supra, we are unpersuaded of Examiner error and
sustain the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Dixit and
Gandhi together with the rejection of claims 9 and 10, which were not
separately argued. Furthermore, because Appellants contentions of error in
connection with the rejection of claim 2 are substantially the same as those
presented in connection with claim 1 discussed supra (see App. Br. 15–17),
for the same reasons we further sustain the rejection of independent claim 2
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Dixit and Gandhi together with the rejection
of claims 3, 7, and 8, which were not separately argued.

Claim 11
In connection with contention 8, Appellant argues Kurobe’s group of
blocks (GOB) do not teach a slice group because the GOB is arranged in a
grid and thereby cannot “comprise non-contiguous, non-adjacent
macroblocks,” a feature of a type of Type 1 or “scattered slices.” App. Br.
18 citing Wikipedia. The Examiner responds by finding the Wikipedia
Appeal 2012-009368
Application 12/906,761
12
definition relied upon by Appellant is not entitled to substantial weight.
Ans. 27–28. Furthermore the Examiner finds “claim 11 does not require that
a slice group be capable of comprising non-contiguous, non-adjacent
macroblocks as argued. According to the definition of ‘slice’ as ‘a sequence
of macroblocks’, the rectangular region of 11 by 3 macroblocks in Kurobe is
a slice.” Ans. 28.
We agree with the Examiner. Under a broad but reasonable
interpretation consistent with the Specification, the disputed “slice” includes
and is taught or suggested by Kurobe’s rectangular region. Therefore,
Appellant’s contention 8 is unpersuasive of Examiner error.
In connection with contention 9 Appellant argues Kurobe does not
disclose the map of claim 11. App. Br. 19. The Examiner responds by
explaining that Gandhi, not Kurobe, was relied upon for disclosing the
disputed map. Ans. 28–29.
We agree with the Examiner. Appellant’s argument does not address
the Examiner’s findings, i.e., Gandhi discloses the claimed map (see Ans.
17) and is, therefore, unpersuasive of error.
In connection with contention 10, Appellant argues Kurobe’s
“RCOUNT has nothing to do with the steps for ‘at least one subsequent
picture representative of a scene’ as claimed.” App. Br. 19. The Examiner
responds by finding:
The incrementing of RCOUNT itself was not relied on as performing
any claimed steps itself, but rather as signalling that the whole process
illustrated in figs. 1 and 2 of Kurobe may proceed to the next frame.
“Thereafter the refresh cycle management part 2702 increments
RCOUNT at a step 217 and the process returns to the step 202 to
perform coding on the next frame, for again determining whether or
not it is in the refresh cycle.” Kurobe, col. 30: lines 61–64 (emphasis
Appeal 2012-009368
Application 12/906,761
13
added). As with the initial picture, the fig. 2 process operates on all
pictures.
Ans. 29. Appellant does not provide a reply rebutting the Examiner’s
explanation. Accordingly, we find the Examiner’s response to Appellant’s
contention to be reasonable and decline to find reversible error.
For the reasons supra, Appellant’s contentions are unpersuasive of
Examiner error in connection with the rejection of claim 11. Therefore, we
sustain the rejection of claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Kurobe,
Dixit, and Gandhi together with the rejection of claims 12, 13, and 16–19,
which were not separately argued. For similar reasons, we further sustain
the rejection of claims 14, 15, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Kurobe,
Dixit, Gandhi, and H.264, as these claims were also not separately argued.

CONCLUSIONS
The Examiner did not err in interpreting the (i) slice groups and (ii)
map of the disputed claims to include and be taught or suggest by the (i)
groupings of macroblocks and (ii) indicator of a particular group to which
each macroblock belongs, respectively, as disclosed by the applied prior art.
The Examiner did not err by combining the applied references in
concluding the rejected claims to be obvious.
The Examiner did not err in finding, under a broad but reasonable
interpretation, the disputed limitations of claims 1, 2, 4, and 11 are taught or
suggested by the applied combinations of references.

Appeal 2012-009368
Application 12/906,761
14
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–20 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)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

ELD