Ex parte Tahara

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jul 28, 1997

08020993 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 28, 1997)

Application for patent filed February 22, 1993. 1
1
Paper No. 22
THIS OPINION WAS NOT WRITTEN FOR PUBLICATION
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today
(1) was not written for publication in a law journal and
(2) is not binding precedent of the Board.
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_______________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_______________
Ex parte KATSUMI TAHARA
______________
Appeal No. 96-0553
Application 08/020,9931
_______________
HEARD: JULY 16, 1997
_______________
Before HARKCOM, Vice Chief Administrative Patent Judge, and
THOMAS and KRASS, Administrative Patent Judges.
THOMAS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant has appealed to the Board from the examiner’s
final rejection of claims 7 to 28, which constitute all the
claims remaining in the application.
Appeal No. 96-0553
Application 08/020,993
2
Representative claim 7 is reproduced below:
7. Method of transmitting intraframe coded and interframe
coded video signals, comprising the steps of
receiving a video signal composed of frames of video
data;
dividing each of said frames of video data into a
plurality of blocks;
intraframe coding or interframe coding said plurality
of blocks of each of said frames of video data to produce
intraframe coded data or interframe coded data, respectively;
determining a correlation between one of said plurality
of blocks of one of said frames of video data and a corresponding
block of a preceding frame of video data;
setting a quantization width in accordance with said
correlation;
quantizing said interframe coded data or said
intraframe coded data to be transmitted in accordance with said
quantization width to produce quantized interframe coded data or
quantized intraframe coded data, respectively; and
transmitting said quantized intraframe coded data.
The following references relied on by the examiner are:
Tanaka et al. (Tanaka) 5,144,426 Sep. 1, 1992
(filed Oct. 12, 1990)
Claims 7 to 28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as
being anticipated by Tanaka.
Rather than repeat the positions of the appellant and the
examiner, reference is made to the briefs and the answer for the
respective details thereof.
Appeal No. 96-0553
Application 08/020,993
3
OPINION
After conducting a thorough study of the disclosed invention
and that as reflected in the claims on appeal in conjunction with
the respective positions of the appellant and the examiner and
the detailed teachings and suggestions of the applied prior art,
we will sustain the rejection only as to claims 7, 16 to 18, 27
and 28. We, therefore, reverse the rejection of the remaining
claims 8 to 15 and 19 to 26.
From appellant’s brief and reply brief and the arguments
presented during oral hearing, it is apparent to us that the
focus of the dispute between the appellant and the examiner
concerns only the following language of representative
independent claim 7 on appeal:
determining a correlation between one
of said plurality of blocks of one of said
frames of video data and a corresponding
block of a preceding frame of video data;
setting a quantization width in accor-
dance with said correlation.
Our study of prior art Figure 1 of Tanaka in conjunction
with the respective four separate embodiments set forth in this
reference for Tanaka’s contribution beginning at Figure 3 through
Figure 6 leads us to conclude that the above referenced language
of claim 1 is necessarily met by the teachings and suggestions as
Appeal No. 96-0553
Application 08/020,993
4
to the operation of the prior art Figure 1 to the extent that
it is relied upon in Tanaka in conjunction with each of the
respective embodiments.
We make reference to column 2, lines 20 to 33 and lines
53 through 57; column 3, line 49 through at least column 5,
line 24 for a basic understanding of prior art Figure 1 as it
applies to the claimed correlation feature. These portions of
Tanaka indicate that all digitized television signals are divided
into blocks, each of which is comprised of a rectangular array
composed of MXN pixels arranged in M columns and N rows. All
signals are processed in every embodiment including the prior art
embodiment in Tanaka in a step-wise continuous manner on a block-
by-block basis. It is noted that even in picture memory portion
54, which relates to the motion compensation feature of prior art
Figure 1, this memory stores current frame information as well as
previous frame information to affect that compensation. Although
this compensation per se is not pertinent to the issues on
appeal, we make mention of this memory 54 because it begins to
set a proper context for later considerations. The discussion
beginning at the bottom of column 3 as it pertains to prior art
Figure 1 of Tanaka indicates that the quantization step-size Qb
is calculated on a continuous or regular basis on the basis of n
Appeal No. 96-0553
Application 08/020,993
5
Macro blocks. Although it is true as argued that the Bcont
represents the amount of the code remained in the code memory
74 of Figure 1, which relates to a memory store for a frame of
information to be transmitted out on terminal 89, the quanti-
ation is performed by using a predetermined step size with
respect to a first to an (n-1)th Macro block. The entire
transmission frame 87 is outputted through this code memory
portion 74. This represents the transmission frame of
information or the claimed preceding frame. The above noted
portions also indicate that the value of n is chosen to be 12.
Although the examiner appears to rely upon portions of
columns 19 and 20 as the primary basis for the examiner’s
statement of the rejection, this portion of the reference
relates to the second embodiment described in Figure 4. How-
ever, corresponding locations are present with respect to the
first embodiment in Figure 3 in earlier portions beginning at
column 14. It is further noted that each of the respective four
embodiments in corresponding Figures 3 through 6 essentially
repeat everything that has been previously recited with respect
to any earlier embodiment with variations in accordance with the
variations in the respective figures.
Appeal No. 96-0553
Application 08/020,993
6
The first introduction of the teaching value of the various
disclosed embodiments of Tanaka himself is found with respect to
Figure 3. We make reference to the following locations as the
discussion in Tanaka relates to this first embodiment in Figure
3: column 14, lines 7 through 12; column 14, line 62 through
column 15, line 53 and column 16, lines 31 through 42. The
variance calculating portion 116 in Figure 3 is discussed
beginning at the bottom of column 14. The so-called fineness of
a respective block represented by the inputted television signal
is determined by this circuit. Again, this indicates that the
computations occur on a block-wise basis on incoming, new signal
blocks for a new frame. The referenced portion at column 15
indicates to us that in the context of the first embodiment in
Figure 3, it operates upon the prior art approach in prior art
Figure 1 by means of the first quantization step-size computation
portion 122 in conjunction with or feeding as an input signal 119
to the second quantization step-size computing portion 118. The
variance calculating portion 116 also feeds this block 118 in
Figure 3. Two outputs come from the block 118. One is wrongly
argued by the examiner and correctly identified by appellant in
the early portion of the reply brief; this relates to the
quantization class determinations represented by signal 121.
Appeal No. 96-0553
Application 08/020,993
7
Although correctly pointed out by appellant in the reply brief,
this information has everything to do with the prediction error
coding portion 130 and not the quantization portion 115. Even so
it does indicate that processing within block 118 occurs in a
block-wise manner with respect to the first quantization step-
size computing data signal 119 with respect to each block so
obtained from first quantization step-size computing portion 122.
Thus, it is apparent to us that the determination of a broadly
defined claimed correlation between one of the plurality of
blocks of one of said frames of video data, which is the incoming
frame of video data, and a corresponding block of preceded framed
information of video data is met by the teachings of this
reference as initially introduced in Figure 3. The preceding
data is the data from the code memory 123 in Figure 3 as
processed by the first quantization step-size computing portion
122 to yield a signal 119 feeding block 118. Overall, it is
clear to us that the processing occurs on a corresponding block-
by-block basis from the preceding frame that is to be transmitted
and the current incoming frame that is being processed to be
inputted to the picture memory portion 104 as well as into the
code memory 123. The second quantization step-size signal 120 is
Appeal No. 96-0553
Application 08/020,993
8
essentially what corresponds to the setting operation of the
above quoted portion of claim 1 to set the effective width of the
quantization portion 115 in Figure 3.
As noted earlier, we do not agree with the examiner’s
reasoning beginning at page 3 of the answer relating to the
quantization class information as corresponding to the key
information of the first clause reproduced of claim 7 above.
Notwithstanding this, the other positions advocated by the
examiner in the statement of the rejection relied upon in the
final rejection and the other reasoning in the responsive
arguments portion of the answer appear to be pertinent to meet
the issues raised by appellant in the brief.
Appellant appears to admit in the first sentence at the
top of page 8 of the brief that there is interframe coded data
present in a correlation sense between blocks in two successive
frames. The position that “the amount of code in code memory 74
in Tanaka merely represents that code that has not yet been
transmitted at a particular transmission rate at the time a block
of video data is to be quantized, which primarily depends on the
amount of code of one or more previous blocks of video data that
have already been quantized” at the top of page 8 of the brief is
misplaced. If this is so, it is also clear that because the
Appeal No. 96-0553
Application 08/020,993
9
coding in Tanaka occurs in a step-wise block-by-block basis
continuously, the corresponding remaining data of a given frame
of memory to be transmitted that has not yet been transmitted
also must correspond to the corresponding block of data of a
frame that is currently being processed. Even if the data value
within code memory portion 74 represents a total value of the
remaining data to be transmitted, as is apparent from appellant’s
argument, such a broadly claimed correlation as set forth in the
initially reproduced clause of claim 7 is still met by that
understanding.
The variance data of the respective embodiments in Figures
3 through 6 of Tanaka relate only to incoming or currently
processed video signals on a block-by-block basis. As to appel-
lant’s reply brief, the language apparently chosen by the
examiner in the responsive arguments portion in the answer
utilizes the terminology relating to “the first quantization
step of the previously coded block”, which we interpret to relate
to the first quantization step-size calculating portion data
signal. It is clear to us that the examiner considers the
“previously coded block” as the information in the code memory
123 in Figure 3, data to be transmitted.

Appeal No. 96-0553
Application 08/020,993
10
The arguments on page 4 of the reply brief are also
misplaced in the context of our explanation of our understanding
of the teachings and interrelationships in Tanaka between the
prior art Figure 1 quantization of a first quantization step-
size computing portion to each of the respective embodiments in
Figures 3 to 6. Appellant goes on to submit that even if one
were to construe Tanaka’s first quantization step-size as
corresponding to a previously coded block, such construction
must be limited to a correspondence with an immediately preceding
or adjacent block of coded video data. At oral hearing this
understanding was focused upon to point out that the corres-
pondence was with respect to an intermediately preceding block
of the same frame. This understanding is not consistent with our
understanding of the way each of the respective embodiments 1 to
4 operate in Figures 3 through 6 of Tanaka in conjunction with
the respective portions of prior art Figure 1.
Finally, we note that with respect to the Figure 6
embodiment, the discussion at column 32, lines 11 through 21
indicates that quantization occurs with respect to luminance
signal data of a corresponding color coding block. From the
artisan’s perspective, it is clear that for the overall system
of Figure 6 to operate with initial quantization capabilities
Appeal No. 96-0553
Application 08/020,993
11
of prior Figure 1, it must be on a corresponding block-by-block
basis with respect to the frame being transmitted to the current
frame being processed in the circuit in Figure 6. If this were
not so, corresponding color problems would have been clearly
evident to the viewer, a highly undesirable interpretation.
Since claim 18 corresponds in an apparatus format to method
claim 7, claim 18 also falls with our understanding of claim 7.
Similarly, since no arguments have been presented with respect to
dependent claims 16, 17, 27 and 28, they also fall with their
respect parent claims 7 and 18.
We reverse the rejection of all remaining claims as
indicated earlier. We generally agree with appellant’s arguments
in the brief and reply brief as they apply to the specific
recitation that the broad correlation of representative indepen-
dent claim 7 is specifically recited in representative dependent
claim 8 as being determined from a difference of powers between
the corresponding blocks of the current and preceding frame.
There is simply no such determination in any of the four embodi-
ments in Tanaka from what we can discern. The noted portions
the examiner relies upon clearly do not teach this as appellant
points out. As we noted earlier, the variance of each of the
Appeal No. 96-0553
Application 08/020,993
12
respective embodiments of Tanaka does not relate to respective
corresponding blocks of preceding and current frames but only the
current frame blocks or adjacent blocks therewithin.
In view of the foregoing, the decision of the examiner
rejecting claims 7 to 28 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 is affirmed only
as to claims 7, 16 to 18, 27 and 28. Therefore, the decision
of the examiner is affirmed-in-part.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in
connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR
§ 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
GARY V. HARKCOM, Vice Chief )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
JAMES D. THOMAS ) BOARD OF PATENT
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
ERROL A. KRASS )
Administrative Patent Judge )

Appeal No. 96-0553
Application 08/020,993
13
William S. Frommer
Curtis, Morris & Safford
530 Fifth Avenue
New York, NY 10036
JDT/cam