Ex Parte Trovato

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jan 31, 2005

10254720 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 31, 2005)

1
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written for publication and is
not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 14

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________
Ex parte KAREN I. TROVATO
_____________
Appeal No. 2004-1628
Application No. 10/254,720
______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before HAIRSTON, KRASS, and RUGGIERO, Administrative Patent Judges.
KRASS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal from the final rejection of claims 1-13.
Appeal No. 2004-1628
Application 10/254,720
2
The invention pertains to encoding/decoding schemes for video transmission and is best
illustrated by reference to representative independent claim 1, directed to encoding, reproduced
as follows:
1. A method for encoding video images, comprising the steps of:
partitioning a first image into a plurality of texture areas, each texture area of the
plurality of texture areas having an associated location,
assigning a texture type to each texture area having a similar texture pattern, and
encoding at least one of the first image and a plurality of subsequent images based on the
location and texture type associated with each texture area.
The examiner relies on the following references:
Singhal et al. (Singhal) 5,333,012 Jul. 26, 1994
Kawauchi et al. (Kawauchi) 5,647,024 Jul. 8, 1997
Ryoo 5,990,957 Nov. 23, 1999
(filed Nov. 4, 1997)
Eifrig et al. (Eifrig) 6,005,980 Dec. 21, 1999
(filed Jul. 21, 1997)
Claims 1-3 and 6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §102 (b) as anticipated by Singhal.
Claims 7 and 9-13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §102 (e) as anticipated by Kawauchi.
Appeal No. 2004-1628
Application 10/254,720
3
Claims 4, 5 and 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103. As evidence of obviousness, the
examiner offers Singhal and Kawauchi with regard to claim 4, Singhal and Ryoo with regard to
claim 5, and Kawauchi and Eifrig with regard to claim 8.
Reference is made to the brief and answer for the respective positions of appellant and
the examiner.
OPINION
A rejection for anticipation under section 102 requires that the four corners of a single
prior art document describe every element of the claimed invention, either expressly or
inherently, such that a person of ordinary skill in the art could practice the invention without
undue experimentation. In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1478-79, 31 USPQ2d 1671, 1673 (Fed. Cir.
1994).
With regard to independent claim 1, it is the examiner’s position that Singhal discloses the
instant claimed subject matter for the reasons set forth at pages 3-4 of the answer. In particular,
the examiner asserts that Singhal discloses the claimed step of “assigning a texture type to each
texture area having a similar texture pattern” in the variance processor 8 of Singhal’s Figure 2,
Appeal No. 2004-1628
Application 10/254,720
4
and at column 5, lines 8-28, and column 8, line 49 through column 9, line 2, wherein a “low and
high texture type/pattern areas are assigned/identified by variance processor 8 (answer-page 4).
We have reviewed the Singhal reference and find that while the reference does show a
variance which is indicative of the texture in an image, it does not suggest “assigning a texture
type to each texture area having a similar texture pattern,” as claimed. Rather, as argued by
appellant, at page 5 of the brief, Singhal “only discloses how different textures effect coding.”
This is borne out by Singhal, at column 5, lines 23-27, wherein it is discussed that bits are
allocated for coding based, in part, on the texture of the macroblocks. Column 5, lines 16-18, of
Singhal, also points out that variance “serves as a good indicator of the activity or texture in the
image” but it does not teach or suggest that a texture type is “assigned” to each texture area
having a similar texture pattern.
Column 8, lines 49 et seq. of Singhal discusses low and high texture patterns in a
macroblock and the application of small and large quantizing step sizes, but, again, we find
nothing therein indicative of the claimed “assigning a texture type to each texture area having a
similar texture pattern.”
Appeal No. 2004-1628
Application 10/254,720
5
Accordingly, we will not sustain the rejection of claims 1-3 and 6 under 35 U.S.C.
§102 (b) since Singhal does not teach each and every claim limitation.
Turning to independent claim 7, directed to decoding, the examiner contends that this
claim is anticipated by Kawauchi.
Similar to the issue regarding independent claim 1, the issue here is whether Kawauchi
teaches the claimed step of processing an encoding of at least one texture area to “determine a
texture type that is associated with the at least one texture area.”
In arguing that Kawauchi does not teach this claim limitation, appellant discusses column
14, lines 35-57, of Kawauchi and contends that, based on these portions of the reference,
Kawauchi only discloses reproducing texture area data, but not how to “determine a texture type
that is associated with at least one texture area.”
However, we point to column 9, lines 55-67, as the examiner did at page 8 of the answer,
wherein Kawauchi discloses that
[t]exture areas having the same first frequency spectrum pattern are put
into a first group. Further, texture areas having the same second frequency
spectrum pattern are put into a second group . . . .
Appeal No. 2004-1628
Application 10/254,720
6
It seems to us that this is a fair teaching of determining a texture type that is associated
with the at least one texture area since one must first determine what type of frequency spectrum
pattern a texture area has and that will determine into which group it fits. While the examiner has
set forth a reasonable basis for finding the determination of a texture type that is associated with
at least one texture area in Kawauchi, at column 9, lines 55-67, appellant has offered nothing to
rebut this position, as appellant does not even respond to the examiner’s identification of this
portion of Kawauchi.
Accordingly, we will sustain the rejection of claim 7, and of claims 9-13, dependent
thereon but not separately argued by appellant, under 35 U.S.C. §102 (e).
We will not sustain the rejection of claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. §103 as unpatentable over
Singhal in view of Ryoo, because, for the reasons supra, Singhal does not disclose “assigning a
texture type to each texture area having a similar texture pattern,” and Ryoo does not provide for
this deficiency.
We will sustain the rejection of claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. §103 as unpatentable over
Kawauchi in view of Eifrig since we have sustained independent claim 7, from which claim 8
depends, and appellant does not separately argue the merits of claim 8.
Appeal No. 2004-1628
Application 10/254,720
7
With regard to the rejection of claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. §103, as unpatentable over
Singhal in view of Kawauchi, we will sustain this rejection because, while Singhal does not teach
“assigning a texture type to each texture area having a similar texture pattern,” we find that
Kawauchi provides for this deficiency at column 9, lines 55-67. Moreover, while the examiner
provides a reason (answer-pages 5-6) for combining these references, appellant does not
separately argue the limitations of claim 4 or the non-combinability of the references.
We find it puzzling as to why the examiner did not apply the teachings of Kawauchi to
instant claims 1-3, 5 and 6 but, for whatever reason, the examiner did not do so and we decline to
enter a new ground of rejection.
We have sustained the rejection of claims 7 and 9-13 under 35 U.S.C. §102 (e), as well as
the rejections of claims 4 and 8 under 35 U.S.C. §103. We have not, however, sustained the
rejection of claims 1-3 and 6 under 35 U.S.C. §102 (b) or the rejection of claim 5 under 35 U.S.C.
§103.
Accordingly, the examiner’s decision is affirmed-in-part.
Appeal No. 2004-1628
Application 10/254,720
8
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
KENNETH W. HAIRSTON )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
ERROL A. KRASS ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO )
Administrative Patent Judge )
EAK/psb
Appeal No. 2004-1628
Application 10/254,720
9
Philips Intellectual Property & Standards
P.O. Box 3001
Briarcliff Manor, NY 10510