Ex Parte Trudeau et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 19, 2018

14609324 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 19, 2018)

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.
14/609,324 01/29/2015 Luc Normand TRUDEAU VT-083-US 1455
36630 7590
IP-MEX Inc.
Unit D2 (Second Floor)
150 Terence Matthews Crescent
KANATA, ON K2M1X4
CANADA
EXAMINER
CHIO, TAT CHI
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2486
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/23/2018 ELECTRONIC
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.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
vdonnelly @ ip-mex. com
admin@ip-mex.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte LUC NORMAND TRUDEAU, STEPHANE CLOULOMBE,
and CHRISTIAN DESRODIERS
Appeal 2017-007951
Application 14/609,324
Technology Center 2400
Before JOHHNY A. KUMAR, STEVEN M. AMUNDSON, and JASON M.
REPKO, Administrative Patent Judges.
KUMAR, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection of
claims 1—20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
Appeal 2017-007951
Application 14/609,324
Exemplary Claim
Independent claim 1 illustrates the invention as follows, with the
disputed elements highlighted in italics:
1. A method for rate-constrained search ordering of candidate
blocks in a motion estimation process of a video encoder,
comprising:
determining vector encoding costs for respective motion
vectors corresponding to candidate blocks in a video
frame; and
assigning an order for evaluating a rate-constrained cost of
each candidate block based on the determined vector
encoding costs.
Rejections
1. Claims 1 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) as being
anticipated by Ho (US 2007/0127575 Al, published: June 7, 2007).
2. Claims 2, 3, 5, 12, 13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Ho in view of Kobayashi et al. (US 5,715,016,
issued: February 3, 1998).
3. Claims 4 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Ho in view of Kobayashi et al. and Fang et al.
(US 2009/0327611 Al, published: December 31, 2009).
4. Claims 6, 7, 16, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Ho in view of Kobayashi et al. and Obikane et al.
(US 5,504,530, issued: April 2, 1996).
5. Claims 8, 9, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Ho in view of Togita et al. (US 2006/0262848 Al,
published: November 23, 2006).
2
Appeal 2017-007951
Application 14/609,324
6. Claims 10 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Ho in view of Togita et al. and Thyagarajan
(US 2003/0026335 Al, published: February 6, 2003).
ANALYSIS
In the Briefs, Appellants contend the Examiner’s finding that Ho
teaches all the elements of Appellants’ claimed invention in independent
claims 1 and 11 is incorrect (see App. Br. 12—16; Reply Br. 4—6).
Appellants assert, among other things, the claimed element “assigning an
order” (hereinafter “the disputed limitation”) is not taught by Ho (id)} We
agree.
Appellants argue:
Ho merely discloses to “Step through a plurality of
candidate motion vectors (x,y) in a search range for a current
encoding block of a current picture” without specifying any
particular order, let alone the order based on the encoding costs
for motion vectors. See Step 110, paragraph [0020], in Fig. 1
of Ho provided below. At the very best, the person of ordinary
skill in the art would assume a conventional raster grid order
search, a H.264 spiral search, or the like.
Ho does not teach assigning an order for evaluating a rate-
constrained cost of each candidate block based on the
determined vector encoding costs.
In contrast, claims 1 and 11 define assigning an order for
evaluating a rate-constrained cost of each candidate block based
on the determined vector encoding costs.
App. Br. 14-15.
1 Although Appellants make other arguments in the Briefs, we do not
address them because we find this argument is dispositive of the appeal.
3
Appeal 2017-007951
Application 14/609,324
We agree with Appellants as our interpretation of the disclosure of Ho
coincides with that of Appellants. Therefore, on this record, we find the
weight of the evidence supports the position articulated by Appellants in the
Briefs. Accordingly, we cannot sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
independent claims 1 and 11. Since we reverse the rejection of each
independent claim on appeal, we also reverse the rejection of each
associated dependent claim.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1 and 11 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(a)(2) and claims 2-10 and 12-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1—20 are reversed.
REVERSED
4