Ex Parte Wong

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Sep 27, 2002

08967251 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 27, 2002)

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not written for publication and is not binding precedent of the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. 24
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________
Ex parte YIWAN WONG
__________
Appeal No. 1999-2825
Application 08/967,251
___________
ON BRIEF
___________
Before JERRY SMITH, BARRETT and BARRY, Administrative Patent
Judges.
JERRY SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134
from the examiner’s rejection of claims 1-9, which constitute all
the claims in the application.
The disclosed invention pertains to a heuristic based
motion estimation method and apparatus for video compression.
Appeal No. 1999-2825
Application 08/967,251
2
Representative claim 1 is reproduced as follows:
1. A heuristic based motion estimation method for video
compression, said method comprising the steps of:
defining a target block in a video clip;
defining a simplified signature block from said target
block, said simplified signature block being based on a row and
column sum of pixels only within said target block;
searching a reference frame using said simplified
signature block;
searching for a best match in an area centered around
said target block in said reference frame using said simplified
signature block;
computing a sum of an absolute pixel-by-pixel difference
using motion vectors of said area and a zero motion vector;
selecting a new block with a motion vector with a minimum
sum of said absolute pixel-by-pixel difference; and
searching a new area centered around said new block for a
minimum absolute difference match.
The examiner relies on the following reference:
Kondo et al. (Kondo) 5,453,800 Sep. 26, 1995
Claims 1-9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as
being anticipated by the disclosure of Kondo.
Rather than repeat the arguments of appellant or the
examiner, we make reference to the brief and the answer for the
respective details thereof.
Appeal No. 1999-2825
Application 08/967,251
3
OPINION
We have carefully considered the subject matter on
appeal, the rejection advanced by the examiner and the evidence
of anticipation relied upon by the examiner as support for the
rejection. We have, likewise, reviewed and taken into
consideration, in reaching our decision, the appellant’s
arguments set forth in the brief along with the examiner’s
rationale in support of the rejection and arguments in rebuttal
set forth in the examiner’s answer.
It is our view, after consideration of the record before
us, that the disclosure of Kondo does not fully meet the
invention as recited in the claims on appeal. Accordingly, we
reverse.
Anticipation is established only when a single prior art
reference discloses, expressly or under the principles of
inherency, each and every element of a claimed invention as well
as disclosing structure which is capable of performing the
recited functional limitations. RCA Corp. v. Applied Digital
Data Systems, Inc., 730 F.2d 1440, 1444, 221 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed.
Cir.); cert. dismissed, 468 U.S. 1228 (1984); W.L. Gore and
Associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1554, 220 USPQ
303, 313 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984).
Appeal No. 1999-2825
Application 08/967,251
4
The examiner’s rejection is set forth in the final
rejection [Paper No. 13] and in the previous Office action [Paper
No. 10]. With respect to all the claims on appeal, appellant
argues that Kondo does not disclose or suggest the simplified
signature block being based on a row and column sum of pixels
only within the target block as claimed. Appellant argues that
Kondo discloses a subtractor for forming differences and not an
adder for forming sums [brief, pages 6-7].
The examiner responds that the generation of a spatial
average value of motion for correction in Kondo anticipates using
a row and column sum as claimed. The examiner also finds that
the use of an integrating function in Kondo anticipates row and
column sum manipulation, and for the case of the frequency
distribution table formation, sum of difference output
integration along both rows and columns before the averaging step
[answer, pages 4-6].
We will not sustain this rejection of claims 1-9.
Although we agree with the examiner that Kondo performs a sum of
differences calculation along rows and columns of a data block,
Kondo does not disclose the step of defining a simplified
signature block from said target block, said simplified signature
block being based on a row and column sum of pixels only within
Appeal No. 1999-2825
Application 08/967,251
5
said target block, and searching a reference frame using said
simplified signature block. The sum of differences calculation
in Kondo is part of the motion vector estimation and uses a
representative point memory of the full target block in making
this calculation. The representative point memory simply assumes
that the pixel located at the center of a block of data is
representative of the entire block of data. There is no
disclosure in Kondo that a simplified signature block should be
defined based on a row and column sum of pixels as claimed.
Although there are some similarities in the computations of Kondo
and the claimed invention, the specifics of the claimed
simplified signature block are not disclosed by Kondo.
Appeal No. 1999-2825
Application 08/967,251
6
Since Kondo does not fully disclose every feature of the
claimed invention, the rejection of claims 1-9 is not sustained.
Therefore, the decision of the examiner rejecting claims 1-9 is
reversed.
REVERSED
)
JERRY SMITH )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
LEE E. BARRETT )
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
)
) INTERFERENCES
)
LANCE LEONARD BARRY )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Appeal No. 1999-2825
Application 08/967,251
7
TEXAS INSTRUMENTS INCORPORATED
P. O. BOX 655474, M/S 3999
DALLAS, TX 75265
JS:caw