Ex parte Yagasaki

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 23, 2000

08432786 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 23, 2000)

-1-
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journal and (2) is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 15
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
________________
Ex parte YOICHI YAGASAKI
________________
Appeal No. 1997-1203
Application 08/432,786
________________
ON BRIEF
________________
Before HAIRSTON, BARRETT and LALL, Administrative Patent
Judges.
LALL, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from
the Examiner's final rejection of claim 7, the only claim
pending in the case.
Appeal No. 1997-1203
Application 08/432,786
-2-
The invention is directed to a motion picture encoding
system. The improvement relates to the way motion video
signals are encoded for sending data across signal
transmission systems such as a television-telephone system.
The encoding is desirable to reduce the amount of data
transmitted across, for example, a telephone line. There are
two common ways of encoding motion picture video signals for
transmission to remote places, namely, inter-frame encoding
and intra-frame encoding. An intra/inter-frame discriminator
is adapted to respond to an index indirectly indicating the
generated data quantity as the subject of comparison. The
subject of comparison is the sum of the absolute values of
pixel data in the frames to be encoded. First, for encoding a
target frame, inter-frame difference data is calculated in
preparation for the inter-frame encoding. The difference data
is detected on the basis of continuous inter-frame pixel data
calculated in an average value separation circuit and the
absolute value summation circuits, and is used as an index
indirectly representing the quantity of data generated in
inter-frame encoding. The sum of the absolute values is
Appeal No. 1997-1203
Application 08/432,786
-3-
obtained for the whole frame. Then, for the sake of
comparison, another difference data is calculated by
subtraction of the DC
(low frequency) component in the frame for use as the index
indirectly indicating the quantity of generated data for
intra-frame encoding. This quantity is then compared with the
quantity of data for the inter-frame encoding and if the
quantity of data for the inter-frame encoding is less than
intra-frame encoding, the target frame is inter-frame encoded,
otherwise it is intra-frame encoded. The sole claim 7 is
reproduced as follows:
7. A motion picture encoding system for either intra-
frame encoding or inter-frame encoding a motion picture which
includes a sequence of frames, comprising:
a first encoding means for encoding at least a portion of
the motion picture by said intra-frame encoding;
a second encoding means for encoding at least a portion
of the motion picture by said inter-frame encoding;
means for subtracting a low-frequency component from an
intra-frame difference signal for a frame and producing a
first absolute sum signal as a result of the subtracting;
means for producing a second absolute sum signal of
Appeal No. 1997-1203
Application 08/432,786
-4-
inter-frame difference data for a frame; and
means for comparing the first absolute sum signal with
the second absolute sum signal and selecting the first
encoding means if the second absolute sum signal is greater
than the first absolute sum signal and otherwise selecting the
second encoding means.
The Examiner relies on the following reference:
Hatori et al. (Hatori) 4,837,618 Jun. 6, 1989
Claim 7 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as being
anticipated by Hatori.
Rather than repeat the arguments of Appellant and the
Examiner, we make reference to the brief and the answer for
the respective details thereof.
OPINION
We have considered the rejection advanced by the Examiner
and the supporting arguments. We have, likewise, reviewed the
Appellant’s arguments set forth in the brief. It is our view
that claim 7 is anticipated by Hatori. Accordingly, we
affirm. In our analysis, we are guided by the precedence
of our reviewing court that the limitations from the
Appeal No. 1997-1203
Application 08/432,786
-5-
disclosure are not to be imported into the claims. In re
Lundberg, 244 F.2d 543, 113 USPQ 530 (CCPA 1957); In re
Queener, 796 F.2d 461, 230 USPQ 438 (Fed. Cir. 1986). We are
also mindful of the requirements of anticipation under 35
U.S.C. § 102. We must point out, however, that anticipation
under 35 U.S.C. § 102 is established only when a single prior
art reference discloses, either expressly or under the
principles of inherency, each and every element of a claimed
invention. See RCA Corp. v. Applied Digital Data Systems,
Inc., 730 F.2d 1440, 1444, 221 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1984),
cert.
dismissed, 468 U.S. 1228 (1984). Furthermore, only those
arguments actually made by Appellant have been considered in
making this decision. Arguments which Appellant could have
made but chose not to make in the briefs have not been
considered [37 CFR § 1.192(a)].
Analysis
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as being
anticipated by Hatori. The Examiner gives a detailed
explanation of the anticipation rejection [answer, pages 3 to
Appeal No. 1997-1203
Application 08/432,786
-6-
4] and particularly points out that “[Hatori shows] means for
subtracting a low frequency component from an intra-frame
difference signal for a frame and producing a first absolute
sum signal of a result of the subtracting (see S(picture),
201-203, 205, 206 of Figure 6A); ... ” [id. 4]. Appellant
disputes this [brief, pages 5 to 7]. Appellant argues [id. 5]
that “[t]he Examiner admits that element 205 of Figure 6A of
Hatori subtracts an ‘average’ signal which by definition is
not limited to subtracting a ‘low frequency’ component [as
called for by the claim].” Appellant further argues [id. 6]
that “[n]one of the
elements pointed to by the Examiner perform[s] a ‘subtraction
of low frequency components.’” The Examiner counters
[answer, pages 5 and 7] that:
[T]he delayed intraframe signal S(PICTURE) at
the output of 203 of Figure 6A essentially includes
low, intermediate, and high frequency components ...
that is being subtracted from intraframe difference
signal S(202) of Figure 6A of Hatori in order to
determine intra/inter-frame selections. Since the
low frequency component ... is included in the
subtraction (i.e., 205 of Figure 6A of Hatori), it
is the Examiner’s opinion that the particular
subtraction means as claimed in claim 7 is being
anticipated by Hatori.” [id. 5].
Appeal No. 1997-1203
Application 08/432,786
-7-
We agree with the Examiner that Hatori, in Figure 6A,
does show the subtraction means 205 wherein signal S(203) is
being subtracted from the intra-frame difference signal
S(202). Furthermore, we concur with the Examiner that the
signal S(203) contains a low frequency component, even though
it may contain components of other frequencies. We also note
that the claim does not restrict the signal being subtracted
to one having only a low frequency component. Appellant’s
arguments regarding the “average of frequency components”
[brief, page 6] and 'inherently including a low frequency
component' [id] are not convincing and they do not overcome
the Examiner’s rejection. Thus, we sustain the anticipation
rejection of claim 7 over Hatori.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in
connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR
§ 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED
Appeal No. 1997-1203
Application 08/432,786
-8-
KENNETH W. HAIRSTON )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
LEE E. BARRETT ) BOARD OF
PATENT
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
PARSHOTAM S. LALL )
Administrative Patent Judge )
psl/ki
Appeal No. 1997-1203
Application 08/432,786
-9-
Limbach and Limbach
2001 Ferry Building
San Francisco, CA 94111