Ex Parte Yu et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 22, 2017

12047837 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 22, 2017)

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.
12/047,837 03/13/2008 Keman Yu MS1-1685USC1 3759
22801 7590 02
LEE & HAYES, PLLC
601 W. RIVERSIDE AVENUE
SUITE 1400
SPOKANE, WA 99201
EXAMINER
LEE, Y YOUNG
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2485
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/24/2017 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):
lhptoms @ leehay es .com
u sdocket @ micro soft .com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte KEMAN YU, JIANG LI, and SHIPENG LI
Appeal 2016-002224
Application 12/047,837
Technology Center 2400
Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, DEBRA K. STEPHENS, and
DAVID J. CUTITTAII, Administrative Patent Judges.
STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a Final Rejection of
claims 1—3 and 5—18. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). Claims
19, 21, and 22 have been withdrawn from consideration, as being directed to
a non—elected invention. Claims 4 and 20 have been cancelled.
We REVERSE.
Appeal 2016-002224
Application 12/047,837
STATEMENT OF THE INVENTION
According to Appellants, the claims are directed to low complexity
real-time video coding (Abstract). Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative
of the claimed subject matter:
1. One or more processor-accessible media comprising
processor-executable instructions that, when executed, direct a
device to perform actions comprising:
comparing an accuracy indicator to at least one threshold,
the accuracy indicator corresponding to a reference macroblock
selected for a target macroblock;
selecting a refinement case from a plurality of refinement
cases associated with the reference macroblock based on a result
of the comparing of the accuracy indicator to the at least one
threshold, the plurality of refinement cases comprising different
patterns of test points and each refinement case of the plurality
of refinement cases comprising a pattern of test points that is
different from the rest of the plurality of refinement cases; and
analyzing the selected refinement case with regard to the
target macroblock.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Sezan US 5,682,205 Oct. 28, 1997
Hsu US 7,145,950 B2 Dec. 5,2006
REJECTIONS
Claims 1—3, 5—7, and 9—18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as
being anticipated by Hsu (Ans. 2-4).
2
Appeal 2016-002224
Application 12/047,837
Claim 8 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Hsu and Sezan (Ans. 4—5).
ISSUES
35 U.S.C. § 102(e): Claims 1—3, 5—7, and9—18
Appellants contend their invention as recited in claims 1—3, 5—7, and
9—18, is not anticipated by Hsu (App. Br. 6—11). The issues presented by the
arguments are:
Issue 1: Has the Examiner erred in finding Hsu discloses:
comparing an accuracy indicator to at least one threshold,
the accuracy indicator corresponding to a reference macroblock
selected for a target macroblock, and
selecting a refinement case from a plurality of refinement
cases associated with the reference macroblock based on a result
of the comparing of the accuracy indicator to the at least one
threshold, the plurality of refinement cases comprising different
patterns of test points and each refinement case of the plurality
of refinement cases comprising a pattern of test points that is
different from the rest of the plurality of refinement cases,
as recited in claim 1 ?
Issue 2: Has the Examiner erred in finding Hsu discloses “comparing
the accuracy indicator to at least two thresholds,” as recited in claim 3?
Issue 3: Has the Examiner erred in finding Hsu discloses
“determining whether the accuracy indicator is less than the first threshold,
is greater than the first threshold but less than the second threshold, or is
greater than the second threshold,” as recited in claim 5?
3
Appeal 2016-002224
Application 12/047,837
ANALYSIS
Issue 1:
Appellants initially argue Hsu fails to disclose “comparing an
accuracy indicator to at least one threshold, the accuracy indicator
corresponding to a reference macroblock selected for a target macroblock”
(App. Br. 8—10). Appellants assert Hu’s three-step motion search requires at
least “4+1+9+2x9+2x9=50 calculations of the SADs between two blocks in
the current frame and the reference frame to obtain a final motion vector”
(App. Br. 8 (citing Hsu, 4:41—6:18)). Additionally, Appellants contend Hsu
uses some predictors solely to obtain better initial value of motion vectors
(App. Br. 8). Thus, according to Appellants, these predictors are
independent until “later being fused into two final candidate motion vectors”
(id. at 8—9). Appellants therefore contend Hsu’s “two final candidate motion
vectors are not used to guide the rest of a refinement stage to further
improve the quality or reduce the complexity of the calculation,” (App. Br. 9
(citing Hsu, 4:19-6:18)).
We are not persuaded and instead, agree with the Examiner’s findings
and reasoning (Ans. 2, 5—6).
Appellants further contend Figure 6 of Hsu, discloses blocks 200, 202,
and 204 as selecting two candidate points from four initial points, PI, P2,
P3, and P4 (App. Br. 10). However, according to Appellants, these four
initial points are not a “refinement case”; rather, according to Appellants,
points PI, P2, P3, and P4 each represent a single point (id.).
The Examiner does not find each of points PI, P2, P3, and P4
discloses a separate refinement case; rather, the Examiner finds the
refinement cases are the points within the regions, each of the refinement
4
Appeal 2016-002224
Application 12/047,837
cases comprising different patterns of test points (Ans. 2, 6). More
specifically, the Examiner finds Hsu’s pattern of test points Rl—R9 of search
region R is different from the rest of the plurality of refinement cases, e.g.,
SI—S9 and Tl—T9 (id. at 2—3). We agree with the Examiner that Hsu
describes pixel data in various regions, such as pixel data Rl—R9 in region
R, pixel data SI—S9 in region S, and pixel data Tl—T9 in region T (Ans. 2;
Hsu Fig. 2) and PI—P4 of region R (Ans. 6—7; Fig. 4).
Although we agree with the aforementioned Examiner’s findings, we
agree with Appellants that the Examiner has not shown Hsu selects one of
these refinement cases based on a result of comparing the accuracy indicator
(App. Br. 9—10). Instead, the Examiner relies on selection of the potential
motion vectors and not the selection of test points of various regions (Ans.
2). Accordingly, here we are persuaded the Examiner has failed to show
Hsu discloses
selecting a refinement case from a plurality of refinement
cases associated with the reference macroblock based on a result
of the comparing of the accuracy indicator to the at least one
threshold, the plurality of refinement cases comprising different
patterns of test points and each refinement case of the plurality
of refinement cases comprising a pattern of test points that is
different from the rest of the plurality of refinement cases,
as recited in claim 1.
Issues 2 and 3:
Since we agree with at least one of the arguments advanced by
Appellants, we need not reach the merits of Appellants’ other arguments.
Accordingly, we cannot sustain the rejection of claims 1—3, 5—7, and
9—18 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) for anticipation by Hsu.
5
Appeal 2016-002224
Application 12/047,837
35 U.S.C. § 103(a): Claim 8
Claim 8 depends from claim 7 which depends from claim 1. For the
reasons set forth above, we are not persuaded Hsu teaches, suggests, or
otherwise renders obvious the invention as recited in claim 1. The Examiner
has not shown Sezan cures the deficiencies of Hsu. Accordingly, we are
persuaded the combination of Hsu and Sezan fails to teach, suggest, or
otherwise render obvious the limitations as recited in claim 8. Therefore, we
cannot sustain the rejection of claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for
obviousness over Hsu and Sezan.
DECISION1
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—3, 5—7, and 9-18 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Hsu is reversed.
1 Should there be further prosecution with respect to claims 1—3, 5—7, and 9—
18, the Examiner’s attention is directed to In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346 (Fed.
Cir. 2007). Appellants’ Specification states “Computer 1002 typically
includes a variety of processor-accessible media. Such media may be any
available media that is accessible by computer 1002 or another (e.g.,
electronic) device, and it includes both volatile and non-volatile media,
removable and non-removable media, and storage and transmission media.”
(Spec. 29:6—9) (emphasis added). Thus, reading independent claim 1 in
light of the Specification, the recited “processor-accessible media”
encompasses propagated signals. According to USPTO guidelines, such
claims must be amended to recite solely statutory subject matter. See David
J. Kappos, Subject Matter Eligibility of Computer Readable Media, 1351
Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 212 (Feb. 23, 2010) and Ex parte Mewherter, 107
USPQ2d 1857, 1859 (PTAB 2013) (“[T]he broadest reasonable
interpretation of a claim drawn to a computer readable medium (also called
machine readable medium and other such variations) typically covers forms
of non-transitory tangible media and transitory propagating signals per se in
6
Appeal 2016-002224
Application 12/047,837
The Examiner’s rejection of claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Hsu and Sezan is reversed.
REVERSED
view of the ordinary and customary meaning of computer readable media,
particularly when the specification is silent.” (citation omitted)).
7