Ex Parte ZENKICH

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 25, 2018

14218073 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 25, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/218,073 03/18/2014
62008 7590 09/27/2018
MAIER & MAIER, PLLC
345 South Patrick Street
ALEXANDRIA, VA 22314
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Raymond ZENKICH
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
03250001US 9184
EXAMINER
PONTIUS, JAMES M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2488
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/27/2018 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):
patent@maierandmaier.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte RAYMOND ZENKICH
Appeal2018-000816
Application 14/218,073
Technology Center 2400
Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, ERIC S. FRAHM, and
STEVEN M. AMUNDSON, Administrative Patent Judges.
AMUNDSON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final
rejection of claims 1, 7, 15, 17-19, 23, 25-27, 30, and 31. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We reverse.
Appeal2018-000816
Application 14/218,073
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Invention
According to the Specification, the invention concerns video coding
and video-data compression. Spec. ,r,r 2---6, Abstract. 1 The Specification
explains that the video coding may "produce one or more luma vectors and
one or more chroma vectors within a video plane," and those vectors "may
be extended into time vectors that can be utilized for compression or
reconstruction of the frame rate, define [a] luma vector across time as a
contiguous function and perform video compression across a time
dimension." Id. ,r 6, Abstract.
Exemplary Claim
Independent claim 1 exemplifies the claims at issue and reads as
follows (with formatting added for clarity):
1. A non-uniform video coding system, comprising:
a server system with
a processor system,
a communications interface,
a communications system,
an input system and
an output system,
the server system having access to a communications
network;
1 This decision uses the following abbreviations: "Spec." for the
Specification, filed March 18, 2014; "Final Act." for the Final Office Action,
mailed October 25, 2016; "App. Br." for the Appeal Brief, filed March 27,
2017; "Ans." for the Examiner's Answer, mailed September 8, 2017; and
"Reply Br." for the Reply Brief, filed November 3, 2017.
2
Appeal2018-000816
Application 14/218,073
a memory system with
media
an operating system,
a communications module,
a web browser module,
a web server application and
a video coding non-transitory storage media,
wherein the video coding non-transitory storage
defines at least a first video plane at a first
time and at least a second video plane at a second
time,
performs frame-independent sampling
between the at least first video plane and the at least
second video plane spaced in time, and
produces and stores a persistent three
dimensional luma and chroma space extended into
the time dimension of the at least first video plane
and the at least second video plane; and
the video coding non-transitory storage
media further interpolates video data between the
first time and the second time based on the three
dimension [sic] luma and chroma space produced
across the at least first video plane and the at least
second video plane; and
a service provider utilizing the server system. 2
App. Br. 10 (Claims App.).
2 Claim 1 recites both a system and the method for utilizing that system.
Hence, in the event of continued prosecution, the Examiner should consider
the propriety of a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b ). See IPXL Holdings,
L.L.C. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 430 F.3d 1377, 1383-84 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
3
Appeal2018-000816
Application 14/218,073
The Rejection on Appeal
Claims 1, 7, 15, 17-19, 23, 25-27, 30, and 31 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 112(a) as failing to comply with the enablement requirement.
Final Act. 3--4; Ans. 2-3.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the§ 112(a) rejection in light of Appellant's
arguments that the Examiner erred. Based on the record before us and for
the reasons explained below, we concur with Appellant's contention that the
Examiner erred in determining that the claims fail to comply with the
enablement requirement.
The nonenablement determination centers on the following limitation
in claim 1 and similar limitations in independent claims 15 and 23:
"perform[] frame-independent sampling between the at least first video
plane and the at least second video plane spaced in time." See Final Act. 3-
4; Ans. 2-7. The Examiner finds that "a video stream is a series of frames,
and anything sampled from a video stream between two planes/frames is
another frame, or derivative of a frame." Ans. 4. The Examiner reasons that
although "[t]he data to be sampled has to be frame data, or a derivative of
frame data," the claims "preclude such consideration of frame data since the
sampling is frame independent." Final Act. 3; Ans. 2-3. In essence, the
Examiner maintains that "frame-independent sampling" is impossible due to
the frame-based nature of video. See Final Act. 3--4; Ans. 2-7. And
because "frame-independent sampling" is impossible, making and using the
claimed invention requires undue experimentation.
4
Appeal2018-000816
Application 14/218,073
Appellant argues that the Examiner erred in analyzing the enablement
issues because the Specification "meticulously describes that ... 'sampling
may occur at any desired time (independent from frame data).'" App. Br. 7
( quoting Spec. ,r 77). According to Appellant, the Specification explains
that times corresponding to "traditional frames" may "be considered as
reference points instead of frame data," and thus "the sampling does not
depend on frame data." Id. (emphasis omitted). Appellant adds that "[t]he
sampled data is the state of the video information at any point of time that is
being sampled, regardless and independent of frame or frame-based
reference systems." Reply Br. 1.
Based on the record before us, we agree with Appellant that the
Examiner erred in determining that the claims fail to comply with the
enablement requirement. "[D]uring examination proceedings, claims are
given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the
specification." In re Hyatt, 211 F.3d 1367, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2000). The
broadest reasonable interpretation must, however, "correspond[] with what
and how the inventor describes his invention in the specification." In re
Smith Int 'l, Inc., 871 F.3d 1375, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
Here, the Specification describes and depicts sampling video plane
data at times that do not depend on uniformly spaced frame times. See, e.g.,
Spec. ,r,r 77-80, 90, 93-94, Figs. 14B-14D, 18-20. Figure 14B, reproduced
below, illustrates sampling video plane data at a time that does not depend
on uniformly spaced frame times:
5
Appeal2018-000816
Application 14/218,073
Tra~monai framt s~tJwmc~
. v•v•~•~-yn••••~=v•~ _ v•-•••v•=•'~--,v~~=~•--~v•v•••v•=•~~ .. •-•-•-. -. ---·~~v~~v•-•""""'~•v~~--
",,/t''tl50
'·
~.- ........ ~· --..,,..,----------------,.. ...... ,.}
: ~
,-.-..... -~ ... '·'->, 0•,-.... .-.: ~-,"·'·"·"'"""'" >>o., ................... ,. ......... , ..... ,~~ 0.......,,....~ ..... _..,.. ............. , .......... ,.. ..... .,.,, •• ,, ........................ , ... ,, ... , .................. ..
\
1458
Figure 14B shows frames 1450, 1452, 1454, 1456, and 1458 at uniformly
spaced frame times to, t1, 12, 13, and t4, respectively, and video plane 1460 at
nonuniform time tn.
The Specification describes Figure 14B as follows:
Referring now to exemplary FIG. 14B, a traditional frame
sequence 1442, which may be sampled at a uniform rate, may
be shown next to video plane sequence 1444, which may be
6
Appeal2018-000816
Application 14/218,073
sampled at a non-uniform rate. In frame sequence 1442, five
exemplary times, t=O, t=l, t=2, t=3, and t=4, along with
corresponding frames 1450, 1452, 1454, 1456, and 1458,
respectively, may be shown. In such an exemplary
embodiment, frame data may be sampled at the frames
corresponding to specific uniform times, t=O, t= 1, etc.
However, in video plane sequence 1444, sampling may occur at
any desired time. In such exemplary embodiments, a sampling
time, such as may be utilized where t=n does not correspond to
frame data, but rather corresponds to a video plane and data
associated with the video plane. Thus, although times t=O and
t=4 may correspond to traditional frames 1450 and 1458,
respectively, t=n may be any desired time and may not be
associated with specific frame data. Additionally, times t=O
and t=4 may be considered as reference points instead of frame
data, as the embodiments described herein may be performed
with respect [to] reference points or reference data, which may
or may not correspond to specific frame data. As described
herein, even if the reference data corresponds to, for example, a
first and second frame, sampling between such frames may be
done at any time and is not dependent on frame data between
such references. For example, in this embodiment, t=n may
correspond to a time at some point between frame 1456 at t=3
and frame 1458 at t=4. The data sampled at time n may be
considered as video plane 1460 data.
Spec. ,r 77. The Specification explains that Figures 14C and 14D similarly
illustrate sampling at any nonuniform time. Id. ,r,r 77-78, Figs. 14C-14D.
In determining that the claims fail to comply with the enablement
requirement, the Examiner erred by interpreting "frame-independent
sampling" too broadly, i.e., as precluding any relation to any frame. See
Final Act. 3; Ans. 2--4. Based on the Specification, "frame-independent
sampling" refers to sampling video plane data at times that do not depend on
uniformly spaced frame times. See, e.g., Spec. ,r,r 77-80, 90, 93-94,
Figs. 14B-14D, 18-20.
7
Appeal2018-000816
Application 14/218,073
The Examiner finds that (1) "[t]he breadth of the claims is narrow,"
(2) "[t]he level of one of ordinary skill is high," and (3) "[t]he level of
predictability in the art is high." Final Act. 3; Ans. 3. Based on those
findings and a proper interpretation of "frame-independent sampling," we
conclude that the claims satisfy the enablement requirement. Hence, we do
not sustain the§ 112(a) rejection of claims 1, 15, and 23 or the§ 112(a)
rejection of dependent claims 7, 17-19, 25-27, 30, and 31.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1, 7, 15, 17-19,
23, 25-27, 30, and 31.
REVERSED
8