Ex Parte ZENKICHDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 25, 201814218073 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 25, 2018) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation