Ex Parte Zheng et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 19, 2016

12737945 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jan. 19, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
121737,945 03/02/2011
24498 7590 01/21/2016
Robert D, Shedd, Patent Operations
THOMSON Licensing LLC
4 Research Way
3rd Floor
Princeton, NJ 08543
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Yunfei Zheng
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.
PU080117 9943
EXAMINER
MUNG,ONS
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2486
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
0112112016 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):
uspto@technicolor.com
pat. verlangieri@technicolor.com
russell. smith@technicolor.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte YUNFEI ZHENG, OSCAR DIVORRA ESCODA, PENG YIN,
and JOEL SOLE
Appeal2014-001709
Application 12/73 7 ,945
Technology Center 2400
Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, TRENTON A. WARD, and
MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges.
McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 3-10, 12, 13, 15-22, 24-31, 33, 34, and
36-42, which are all the claims pending in this application. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Thomson Licensing.
App. Br. 3.
Appeal2014-001709
Application 12/737,945
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellants' invention relates to encoding and decoding images using
explicit and implicit motion prediction. Abstract. Claim 1 is illustrative of
the invention and reads as follows:
1. An apparatus, comprising:
an encoder for encoding an image block using explicit
motion prediction to generate a coarse prediction for the image
block and using implicit motion prediction to refine the coarse
prediction.
The Examiner's Rejections
Claims 1, 3-8, 10, 12, 13, 15-20, 22, 24-29, 31, 33, 34, and 36-41
stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Kondo et al. (US
2007 /0092005 Al; pub. Apr. 26, 2007) ("Kondo"). See Final Act. 5-11. 2
Claims 9, 21, 30, and 42 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Kondo and Xin Li (Video Processing Via Implicit and
Mixture Motion Models, IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for
Video Technology, vol. 17, no. 8, pp. 953-63 (Aug. 2007)) ("Li"). See Final
Act. 11-12.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants'
contentions that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants'
2 Throughout this opinion, we refer to the Appellants' Appeal Brief ("App.
Br.") filed on July 19, 2013, and the Examiner's Answer ("Ans.") mailed on
October 22, 2013, the Appellants' Reply Brief ("Rep. Br.") filed on
November 19, 2013, and the Final Action ("Final Act.") mailed on May 28,
2013.
2
Appeal2014-001709
Application 12/737,945
conclusions. Except as noted below, we adopt as our own: (1) the findings
and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is
taken and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner's
Answer in response to Appellants' Appeal Brief. We concur with the
conclusions reached by the Examiner. We highlight the following additional
points.
Appellants contend that Kondo does not teach using "implicit motion
prediction" to "refine" the "coarse prediction" made by "explicit motion
prediction," as recited in the appealed claims. See App. Br. 16-21.
Specifically, Appellants argue that no refinement of the coarse prediction
occurs because the output of motion vector detector 40 is directly connected
to the input of motion vector encoder 46. App. Br. 16-17; Reply Br. 10-11.
Appellants also argue that Kondo' s disclosure of encoding residuals is
inapplicable to the challenged claims because residuals are "the remainder
after the prediction is subtracted from the input picture, and thus [are]
difference information and no longer a prediction at all." App. Br. 18.
We are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in finding that Kondo
teaches "using implicit motion prediction to refine the coarse prediction"
that was generated "using explicit motion prediction." As found by the
Examiner, Kondo teaches generating a "coarse prediction" using "explicit
motion prediction" by detecting and encoding a motion vector. Ans. 4
(citing Kondo Figs. 1-6, Fig. 16, Fig. 18, i-fi-124, 67, 97-105, 137, 171-74);
see also Kondo i-f 138. The Examiner further found that Kondo teaches
refining this coarse prediction using "implicit motion prediction." Final Act.
6; Ans. 5 (citing Kondo Figs. 1-6, i-fi-1 92, 257). In particular, we agree with
the Examiner's finding that Kondo's detecting and encoding motion vector
3
Appeal2014-001709
Application 12/737,945
data satisfies the "explicit motion prediction" claim limitation. This position
is consistent with Appellants' disclosure stating that "forward motion
prediction," synonymous with "explicit motion prediction," involves
"explicitly sending side information, namely motion information." See
Spec. p. 1, 11. 21-31.
We also agree with the Examiner's finding that Kondo' s disclosure of
using the least-square method to solve an equation for coefficients to encode
residual data satisfies the "using implicit motion prediction to refine the
coarse prediction" limitation. Ans. 5-6. First, according to Appellants'
disclosure, "backward motion prediction," which is synonymous with
"implicit motion prediction," can be accomplished with "the well-known
Least-square Prediction." See Spec. p. 1, 11. 25-32. Second, as explained by
Appellants, residual data is the data left over when a motion vector is
extracted from an image. See App. Br. 18; see also Spec. i-fi-f 136-138.
Accordingly, residual data depends on the result of explicit motion
prediction and any encoding of residual data which affects the ultimate
output of the encoder can be considered to "refine" the coarse prediction.
Therefore, we agree with the Examiner's finding that Kondo teaches
using the encoded motion vector to generate an equation that is solved by the
least-square method, a form of "implicit motion prediction." Ans. 4-5
(citing Kondo Figs. 1-6, Fig. 16, Fig. 25, i-fi-192, 115, 120, 171-74, 257,
259-78); see also Kondo i-fi-f 105-16, 117-19, 121-36. The solution of this
equation is used to encode residual data, which represents the portion of the
image left over after the motion vector is removed from the image. See id.
The encoded motion vector (the "coarse prediction" generated using
"explicit motion prediction") and the encoded residual data (the refinement
4
Appeal2014-001709
Application 12/737,945
generated using "implicit motion prediction") are combined to form the
output of the encoder. Kondo Fig. 1, i-f 138.
Appellants also argue that Kondo fails to disclose all of the elements
of the challenged claims because the explicit motion prediction performed
by vector detector 25 and motion vector detector 32 use previous images
ratherthan the image to be encoded. App. Br. 15, 17-18. We are not
persuaded of Examiner error because Appellants argue a feature that is not
recited in the claims. It is well established that limitations not appearing in
the claims cannot be relied upon for patentability. In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344,
1348 (CCPA 1982). Here, nothing in the claims requires that encoding the
current frame involves only data extracted from the current frame. Indeed,
similar to the cited passages of Kondo, Appellants' disclosure describes a
prediction approach based on encoding motion vectors using data from
reference frames other than the current frame. See, e.g., Spec. p. 2, 11.
19-25.
CONCLUSIONS
On the record before us and in view of the analysis above, we are not
persuaded by Appellants' contentions that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claims 1, 3-8, 10, 12, 13, 15-20, 22, 24-29, 31, 33, 34, and 36-41. We
therefore sustain the rejection of claims 1, 3-8, 10, 12, 13, 15-20, 22,
24-29, 31, 33, 34, and 36-41under35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by
Kondo.
Appellants contend the patentability of the remaining claims based on
the same reasons presented for claim 1 and the failure of Li to cure the
deficiencies of Kondo. App. Br. 22-23. We therefore sustain the rejection
5
Appeal2014-001709
Application 12/737,945
of claims 9, 21, 30, and42 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Kondo and Li for the same reasons as set forth above.
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1, 3-10, 12, 13, 15-22,
24-31, 33, 34, and 36-42 is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
hh
6