Ex Parte Zhong

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 29, 2013

11314690 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 29, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte SHENG ZHONG
____________________

Appeal 2011-004739
Application 11/314,6901
Technology Center 2400
____________________

Before THU A. DANG, JAMES R. HUGHES, and
GREGORY J. GONSALVES, Administrative Patent Judges.

HUGHES, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

1 Application filed December 20, 2005. The real party in interest is
Broadcom Corp. (App. Br. 2.)

Appeal 2011-004739
Application 11/314,690

2

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’s
final decision rejecting claims 1-5 and 13-17. The Examiner indicates
claims 6-12 and 18-24 include allowable subject matter. (App. Br. 2.) We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm-in-part.
Appellant’s Invention
The invention at issue on appeal concerns a method and system for
image processing in particular, motion-based video processing utilizing a
non-linear blending factor. (Spec., ¶¶ [003], [011] - [012]; Abstract.)2
Representative Claim
Independent claim 1, reproduced below, with disputed limitations
italicized, further illustrates the invention:
1. A method for processing images, the method
comprising:
performing by one or more processors and/or circuits:
computing a blending factor comprising a nonlinear
relationship to a motion metric that defines an amount of
motion between a current video picture and one or both of at
least one preceding video picture and at least one subsequent
video picture; and
adjusting at least one pixel in said current video picture
based on said computed blending factor.

2 We refer to Appellant’s Specification (“Spec.”); Appeal Brief (“App. Br.”)
filed June 28, 2010; and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.”) filed November 22, 2010.
We also refer to the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.”) mailed September 21,
2010.
Appeal 2011-004739
Application 11/314,690

3

Rejections on Appeal
1. The Examiner rejects 1-4 and 13-16 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication No.: US
2002/0027610 A1, published Mar. 7, 2002 (“Jiang”).
2. The Examiner rejects claims 5 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Jiang and U.S. Patent No.: 5,500,685, issued
Mar. 19, 1996 (“Kokaram”).

ISSUES
Based on our review of the administrative record, Appellant’s
contentions, and the Examiner’s findings and conclusions, the pivotal issues
before us follow:
1. Does the Examiner err in finding that Jiang discloses
“computing a blending factor comprising a nonlinear relationship to a
motion metric” within the meaning of independent claim 1 and the
commensurate limitation of claim 13?
2. Does the Examiner err in finding that Jiang discloses
“computing said blending factor and said motion metric for one or more of a
finite impulse response (FIR) noise reduction (NR) mode, an infinite
impulse response (IIR) NR mode, and an adaptive blended NR mode” within
the meaning of claim 3 and the commensurate limitation of claim 15?
3. Does the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Jiang
and Kokaram is properly combinable?

Appeal 2011-004739
Application 11/314,690

4

FINDINGS OF FACT
We adopt the Examiner’s findings in the Answer and the Final Office
Action mailed February 2, 2010 as our own, except as to those findings that
we expressly overturn or set aside in the Analysis that follows.

ANALYSIS
Based on Appellant’s arguments (App. Br. 4-12), we select
independent claim 1 and dependent claims 3 and 5 as representative of
Appellant’s arguments and groupings with respect to claims 1-5 and 13-17.
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
The § 102 Rejection of Claim 1
Appellant contends that the Jiang fails to disclose certain features of
the claimed invention, in particular the recited blending factor. (App. Br. 5-
6; Reply Br. 2-5). Specifically, Appellant contends:
Jiang does not, however, disclose or suggest “computing
[or circuitry to compute] a blending factor comprising a
nonlinear relationship to a motion metric.” Rather, Jiang
merely discloses using blending factors that are stored within
the LUT Look-Up-Table] 111 and associating a particular
motion metric value to one of those blending factors. Hence,
Jiang does not disclose computing the blending factors at all, let
alone computing one comprising a nonlinear relationship to a
motion metric.
(App. Br. 5.) Appellant further contends that “[r]etrieving a blending factor
from a look-up table does not constitute ‘computing’ a blending factor, let
alone computing a blending factor comprising a nonlinear relationship to a
motion metric.” (App. Br. 6.)
The Examiner sets forth a detailed explanation of the anticipation
rejection in the Examiner’s Answer with respect to each of the claims so
Appeal 2011-004739
Application 11/314,690

5

rejected (Ans. 3-10) and, in particular, the rejection of claim 1 (Ans. 3-4, 6-
8). Specifically, the Examiner provides a detailed explanation with respect
to Jiang’s disclosure of a blending factor (Ans. 3-4, 6-8 (citing Jiang, ¶¶
[0020], [0034], [0043]-[0045]; Fig. 5)). We adopt these findings and this
reasoning as our own.
Upon consideration of the evidence on this record and each of
Appellant’s contentions, we find that the preponderance of evidence on this
record supports the Examiner’s findings that Jiang discloses the disputed
features of claim 1. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
claim 1 for the reasons set forth in the Answer, which we incorporate herein
by reference. (Ans. 3-10.) We limit our additional analysis to the following
points of emphasis.
We agree with the Examiner (and find) that Jiang describes
“computing” a blending factor. In particular, we agree with the Examiner’s
broad but reasonable construction of “computing” to simply mean
determining – as explained by the Examiner computing means “to determine
especially by mathematical means” (Ans. 7). See Webster’s New World
College Dictionary, 4th Ed. (1999), available at
http://www.yourdictionary.com/ (The definition of “compute” is “to
determine a number, amount, etc.”). Appellant seems to assert that
“computing” requires an actual mathematical calculation (e.g., utilizing an
undisclosed expression/algorithm) to derive the blending factor. (App. Br.
5-6; Reply Br. 3-4.) We decline to adopt Appellant’s overly-narrow
definition. We further note Appellant’s own Specification (Spec. 20, ¶ [053]
(values for “computing” blending factor are stored in registers)) and
arguments (App. Br. 5 (Jiang’s motion metrics are computed and utilized to
Appeal 2011-004739
Application 11/314,690

6

determine the blending factor in the look-up-table)) belie the proffered
arguments that Jiang does not “compute” a blending factor. To the extent
Appellant argues that Jiang’s blending factor is not “non-linear” with respect
to the motion metric, we note that this feature is non-functional descriptive
material3 that does not further limit the claim structurally or functionally.
We further note that Appellant’s own Specification describes a “piece-wise
linear”/“non-linear” relationship (Spec. 20, ¶ [053]) similar to that disclosed
by Jiang (Jiang, ¶¶ [0043]-[0044]).
Thus, Appellant does not persuade us of error in the Examiner’s
anticipation rejection or representative independent claim 1, independent
claim 13 which includes limitations of commensurate scope, or dependent
claims 2 and 14 which depend thereon and were not separately argued with
particularity (App. Br. 7). Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection
of claims 1, 2, 13, and 14.

3 The recited processor structure and functionality remain the same
regardless of what the data (blending factor) constitutes, how the data may
be named, or the relationship among the data and do not further limit the
claimed invention either functionally or structurally. The informational
content of the data thus represents non-functional descriptive material,
which “does not lend patentability to an otherwise unpatentable computer-
implemented product or process.” Ex parte Nehls, 88 USPQ2d 1883, 1889
(BPAI 2008) (precedential). See Ex parte Curry, 84 USPQ2d 1272, 1274
(BPAI 2005) (informative) (Fed. Cir. Appeal No. 2006-1003), aff’d, Rule 36
(June 12, 2006) (“wellness-related” data in databases and communicated on
distributed network did not functionally change either the data storage
system or the communication system used in the claimed method). See also
In re Ngai, 367 F.3d 1336, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2004); Nehls, 88 USPQ2d at
1887-90 (discussing non-functional descriptive material).
Appeal 2011-004739
Application 11/314,690

7

The § 102 Rejections of Claims 3, 4, 15, and 16
Appellant also contends, with respect to claim 3, that Jiang fails to
disclose certain features of the claimed invention, in particular, computing
the blending factor for the various recited noise reduction modes. (App. Br.
7-8; Reply Br. 4-7). Specifically, Appellant contends that “Jiang fails to
disclose or suggest at least the limitation of ‘computing said blending factor
and said motion metric for one or more of a finite impulse response (FIR)
noise reduction (NR) mode, an infinite impulse response (IIR) NR mode,
and an adaptive blended NR mode,’ as recited by claim 3.” (App. Br. 7.)
The Examiner submits that Jiang describes an adaptively calculated
blending factor and noise reduction which is equivalent to the recited
“adaptive blended NR mode.” (Ans. 4-5, 8-9 (citing Jiang, ¶¶ [0020],
[0025], [0038], [0043].)
We disagree with the Examiner’s findings and agree with Appellant
that the cited portions of Jiang do not disclose a FIR NR mode, an IIR NR
mode, or a combination of the two, i.e., an adaptive blended NR mode.
(App. Br. 7-8; Reply Br. 4-7.)
Consequently, based on this record, we conclude that the Examiner
erred in finding that Jiang discloses Appellant’s claimed blending factor.
Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of
representative dependent claim 3, dependent claim 15 which includes
limitations of commensurate scope, and dependent claims 4 and 16 which
depend thereon.
The § 103 Rejection of Claims 5 and 17
The Examiner rejects representative dependent claim 5 over the
combination of Jiang and Kokaram. (Ans. 5.) Appellant contends that
Appeal 2011-004739
Application 11/314,690

8

“claims 5 and 17 are allowable over Jiang at least for the reasons stated
above with regard to claims 1 and 13[, and] Kokaram fails to overcome the
above-noted deficiencies of Jiang.” (App. Br. 10) Appellant further
contends that “[r]egardless of whether or not this is an accurate assessment
of Kokaram, the Examiner fails to provide ‘articulated reasoning with some
rationale underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness’ in the
detailed manner described in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550
U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (citation omitted) ].” (App. Br. 11; see App. Br. 10-
12; Reply Br. 8-9.)
We deem the Examiner’s findings with respect to Kokaram to be
undisputed because Appellant failed to rebut the Examiner’s findings and
conclusions with sufficient particularity. (App. Br. 10-11.) With respect to
Appellant’s combinability arguments, the Examiner provides a rationale for
combining the references – “in order to remove noise from a current frame
of an image sequence having plurality of frames comprising a motion
picture” (Ans. 6), i.e., to improve performance and efficiency of the
video/image processing system. Therefore, the Examiner has stated “some
rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness,” KSR,
550 U.S. 398, 418 (quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)),
and Appellant has not shown error therein.
We further conclude that it would have been well within the skill of
one skilled in the art to combine such known techniques, i.e., to combine the
Wiener filtering noise reduction method of Kokaram (either “in the
frequency domain, effectively as an IIR ] filter, or in the spatio-temporal
domain as an FIR ] filter” (Kokaram, col. 6, ll. 51-54)) with the blending
factor and motion metric computation method of Jiang. See KSR, 550 U.S.
Appeal 2011-004739
Application 11/314,690

9

at 417 (“[I]f a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person
of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar
devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual
application is beyond his or her skill” (citations omitted)).
Thus, Appellant does not persuade us of error in the Examiner’s
obviousness rejection of representative dependent claim 5 or dependent
claim 17 which includes limitations of commensurate scope. Accordingly,
we affirm the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 5 and 17.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Appellant has not shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1,
2, 13, and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
Appellant has shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 3, 4,
15, and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
Appellant has not shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 5
and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1, 2, 13, and 14 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
We reverse the Examiner’s rejections of claims 3, 4, 15, and 16 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
We affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claims 5 and 17 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a).

Appeal 2011-004739
Application 11/314,690

10

No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

llw