Ex Parte ZHU

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

May 26, 2004

08965637 (B.P.A.I. May. 26, 2004)

1
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was
not written for publication and is not binding precedent of the
Board.
Paper No. 19
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________
Ex parte CHUNRONG ZHU
__________
Appeal No. 2002-0723
Application 08/965,637
___________
ON BRIEF
___________
Before JERRY SMITH, RUGGIERO, and MacDONALD, Administrative
Patent Judges.
MacDONALD, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal from the final rejection of
claims 1-38.
Invention
The disclosed invention relates to a multi-layer coder
(figure 1) and multi-layer decoder (figure 4) and the methods
thereof. The base layer of the coder produces quantized output
Appeal No. 2002-0723
Application 08/965,637
2
signal samples (figure 1, item 130). The coder also produces
quantization error signal samples for the base layer by inverse
quantizing (figure 1, item 140) the output of the quantizer
(130) and subtracting this inverse signal from the original input
to the quantizer (130). The second layer of the coder compares
the quantization error signal samples to a threshold reference
value (180). If the error signals samples are larger than the
threshold, then the second layer subtracts the threshold
reference value from these error signal samples (145). The
result is quantized and output by the second layer (190)
(Appellant’s spec. at page 9, lines 11-23). The threshold
reference value (180) is continuously updated as a function of
the inverse quantized (125) output of the second layer (190).
The multi-layer decoder works in an inverse manner to the coder.
Claim 1 is representative of the claimed invention and is
reproduced as follows:
1. A method of producing quantization error signal
samples for a layer of a multi-layer coder applied to
successive video frames, said method comprising:
processing in a transform domain quantization
error signal samples produced by an immediately
preceding layer, the processing including using
reference quantization error signal samples if a
measured quantization error for the quantization error
signal samples exceeds a predetermined criterion.
Appeal No. 2002-0723
Application 08/965,637
3
References
The references relied on by the Examiner are as follows:
Yamaguchi et al 5,818,531 Oct. 6, 1998
Keesman 5,729,293 Mar. 17, 1998
Rejections At Issue
Claims 1-3, 5-13, 15-17, and 19-27 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Yamaguchi et al.
Claims 4, 14, 18, and 28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being obvious over Yamaguchi et al in view of Appellant’s
admitted prior art. Claims 29-38 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being obvious over Yamaguchi et al in view of Keesman.
Throughout our opinion, we make references to the
Appellant’s briefs, and to the Examiner’s Answer for the
respective detail thereof.
OPINION
With full consideration being given to the subject matter on
appeal, Examiner’s rejections and the arguments of Appellant and
Examiner, for the reasons stated infra, we reverse the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1-3, 5-13, 15-17, and 19-27 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e), we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 4, 14,
Appeal No. 2002-0723
Application 08/965,637
4
18, and 28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, and we reverse the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 29-38 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Appellant has indicated that for purposes of this appeal the
claims stand or fall together in five groupings:
Claims 1-3, 5-10, 15-17, and 19-24 as Group I;
Claims 4 and 18, as Group II;
Claims 11-13 and 25-27 as Group III;
Claims 14 and 28 as Group IV; and
Claims 29-38 as Group V.
See page 9 of the brief. Furthermore, Appellant argues each
group of claims separately and explains why the claims of each
group are believed to be separately patentable. See pages 9-19
of the brief and pages 4-17 of the reply brief. Examiner’s
position that Groups I and III form a single group and Groups II
and IV form a single group because they were rejected on “a
single ground” is unpersuasive as Appellant has fully met the
requirements of 37 CFR § 1.192 (c)(7) (July 1, 2002) as amended
at 62 Fed. Reg. 53169 (October 10, 1997), which was controlling
at the time of Appellant’s filing of the brief. 37 CFR § 1.192
(c)(7) states:
Appeal No. 2002-0723
Application 08/965,637
5
Grouping of claims. For each ground of
rejection which appellant contests and which
applies to a group of two or more claims, the
Board shall select a single claim from the
group and shall decide the appeal as to the
ground of rejection on the basis of that
claim alone unless a statement is included
that the claims of the group do not stand or
fall together and, in the argument under
paragraph (c)(8) of this section, appellant
explains why the claims of the group are
believed to be separately patentable. Merely
pointing out differences in what the claims
cover is not an argument as to why the claims
are separately patentable.
We will, thereby, consider Appellant’s claims as standing or
falling together in the five groups noted above, and we will
treat:
Claim 1 as a representative claim of Group I;
Claim 4 as a representative claim of Group II;
Claim 11 as a representative claim of Group III;
Claim 14 as a representative claim of Group IV; and
Claim 29 as a representative claim of Group V.
“If the brief fails to meet either requirement, the Board is free
to select a single claim from each group and to decide the appeal
of that rejection based solely on the selected representative
Appeal No. 2002-0723
Application 08/965,637
6
claim.” In re McDaniel, 293 F.3d 1379, 1383, 63 USPQ2d 1462,
1465 (Fed. Cir. 2002). See also In re Watts, 354 F.3d 1362, 69
USPQ2d 1453, 1457 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
I. Whether the Rejection of Claims 1-3, 5-10, 15-17, and
19-24 Under 35 U.S.C. § 102 is proper?
It is our view, after consideration of the record before us,
that the disclosure of Yamaguchi et al does not fully meet the
invention as recited in claims 1-3, 5-10, 15-17, and 19-24.
Accordingly, we reverse.
It is axiomatic that anticipation of a claim under § 102 can
be found only if the prior art reference discloses every element
of the claim. See In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1326, 231 USPQ 136,
138 (Fed. Cir. 1986) and Lindemann Maschinenfabrik GMBH v.
American Hoist & Derrick Co., 730 F.2d 1452, 1458, 221 USPQ 481,
485 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
With respect to independent claim 1, the Examiner has
indicated how he finds anticipation of the claims on appeal
[answer, page 4, lines 1-12 and page 5, lines 1-3]. The Examiner
deems “Ep” to meet the “quantization error signal samples”
Appeal No. 2002-0723
Application 08/965,637
7
[answer, page 4, lines 1-2]. Appellant argues “ ‘Ep’ in the
cited patent does not meet the limitation ‘quantization error
signal samples’ as recited in claim 1”. Rather, “Ep represents
either EMC or BMC”. See brief at pages 9-11. The Yamaguchi et
al reference defines EMC and BMC to each be a “motion
compensation prediction value” output from sections 200 and 201
respectively. We find that a value for motion compensation, in
which a motion vector is used to describe the translation of a
set of picture elements (pels) from one picture to another is not
the same as a sample of the quantization error where a picture is
quantized and then the quality of the quantization is determined.
Therefore, Appellant’s arguments are persuasive and we will
not sustain the Examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102.
Additionally, although not argued by Appellant, we take
notice of the fact that the processing of claim 1 is contingent
on “a measured quantization error for the quantization error
signals” exceeding a predetermine value. The feature of
Yamaguchi et al relied on to teach this feature is signal “Bq” of
figure 1. As can be seen in figure 1, Bq is in fact the
“quantized signal” output from quantizer 131, rather than an
error signal for that quantized signal.
Appeal No. 2002-0723
Application 08/965,637
8
II. Whether the Rejection of Claims 4 and 18 Under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 is proper?
It is our view, after consideration of the record before us,
that the evidence relied upon and the level of skill in the
particular art would not have suggested to one of ordinary skill
in the art the obviousness of the invention as set forth in
claims 4 and 18.
With respect to claim 4, we note that the Examiner has
relied on the admitted prior art solely to teach an H.263
compliant coder and the requirements thereof [answer, page 5].
The admitted prior art in combination with the Yamaguchi et al
reference fails to cure the deficiencies of Yamaguchi et al noted
above with respect to claim 1. Therefore, we will not sustain
the Examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for the same
reasons as set forth above.
III. Whether the Rejection of Claims 11-13 and 25-27 Under
35 U.S.C. § 102 is proper?
It is our view, after consideration of the record before us,
Appeal No. 2002-0723
Application 08/965,637
9
that the disclosure of Yamaguchi et al does not fully meet the
invention as recited in claims 11-13, and 25-27. Accordingly, we
reverse.
With respect to independent claim 11, the Examiner has
indicated how he finds anticipation of the claims on appeal
[answer, page 4, lines 13-19 and page 5, lines 1-3]. The
Examiner deems signal 31 to meet the “previous signal samples
were subtracted during coding” limitation of claim 11 [answer,
page 4, lines 17-18]. Appellant argues “nothing is subtracted
from Ec”. The Yamaguchi et al reference at figure 1 clearly
teaches that indeed the signal Ec is formed by a subtraction at
node 120 as can be seen by the minus symbol on the bottom input
to node 120. We find that Examiner’s argument to be persuasive.
However, the Examiner also deems the processing of signal 22
with signal 31 to meet the overall limitations of claim 11.
We take notice of the fact that the summing of previous signal
samples in claim 11 is contingent on the previous signal samples
being “for this layer”. As can be seen in figure 4, signal 22 is
for the “enhancement layer” and signal 31 is for the “base
layer.” Thus, these signal are “not” signals samples for the
Appeal No. 2002-0723
Application 08/965,637
10
same layer. Therefore, Appellant’s argument that “Examiner has
failed to establish that Yamaguchi meets each and every
limitation of the rejected claims” is persuasive and we will not
sustain the Examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102.
IV. Whether the Rejection of Claims 14 and 28 Under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 is proper?
It is our view, after consideration of the record before us,
that the evidence relied upon and the level of skill in the
particular art would not have suggested to one of ordinary skill
in the art the obviousness of the invention as set forth in
claims 14 and 28.
With respect to claim 14, we note that the Examiner has
relied on the admitted prior art solely to teach an H.263
compliant coder and the requirements thereof [answer, page 5].
The admitted prior art in combination with the Yamaguchi et al
reference fails to cure the deficiencies of Yamaguchi et al noted
above with respect to claim 11. Therefore, we will not sustain
the Examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for the same
reasons as set forth above.
Appeal No. 2002-0723
Application 08/965,637
11
V. Whether the Rejection of Claims 29-38 Under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 is proper?
It is our view, after consideration of the record before us,
that the evidence relied upon and the level of skill in the
particular art would not have suggested to one of ordinary skill
in the art the obviousness of the invention as set forth in
claims 29-38.
With respect to claim 29, we note that the Examiner has
relied on the Keesman reference solely to teach “applying an
inverse transform and performing motion estimation in only one
layer” [answer, page 6]. The Keesman reference in combination
with the Yamaguchi et al reference fails to cure the deficiencies
of Yamaguchi et al noted above with respect to claim 1.
Therefore, we will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for the same reasons as set forth above.
Conclusion
In summary, we have not sustained any of the Examiner’s
Appeal No. 2002-0723
Application 08/965,637
12
rejections of the claims on appeal. Therefore, the decision of
the Examiner rejecting claims 1-38 is reversed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in
connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR
§ 1.136(a).
REVERSED
JERRY SMITH )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO )
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
)
) INTERFERENCES
)
ALLEN R. MacDONALD )
Administrative Patent Judge )
ARM:pgc
Appeal No. 2002-0723
Application 08/965,637
13
Howard Skaist
Blakely Sokoloff Taylor & Zafma
7th Floor
12400 Wilshire Boulevard
Los Angeles, CA 90025