Imagination Technologies Limited

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 1, 2020

2019004586 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 1, 2020)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
15/176,727 06/08/2016 Steven Fishwick 2645-0284US01 5896
125968 7590 12/01/2020
Potomac Law Group PLLC (IMGTEC)
8229 Boone Boulevard Suite 430
Vienna, VA 22182
EXAMINER
HESS, MICHAEL J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2481
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/01/2020 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):
Eofficeaction@appcoll.com
Patents@potomaclaw.com
vdeluca@potomaclaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte STEVEN FISHWICK and JONATHAN DIGGINS
____________

Appeal 2019-004586
Application 15/176,727
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, SCOTT B. HOWARD, and
STEVEN M. AMUNDSON, Administrative Patent Judges.

AMUNDSON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final
rejection of claims 1 and 3–20, i.e., all pending claims. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42 (2018). Appellant identifies the real party in interest
as Imagination Technologies Limited. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2019-004586
Application 15/176,727

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Invention
According to the Specification, the invention concerns “a method and
data processing system for performing motion estimation in a sequence of
frames.” Spec. 1.2 The Specification explains that “systems for handling
video streams or other sequences of frames” may “estimate the motion of
features depicted in the stream between frames.” Id. “[M]otion estimation
information allows efficient compression of a video stream since” it permits
the replacement of “the pixels representing the same feature in multiple
video frames with a compressed description of the pixels and information
describing the movement of those pixels between frames.” Id. In general,
identifying the motion of blocks of pixels between frames involves
comparing pixel data for each block “with pixel data from various candidate
locations in” the previous and next frames and using “the candidate that
gives the best match” as a motion vector. Id.
The Specification also explains that “it is not always possible to
identify the most appropriate motion vector by a pixel-matching search of
consecutive frames” because (1) “it is not usually possible to search every
possible mapping of a block of pixels between frames” and (2) “the object
represented by those pixels may change in size or orientation between
frames due to its movement.” Spec. 19. Hence, the invention endeavors “to
generate additional candidate vectors for assessment,” e.g., candidate vectors

2 This decision uses the following abbreviations: “Spec.” for the
Specification, filed June 8, 2016; “Final Act.” for the Final Office Action,
mailed July 11, 2018; “Appeal Br.” for the Appeal Brief, filed December 31,
2018; “Ans.” for the Examiner’s Answer, mailed March 21, 2019; and
“Reply Br.” for the Reply Brief, filed May 21, 2019.
Appeal 2019-004586
Application 15/176,727

3
“derived by mechanisms other than matching pixels between the previous
and next frames.” Id.
Exemplary Claim
Independent claim 1 exemplifies the claims at issue and reads as
follows (with formatting added for clarity):
1. A data processing system for performing motion
estimation in a sequence of frames comprising first and
second frames each divided into respective sets of blocks
of pixels, the system comprising:
a vector generator configured to form motion vector
candidates each representing motion of a block of pixels
between the first and second frames; and
a vector processor configured to, if no motion vector
candidates are available for a search block of the first frame,
identify a first motion vector candidate ending in
a block of the second frame collocated with the search
block and
form an output vector for the search block which is
substantially parallel to the first motion vector candidate
and represents a mapping of pixels from the search block
to the second frame.
Appeal Br. 12 (Claims App.).
The Prior Art Supporting the Rejections on Appeal
As evidence of unpatentability under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the Examiner
relies on U.S. Patent Application Publication 2013/0170551 A1 to Liu et al.,
titled “Halo Reduction in Frame-Rate-Conversion Using Hybrid Bi-
Directional Motion Vectors for Occlusion/Disocclusion Detection,” and
published on July 4, 2013 (“Liu”).
Appeal 2019-004586
Application 15/176,727

4
The Rejections on Appeal
Claims 1 and 3–20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) for failing
to comply with the written-description requirement. Final Act. 10–11.
Claims 1 and 3–20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) for failing
to comply with the enablement requirement. Final Act. 10–11.
Claims 1 and 3–20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as
indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject
matter regarded as the invention. Final Act. 11–12.
Claims 1 and 3–20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Liu. Final Act. 13–22.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the rejections in light of Appellant’s arguments
that the Examiner erred. For the reasons explained below, we disagree with
the Examiner’s unpatentability determinations. We provide the following to
address and emphasize specific findings and arguments.
The § 112(a) Rejection of Claims 1 and 3–20 for
Failing to Comply with the Written-Description Requirement
Section 112’s first paragraph requires that the specification “contain
a written description of the invention.” 35 U.S.C. § 112(a). The written-
description requirement serves to “clearly allow persons of ordinary skill
in the art to recognize that [the inventor] invented what is claimed.” Ariad
Pharm., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010)
(en banc) (alteration in original) (quoting Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar,
935 F.2d 1555, 1563 (Fed. Cir. 1991)); see also Blue Calypso, LLC v.
Groupon, Inc., 815 F.3d 1331, 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Appeal 2019-004586
Application 15/176,727

5
“[T]he test for sufficiency is whether the disclosure of the application
relied upon reasonably conveys to those skilled in the art that the inventor
had possession of the claimed subject matter as of the filing date.” Ariad,
598 F.3d at 1351; Mentor Graphics Corp. v. EVE-USA, Inc., 851 F.3d 1275,
1296 (Fed. Cir. 2017). The “test requires an objective inquiry into the four
corners of the specification from the perspective of a person of ordinary skill
in the art.” Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1351. While the written-description
requirement “does not demand any particular form of disclosure” or “that the
specification recite the claimed invention in haec verba, a description that
merely renders the invention obvious does not satisfy the requirement.” Id.
at 1352. The analysis for disclosure sufficiency may consider “such
descriptive means as words, structures, figures, diagrams, formulas, etc.”
Lockwood v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Claim 1 includes the following limitations:
if no motion vector candidates are available for a search block
of the first frame, identify a first motion vector candidate
ending in a block of the second frame collocated with the
search block and form an output vector for the search block
which is substantially parallel to the first motion vector
candidate and represents a mapping of pixels from the search
block to the second frame.
Appeal Br. 12. Independent claims 19 and 20 each include similar
limitations. Id. at 15–16.
The Examiner determines that the claims cover “subject matter
broader than that described in Applicant’s Specification.” Final Act. 10;
Ans. 5. Specifically, the Examiner finds that there is “no explicit support in
the Specification for ‘no motion vector candidates.’” Ans. 24; see also id. at
20–22. The Examiner also finds that the Specification “supports outputting
Appeal 2019-004586
Application 15/176,727

6
parallel motion vectors for interpolated frames” but lacks “support for
claiming the outputting of parallel motion vectors for non-interpolation
frames.” Id. at 22, 24 (emphases by the Examiner) (citing Spec. 23–24); see
also Final Act. 3–4.
Appellant contends that the claims comply with the written-
description requirement. See Appeal Br. 4, 8–9; Reply Br. 1–2.
Specifically, Appellant asserts that the Specification “clearly and fully”
supports motion estimation “for a first and second frame such that, if no
motion vector candidates are generated for a search block of the first frame,
a first motion vector candidate is identified ending in a block of the second
frame collocated with the search block of the first frame.” Appeal Br. 9.
We agree with Appellant that the claims comply with the written-
description requirement. See Appeal Br. 4, 8–9; Reply Br. 1–2; Spec.
19–25, Figs. 12–14. In particular, the Specification distinguishes between
motion vector candidates representing (1) a “good match” between the
previous and next frames and (2) a “poor match” between the previous
and next frames. Spec. 22; see id. at 19–20. For a “poor match,” the
Specification discloses (1) identifying “a first motion vector candidate
ending in a block of the second frame collocated with the search block” of
the first frame and (2) forming “an output vector for the search block which
is substantially parallel to the first motion vector candidate and represents a
mapping of pixels from the search block to the second frame” according to
claims 1, 19, and 20. See id. at 22–25, Figs. 13–14. Figure 13 depicts those
steps where the first frame corresponds to the previous frame at t = 0 and the
second frame corresponds to the next frame at t = 1, thus producing a
forward motion vector. Id. at 23–24, Fig. 13. Figure 14 depicts those steps
Appeal 2019-004586
Application 15/176,727

7
where the first frame corresponds to the next frame at t = 1 and the second
frame corresponds to the previous frame at t = 0, thus producing a backward
motion vector. Id. at 24–25, Fig. 14.
In addition, the Specification discloses using an error score, e.g., a
sum of the absolute differences (SAD) or a mean of the squared differences
(MSD), to determine a degree of similarity, i.e., a “good match” or a “poor
match.” Spec. 20–22. For example, if “the error score of the best vector
output indicates that the vector represents a poor match between the previous
and next frames (e.g. its score lies above the predetermined threshold),”
a zigzag vector is formed. Id. at 22. The Examiner acknowledges that the
claims cover the process for forming a zigzag vector. Ans. 19.
Based on the disclosures discussed above, an ordinarily skilled artisan
would recognize that a “poor match” corresponds to and supports the claim
requirement that “no motion vector candidates are available.”
As for the Examiner’s finding that the Specification supports
outputting parallel motion vectors for interpolated frames but not
noninterpolated frames, claims 1, 19, and 20 do not specify a frame type.
Thus, Specification support for outputting parallel motion vectors for
interpolated frames suffices to show that the inventors had possession of the
claimed subject matter as of the filing date. Contrary to the Examiner’s
finding, however, the Specification also supports outputting parallel motion
vectors for noninterpolated frames because it discloses outputting single-
ended vectors between noninterpolated frames, e.g., outputting a single-
ended vector from a previous frame to a next frame. See, e.g., Spec. 5–6,
11–12, 18–19, 24–26, 32–33, Figs. 3, 6. For instance, the Specification
states:
Appeal 2019-004586
Application 15/176,727

8
The system could be configured to identify single-ended
vectors for blocks of the previous frame or next frame (e.g. in
the case the system is configured to perform video encoding)
and/or double-ended vectors for a current frame interpolated
between the previous and next frames (e.g. in the case the
system is configured to perform frame rate conversion).
Id. at 18.
Hence, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 1 and 3–20 under
§ 112(a) for failing to comply with the written-description requirement.
The § 112(a) Rejection of Claims 1 and 3–20 for
Failing to Comply with the Enablement Requirement
Section 112’s first paragraph also requires that the specification
describe “the manner and process of making and using [the invention], in
such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled
in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected,
to make and use the same.” 35 U.S.C. § 112(a). “To be enabling, the
specification of a patent [application] must teach those skilled in the art how
to make and use the full scope of the claimed invention without ‘undue
experimentation.’” Genentech, Inc. v. Novo Nordisk, A/S, 108 F.3d 1361,
1365 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (quoting In re Wright, 999 F.2d 1557, 1561 (Fed. Cir.
1993)). Determining the need for “undue experimentation” is not “a single,
simple factual determination, but rather is a conclusion reached by weighing
many” factors. In re Wands, 858 F.2d 731, 737 (Fed. Cir. 1988). Those
factors (the Wands factors) include:
(1) the quantity of experimentation necessary, (2) the amount of
direction or guidance presented, (3) the presence or absence of
working examples, (4) the nature of the invention, (5) the state
of the prior art, (6) the relative skill of those in the art, (7) the
predictability or unpredictability of the art, and (8) the breadth
of the claims.
Appeal 2019-004586
Application 15/176,727

9
Id. (citing In re Forman, 230 USPQ 546, 547 (BPAI 1986)).
The Examiner determines that “a skilled artisan would not be enabled
to practice the full scope of the subject matter claimed in view of
Applicant’s disclosure.” Final Act. 10; Ans. 5. According to the Examiner,
the Specification fails to enable a skilled artisan “to practice frame
interpolation and motion prediction/compensation.” Final Act. 10; Ans. 5.
Appellant contends that the claims comply with the enablement
requirement. See Appeal Br. 4, 8–9; Reply Br. 1–2. Further, Appellant
asserts that the Examiner fails to explain why “a skilled artisan would not be
enabled to practice the full scope of the subject matter claimed in view of
Applicant’s disclosure.” Reply Br. 1 (quoting Final Act. 10 and Ans. 5).
We agree with Appellant that the Examiner has not adequately
explained the nonenablement rejection. See Reply Br. 1–2. Among other
things, the Examiner has not adequately addressed the Wands factors or
otherwise explained why an ordinarily skilled artisan would have to engage
in undue experimentation to practice the claimed subject matter. See Final
Act. 10–11; Ans. 5–6, 24–25. Although the Examiner determines that the
Specification fails to enable a skilled artisan “to practice frame interpolation
and motion prediction/compensation,” the record does not reflect that the
Examiner considered any of the Wands factors in making that determination.
See Final Act. 10–11; Ans. 5–6, 24–25.
Hence, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 1 and 3–20 under
§ 112(a) for failing to comply with the enablement requirement.
Appeal 2019-004586
Application 15/176,727

10
The § 112(b) Rejections of Claims 1 and 3–20
INTRODUCTION
Section 112’s second paragraph requires that the specification
“conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly
claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as
the invention.” 35 U.S.C. § 112(b). The definiteness requirement “strikes a
‘delicate balance’ between ‘the inherent limitations of language’ and
providing ‘clear notice of what is claimed.’” Sonix Tech. Co. v. Publ’ns
Int’l, Ltd., 844 F.3d 1370, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting Nautilus, Inc. v.
Biosig Instruments, Inc., 572 U.S. 898, 909 (2014)).
Due to the need for “particular[ity]” and “distinct[ness],” claim
language that “is ambiguous, vague, incoherent, opaque, or otherwise
unclear in describing and defining the claimed invention” warrants a
rejection under § 112(b). In re Packard, 751 F.3d 1307, 1311, 1313
(Fed. Cir. 2014); see also Ex parte McAward, Appeal 2015-006416,
2017 WL 3669566, at *5 (PTAB Aug. 25, 2017) (precedential); In re
Warmerdam, 33 F.3d 1354, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (explaining that “[t]he
legal standard for definiteness is whether a claim reasonably apprises
those of skill in the art of its scope”); In re Moore, 439 F.2d 1232, 1235
(CCPA 1971) (requiring “a reasonable degree of precision and particularity”
in claims).
CLAIMS 1, 8, 19, AND 20: LACK OF CLARITY
Claims 1, 19, and 20 each require (1) identifying “a first motion
vector candidate ending in a block of the second frame collocated with the
search block” of the first frame and (2) forming “an output vector for the
search block which is substantially parallel to the first motion vector
Appeal 2019-004586
Application 15/176,727

11
candidate and represents a mapping of pixels from the search block to the
second frame.” Appeal Br. 12, 15–16. Claim 8 depends directly from
claim 1 and further requires that “the motion vector candidates include
double-ended vectors originating at blocks of an interpolated frame between
the first and second frames.” Id. at 13.
The Examiner “could not settle on a reasonably certain interpretation
of the claims.” Final Act. 11; Ans. 6. The Examiner explains that the
claimed “first frame” could correspond to “the interpolated frame” and the
claimed “second frame” could correspond to “either a past or future frame,
which forms the prediction for the interpolated frame.” Final Act. 11;
Ans. 6. The Examiner also explains that “an equally plausible interpretation
is the first and second frames are original frames and do not include the
interpolated frame.” Final Act. 11; Ans. 6. According to the Examiner,
“Appellant’s disclosure . . . defines the invention using three frames,” and
the “confusion is which two of the three disclosed frames are” covered by
claims 1, 19, and 20. Ans. 22 (emphasis by the Examiner). The Examiner
adds that claim 8 “casts doubt on either interpretation because it suggests
neither the first or second is the interpolated frame.” Final Act. 11; Ans. 6.
Appellant contends that the claims comply with the definiteness
requirement. See Appeal Br. 6–8; Reply Br. 2–4. Specifically, Appellant
asserts that claims 1, 19, and 20 read on the example depicted in Figure 13
where the first frame corresponds to the previous frame at t = 0 and the
second frame corresponds to the next frame at t = 1. See Appeal Br. 6–7.
Appellant also asserts that there is no basis in the Specification for the
Examiner’s “interpretation of the recited ‘first frame’ as an interpolated
frame.” Id. at 7. In addition, Appellant contends that claim 8 “references an
Appeal 2019-004586
Application 15/176,727

12
interpolated frame between the first and second frames, thus confirming that
the first frame is not an interpolated frame.” Reply Br. 3 (emphases by
Appellant).
We agree with Appellant that the claims comply with the definiteness
requirement because an ordinarily skilled artisan would understand the scope
of the claimed “first frame” and “second frame” when viewed in light of
the Specification. See Appeal Br. 6–8; Reply Br. 2–4; Spec. 22–25, Figs.
13–14. In particular, Figure 13 depicts an example where the first frame
corresponds to the previous frame at t = 0 and the second frame corresponds
to the next frame at t = 1. Spec. 23–24, Fig. 13. In addition, Figure 14
depicts an example where the first frame corresponds to the next frame at
t = 1 and the second frame corresponds to the previous frame at t = 0. Id.
at 24–25, Fig. 14. Consistent with those examples, the Specification states,
“The first frame may precede the second frame in the sequence with the
output vector being directed forwards in time. Alternatively, the first frame
may follow the second frame in the sequence with the output vector being
directed backwards in time.” Id. at 9. Moreover, claim 8’s requirement that
“the motion vector candidates include double-ended vectors originating at
blocks of an interpolated frame between the first and second frames”
indicates that the first and second frames correspond to noninterpolated
frames.
But even if the claimed “first frame” or “second frame” (or both)
covered interpolated frames, claim breadth does not equate to indefiniteness.
See In re Miller, 441 F.2d 689, 693 (CCPA 1971); In re Gardner, 427 F.2d
786, 788 (CCPA 1970).
Appeal 2019-004586
Application 15/176,727

13
Hence, we do not sustain the § 112(b) rejection of claims 1, 8, 19,
and 20.
CLAIMS 1 AND 3–18: LACK OF ALGORITHM
Background
Claim 1 recites the following limitations: “a vector generator
configured to form motion vector candidates each representing motion of
a block of pixels between the first and second frames” and “a vector
processor configured to . . . identify a first motion vector candidate ending in
a block of the second frame collocated with the search block and form an
output vector for the search block . . . .” Appeal Br. 12. Claims 3–18
depend directly or indirectly from claim 1. Id. at 12–15.
The Examiner determines that claim 1’s “vector generator” and
“vector processor” limitations invoke 35 U.S.C. § 112(f). See Final Act.
8–10, 12; Ans. 3–6. Then, the Examiner finds that the Specification “fails
to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for the claimed
functions” in the “vector generator” and “vector processor” limitations.
Final Act. 12; Ans. 6. Specifically, the Examiner explains that the flowchart
in Figure 15 “merely repeats the claimed functions and does not provide
further elucidation regarding how those functions are achieved.” Ans. 20
(emphasis by the Examiner).
Appellant argues that the Specification discloses “algorithms required
to implement the invention on a general purpose computer (and thus to
transform the general purpose computer into a special purpose computer).”
Appeal Br. 5.
Appeal 2019-004586
Application 15/176,727

14
Analysis
Section 112’s sixth paragraph provides that a claim element “may be
expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the
recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof” and that “such claim
shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts
described in the specification and equivalents thereof.” 35 U.S.C. § 112(f).
A failure to adequately disclose corresponding structure, material, or acts
equates to a failure to satisfy the definiteness requirement because an
ordinarily skilled artisan could not ascertain the claim element’s equivalents.
See Aristocrat Techs. Austl. Pty Ltd. v. Int’l Game Tech., 521 F.3d 1328,
1337–38 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
For a computer-implemented function, a suitable “algorithm for
performing the claimed function” supplies the necessary disclosure for
§ 112(f). Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339, 1352 (Fed. Cir.
2015). The algorithm may appear “as a mathematical formula, in prose, as
a flow chart, or in any other manner that provides sufficient structure.” Id.
A “specific set of instructions or rules” may suffice for § 112(f). Apple Inc.
v. Motorola, Inc., 757 F.3d 1286, 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2014), overruled on other
grounds by Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir.
2015).
We agree with Appellant that the Specification discloses algorithms
for performing the claimed functions in the “vector generator” and “vector
processor” limitations. See Appeal Br. 5; Spec. 19–25, Figs. 12–14. In
particular, the Specification describes in prose steps for performing the
claimed functions. See Spec. 19–25, Figs. 12–14. For example, referencing
Figures 13 and 14, the Specification explains the steps for forming a zigzag
Appeal 2019-004586
Application 15/176,727

15
vector. Id. at 23–25, Figs. 13–14. The Examiner acknowledges that the
claims cover the process for forming a zigzag vector. Ans. 19. Accordingly,
the Specification discloses algorithms for performing the claimed functions
in the “vector generator” and “vector processor” limitations.
Hence, we do not sustain the § 112(b) rejection of claims 1 and 3–18
based on § 112(f).
The § 103 Rejection of Claims 1 and 3–20
As noted above, the § 103 rejection of claims 1, 19, and 20 rests on
Liu. See Final Act. 13–15, 22. Appellant argues that the Examiner erred in
rejecting claims 1, 19, and 20 because “Liu does not disclose or suggest”
the following limitations in each claim: (1) identifying “a first motion vector
candidate ending in a block of the second frame collocated with the search
block” of the first frame and (2) forming “an output vector for the search
block which is substantially parallel to the first motion vector candidate and
represents a mapping of pixels from the search block to the second frame.”
Appeal Br. 9, 11.
In particular, Appellant contends that “Liu describes generating a
motion vector for each macroblock in frame FN-0.5 within covered region
C3 and uncovered region U3 by copying the motion vector from the
corresponding block of frame FN-1.” Appeal Br. 10 (emphasis omitted).
Appellant also contends that copying motion vectors from corresponding
blocks according to Liu differs from the disputed limitations. Id. According
to Appellant, the disputed limitations specify that “the output vector for a
search block of the first frame is not simply copied from a corresponding
block of the second frame” but “is a vector that is substantially parallel to a
motion vector for the first frame that ends in a block of the second frame
Appeal 2019-004586
Application 15/176,727

16
collocated with (i.e. ‘corresponding to’) the search block.” Id. (emphasis
omitted); see Reply Br. 4–5 (citing Liu ¶¶ 60–62).
The Examiner finds that Liu teaches (1) “examining, as a candidate,
a ‘corresponding block’ in a previous or next frame for forming a motion
vector for the interpolated frame” and (2) “copying the motion vectors to the
interpolated frame for the corresponding block (same block location) as in
frame FN or FN-1.” Final Act. 14 (citing Liu ¶¶ 55, 62, Fig. 6); Ans. 9 (citing
Liu ¶¶ 55, 62, Fig. 6). The Examiner also finds that Liu “generates parallel
motion vectors 75 in frame FN-0.5 that are parallel to vectors 80 (and also
vectors 32 from frame FN).” Ans. 27 (citing Liu Fig. 7).
Based on the record before us, we agree with Appellant that the
Examiner has not adequately explained how the cited portions of Liu teach
or suggest the disputed limitations. See Appeal Br. 9–11. Referencing
Figure 7, Liu describes two groups of motion vectors in frame FN-0.5 as
“faulty” and “inaccurate,” in particular, motion vectors 45 for the uncovered
region in frame FN-0.5 and motion vectors 75 for the covered region in frame
FN-0.5. Liu ¶¶ 61–63, Fig. 7. Liu replaces faulty motion vectors 45 for the
uncovered region in frame FN-0.5 with hybrid-direction motion vectors for the
same macroblocks copied from frame FN. Id. ¶ 63, Figs. 7–8. Liu replaces
faulty motion vectors 75 for the covered region in frame FN-0.5 with hybrid-
direction motion vectors for the same macroblocks copied from frame FN-1.
Id. ¶ 62, Figs. 7–8. Liu explains that the “motion vectors are copied over to
the interpolated frame in exactly the same” block locations as in frame FN-1
and frame FN. Id. ¶ 62.
Copying motion vectors from the previous frame (FN-1) and the next
frame (FN) as Liu discloses does not teach or suggest (1) identifying “a first
Appeal 2019-004586
Application 15/176,727

17
motion vector candidate ending in a block of the second frame collocated
with the search block” of the first frame and (2) forming “an output vector
for the search block which is substantially parallel to the first motion vector
candidate and represents a mapping of pixels from the search block to the
second frame” according to claims 1, 19, and 20. In short, the claims cover
the process for forming a zigzag vector, and copying motion vectors as Liu
discloses does not teach or suggest that process. Hence, we do not sustain
the § 103 rejection of claims 1, 19, and 20.
Claims 3–18 depend directly or indirectly from claim 1. Appeal Br.
12–15. For the reasons discussed for claim 1, we do not sustain the § 103
rejection of these dependent claims.
CONCLUSION
We reverse the § 112(a) rejections of claims 1 and 3–20.
We reverse the § 112(b) rejections of claims 1 and 3–20.
We reverse the § 103 rejection of claims 1 and 3–20.
In summary:
Claims
Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 3–20 112(a) Written Description 1, 3–20
1, 3–20 112(a) Enablement 1, 3–20
1, 3–20 112(b) Indefiniteness 1, 3–20
1, 3–20 103 Liu 1, 3–20
Overall
Outcome 1, 3–20
REVERSED