Intellectual Discovery Co., Ltd.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Apr 28, 2021

2019005674 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 28, 2021)

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.
14/045,511 10/03/2013 Sung Chang Lim 60176-0354 4911
127614 7590 04/28/2021
Wong & Rees LLP
4340 Stevens Creek Blvd.
Suite 106
San Jose, CA 95129
EXAMINER
VO, TUNG T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2425
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/28/2021 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):
docketing@wongrees.com
jyang@wongrees.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte SUNG CHANG LIM, SE YOON JEONG,
HAE CHUL CHOI, JIN SOO CHOI, JIN WOO HONG,
YUNG LYUL LEE, and DAE YEON KIM
____________

Appeal 2019-005674
Application 14/045,511
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before CATHERINE SHIANG, BETH Z. SHAW, and
MICHAEL T. CYGAN, Administrative Patent Judges.

SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 10–12, which are all the claims pending and rejected in
the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

1 We use “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42.
Appellant identifies Intellectual Discovery Co., Ltd. as the real party in
interest. Appeal Br. 1.

Appeal 2019-005674
Application 14/045,511

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
The present invention relates to “coding/decoding an image.” Spec.
1:5. In particular, “a method of increasing a compression rate of an image
block when a quantized transform coefficient is generated, through a
transform and quantization after performing prediction of inter/intra image
with respect to a predetermined sized of block (macroblock).” Spec. 2:9–12.
Claim 10 is exemplary:
10. A method of decoding an image, the method comprising:
determining, based on a CBP (coded block pattern)
value, whether or not transform coefficients of a block include
at least one non-zero transform coefficient;
responsive to the CBP value indicating that the transform
coefficients of the block include at least one non-zero transform
coefficient, obtaining the transform coefficients and a first flag
bit for the block by entropy-decoding an input bitstream;
dequantizing the transform coefficients of the block to
generate dequantized transform coefficients for the block;
determining, based on the first flag bit, whether neither of
a first inverse-transform based on a discrete cosine transform
(DCT) and a second inverse-transform based on a discrete sine
transform (DST) is to be performed on the dequantized
transform coefficients for the block;
determining, based on a second flag bit, a selected
inverse-transform with respect to the block, the selected
inverse-transform being one of the first inverse-transform based
on the discrete cosine transform (DCT) or the second inverse-
transform based on the discrete sine transform (DST);
generating a residual image for the block by performing
the selected inverse-transform on the dequantized transform
coefficients for the block; and reconstructing the block by
adding the residual image and a prediction image for the block,
Appeal 2019-005674
Application 14/045,511

3
wherein the determining the selected inverse-transform
based on the second flag bit is performed both when the
transform coefficients of the block are determined to include at
least one non-zero transform coefficient based on the CBP
value and when it is determined that one of the first inverse-
transform and the second inverse-transform is to be performed
based on the first flag bit.

References and Rejection2

Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
References
10–12 103 Kim (US 2009/0238271 A1, pub. Sept. 24, 2009),
Britanak (Discrete Cosine and Sine Transforms, The
Transform and Data Compression Handbook, ed. K.
R. Rao et al., Boca Raton, CRC Press LLC, 2001)

ANALYSIS3
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection in light of Appellant’s
contentions and the evidence of record. We concur with Appellant’s
contentions that the Examiner erred in finding the cited portions of Kim
teach “determining, based on the first flag bit, whether neither of a first
inverse-transform based on a discrete cosine transform (DCT) and a second
inverse-transform based on a discrete sine transform (DST) is to be
performed on the dequantized transform coefficients for the block,” as

2 Throughout this opinion, we refer to the (1) Final Office Action dated Nov.
1, 2018 (“Final Act.”); (2) Appeal Brief dated Apr. 16, 2019 (“Appeal Br.”);
(3) Examiner’s Answer dated June 20, 2019 (“Ans.”); and (4) Reply Brief
dated July 18, 2019 (“Reply Br.”).
3 Appellant raises additional arguments. Because the identified issue is
dispositive of the appeal, we do not address the additional arguments.
Appeal 2019-005674
Application 14/045,511

4
recited in independent claim 1 (emphases added). See Appeal Br. 8–9;
Reply Br. 8–10.
The Examiner cites Kim and finds:
determining, based on the first flag bit ( 41 of fig. 4 ), whether
neither of a first inverse-transform based on a discrete cosine
transform (DCT) and a second inverse-transform based on a
discrete sine transform (DST) is to be performed on the
dequantized transform coefficients for the block ([0051]
information about the selected transform unit (DCT or DST
information) is recorded at a 1-bit flag bit, and the flag bit is
transmitted to a decoding apparatus of FIG. 4); [0054] Here, a
flag value included in a bitstream header indicates the selected
one of the first transform unit and the second transform unit.
FIG. 3, the first transform unit performs the DCT (see Eg. 1),
the first quantization (see Eq. 2), the first inverse quantization
(see Eq. 3), and the IDCT (see Eg. 4) on a block basis onto
residual coefficients generated after inter prediction and intra
prediction. The second transform unit performs the DST (Eg.
8), the second quantization (Eq. 10), the second inverse
quantization (Eq. 11), and the IDST (Eg. 9) on a block basis for
residual coefficients); ([0071] Then, integer approximated
discrete cosine transform (DCT), first quantization, first inverse
quantization, and integer approximated inverse DCT, and
entropy encoding are performed at steps S505 and S506. Then,
a mode that minimizes a rate-distortion cost (RDcost) is
selected from all possible coding modes used in H.264, such as
a variable block mode, three spatial prediction modes, and a
SKIP mode at step S507. That is, a transform unit having high
compression efficiency is selected. The information about the
selected transform unit is recorded at a corresponding flag bit
disposed on a macroblock basis and transmitted to the decoding
apparatus. Therefore, the decoding apparatus is enabled to
decide a proper decoding method using the flag value recorded
in the prediction flag).
Ans. 12 (emphasis added); see also Final Act. 3–4.
Appeal 2019-005674
Application 14/045,511

5
The above findings do not explain why Kim teaches “determining,
based on the first flag bit, whether neither of a first inverse-transform based
on a discrete cosine transform (DCT) and a second inverse-transform based
on a discrete sine transform (DST) is to be performed” (emphases added).
In particular, the Examiner’s finding that Kim’s “flag value included in a
bitstream header indicates the selected one of the first transform unit and the
second transform unit” (Ans. 12) shows Kim uses the flag value to select
one of the first transform unit and the second transform unit—not
“determining . . . whether neither of a first inverse-transform based on a
discrete cosine transform (DCT) and a second inverse-transform based on a
discrete sine transform (DST) is to be performed,” as required by claim 10
(emphases added).
Further, we have reviewed the cited Kim portions, and they do not
describe the disputed limitation. Contrary to the claim requirement and
consistent with the Examiner’s above finding, Kim’s flag value “indicates
the selected one of the first transform unit and the second transform unit.”
Kim ¶ 54; see also Reply Br. 10. Absent further explanation from the
Examiner, we do not see how the cited Kim portions teach the disputed
claim limitation.4
Because the Examiner fails to provide sufficient evidence or
explanation to support the rejection, we are constrained by the record to
reverse the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 10.

4 The Examiner also cites Britanik for teaching the first flag bit. Ans. 13.
However, the Examiner has not shown Britanik (either alone or being
combined with Kim’s teachings) teaches the disputed limitation.

Appeal 2019-005674
Application 14/045,511

6
We also reverse the Examiner’s rejection of corresponding dependent
claims 11–12.

CONCLUSION
We reverse the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 10–12 under 35
U.S.C. § 103.
In summary:

Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
10–12 103 Kim, Britanak 10–12

REVERSED