Munsi Haque et al.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardMay 20, 202013597131 - (D) (P.T.A.B. May. 20, 2020) Copy Citation 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. 13/597,131 08/28/2012 Munsi Haque SP359456US01 3918 108359 7590 05/20/2020 CHIP LAW GROUP 505 N. LAKE SHORE DRIVE SUITE 250 CHICAGO, IL 60611 EXAMINER REN, ZHUBING ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2483 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/20/2020 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): docketing@chiplawgroup.com eofficeaction@appcoll.com sonydocket@evalueserve.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte MUNSI HAQUE and ALI TABATABAI Appeal 2018-008631 Application 13/597,131 Technology Center 2400 Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, JOHN P. PINKERTON, and BETH Z. SHAW, Administrative Patent Judges. DIXON, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 23, 25–28, 30–32, and 34–38, which are the only claims pending in the application. Claims 1–22, 24, 29, and 33 have been canceled. See Final Act. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a) (2017). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Sony Corporation. Appeal Br. 1. Appeal 2018-008631 Application 13/597,131 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to quantization matrix design for the high efficiency video coding standard. Claim 23, reproduced below, is representative of the claimed subject matter: 23. A decoding device, comprising: a decoding section configured to decode encoded data to generate quantized data; and an inverse quantization section configured to inversely quantize the quantized data generated by the decoding section based on a default inter square-shaped quantization matrix of size 8x8, wherein the default inter square-shaped quantization matrix of size 8x8 is derived from a default intra square-shaped quantization matrix of size 8x8. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Name Reference Date Ikeda et al. (“Ikeda) US 2010/0091842 A1 Apr. 15, 2010 Zhang et al. (“Zhang”) US 8,326,068 B1 Dec. 4, 2012 REJECTION Claims 23, 25–28, 30–32, and 34–38 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Zhang in view Ikeda. OPINION 1. Claims 23, 28, and 34 Appellant argues claims 23, 25–28, 30–32, and 34–37 as a group. Consequently, we select claim 23 as representative of this group. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). Appeal 2018-008631 Application 13/597,131 3 Appellant argues, “[n]owhere does Ikeda make any disclosure or suggestion that that the 8x8 inter square MB is derived from 8x8 intra square MB.” Appeal Br. 10. Appellant also argues that, instead, “Ikeda simply describes that one of the conversion patterns PA to PD is applied according to the prediction type (intra MB or Inter MB).” Appeal Br. 10; see also Reply Br. 6. Appellant further argues, “nowhere does Ikeda describe that when low-range conversion is performed, the right side quantization matrix of PD is used as an inter quantization matrix, and the left side quantization matrix is used as intra quantization matrix” and that “[n]othing in Ikeda gives any suggestion that the 8x8 inter square MB is derived from 8x8 intra square MB.” Appeal Br. 11; see also Reply Br. 7. According to Appellant, “[t]he conversion process shown in Fig. 28B [of Ikeda] for 8x8 type of block size for conversion pattern PD is among the same prediction type (i.e. intraMB to intraMB or interMB to interMB).” Appeal Br. 11 (emphasis omitted). Appellant further argues, “the broadest reasonable interpretation given by the Office does not appear to provide any patentable weight to the term ‘default’ used for both the ‘intra square-shaped quantization matrix’ and the derived ‘inter square-shaped quantization matrix’ in the Applicant’s claims.” Reply Br. 8. Moreover, even though the Examiner relied on Zhang as the primary reference (see Final Act. 3), Appellant argues, “Zhang does not remedy the above-noted deficiencies of Ikeda.” Appeal Br. 11; see also Reply Br. 8. In response, the Examiner finds that that the broadest reasonable interpretation of “inter square-shaped quantization matrix” corresponds to a quantization matrix having different coefficients contained therein and that the broadest reasonable interpretation of “intra square-shaped quantization Appeal 2018-008631 Application 13/597,131 4 matrix” corresponds to a quantization matrix having the same coefficients therein. Ans. 5. In this light, the Examiner finds that, in Ikeda’s Figure 28B, the left matrix corresponds to a “default intra square-shaped quantization matrix” and the right matrix corresponds a “default inter square-shaped quantization matrix.” Id. The Examiner also finds that the left matrix is a default intra matrix because it has all same coefficients (e.g., 16) contained therein, is the pre-conversion (i.e., default) matrix, and, in the low frequency component conversion mode (i.e., “low range decrease”), is used to derive the right matrix. Id. The Examiner further finds that the right matrix is a default inter matrix because it has different coefficients (e.g., 8 and 16) contained therein and becomes the default matrix for the subsequent quantization. Id. The Examiner then finds that, unless specific derivation steps are included in the claim, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim does not preclude Ikeda as applied by the Examiner. Ans. 5. We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments in the Appeal Brief and Reply Brief. It is well settled that, during patent examination, claims must be given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). The broadest reasonable interpretation standard requires the words of the claims to be given their “broadest reasonable meaning . . . in their ordinary usage as they would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, taking into account whatever enlightenment by way of definitions or otherwise that may be afforded by the written description contained in the applicant’s specification.” In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Although we interpret claims broadly but reasonably in light of the Specification, we must not import limitations from the Specification into the Appeal 2018-008631 Application 13/597,131 5 claims. See Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1323 (citations omitted). Furthermore, “[a]lthough an inventor is indeed free to define the specific terms used to describe his or her invention, this must be done with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision.” In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (citing Intellicall, Inc. v. Phonometrics, 952 F.2d 1384, 1387–88 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (“Where an inventor chooses to be his own lexicographer and to give terms uncommon meanings, he must set out his uncommon definition in some manner within the patent disclosure”)). However, the “prosecution history” should also be consulted. See Microsoft Corp. v. Proxyconn, Inc., 789 F.3d 1292, 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2015). “Even under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the Board’s construction ‘cannot be divorced from the specification and the record evidence.’” Id. (citing In re NTP, Inc., 654 F.3d 1279, 1288 (Fed. Cir. 2011)). In this case, Appellant has not identified any specific definition of the terms “default intra square-shaped quantization matrix” and “default inter square-shaped quantization matrix” that are set forth in the disclosure or any ordinary meaning that a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand these terms to mean based upon any extrinsic or intrinsic evidence. Furthermore, Appellant has not identified how the Examiner’s interpretation of these terms is either too broad, unreasonable, inconsistent with the disclosure, or inconsistent with the meaning those skilled in the art would assign to these terms. Additionally, based on our review of the administrative record, we do not find the Examiner’s interpretation to be inconsistent with the disclosure Appeal 2018-008631 Application 13/597,131 6 or unreasonably broad.2 Thus, we agree with the Examiner in that Ikeda’s left matrix of Figure 28D is a default intra matrix because it has all same coefficients (e.g., 16) contained therein, is the pre-conversion (i.e., default) matrix, and, in the low frequency component conversion mode (i.e., “low range decrease”), is used to derive the right matrix. We also agree with the Examiner in that Ikeda’s right matrix of Figure 28D is a default inter matrix because it has different coefficients (e.g., 8 and 16) contained therein and becomes the default matrix for the subsequent quantization. Ans. 5. Therefore, Appellant has not shown error in the Examiner’s factual findings or conclusion of obviousness, and we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 23, 28, and 34 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in view of Zhang and Ikeda. 2. Dependent Claim 38 Appellant argues claim 38 on the basis that it requires, inter alia, “wherein the default inter square-shaped quantization matrix of size 8x8 includes a value of 16 as a DC (0,0) coefficient.” Appeal Br. 12. In this light, Appellant argues, “[n]owhere does Ikeda describe that the right side quantization matrix derived after conversion includes a value of 16 as a DC 2 As noted above (see supra at 2), claim 23 is directed to “a decoding device comprising a decoding section for decoding encoded data and an inverse quantization section to inversely quantize the decoded encoded data.” See Appeal Br. 4 (emphasis added). Upon our review of the Specification, we find it does not specifically describe such a device. Figure 2 shows a video codec and Figure 15 shows a computing device, either of which arguably could be considered the device of claim 23; however, the disclosure does not describe that the these devices perform the claimed decoding and/or the claimed inverse quantization. Also, notably, the term “inversely quantize” is not found within the originally filed Specification. Appeal 2018-008631 Application 13/597,131 7 (0,0) coefficient” and, “[n]othing in Ikeda gives any suggestion that the default inter square-shaped quantization matrix of size 8x8 includes a value of 16 as a DC (0,0) coefficient.” Id. Appellant additionally argues, “[a]s seen from Fig. 28B of Ikeda, the right side quantization matrix derived after conversion does not include a value of 16 as a DC (0,0) coefficient.” Reply Br. 9. In response, the Examiner finds that “FIG. 24A of Ikeda clearly illustrates after the conversion from left quantization matrix to the right for an inter macroblock, the inter quantization matrix on the right includes a value of 16 at DC (0, 0).” Ans. 6 (emphasis omitted). We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments with respect to claim 38 in the Appeal Brief and Reply Brief. Claim 38 recites, “wherein the default intra-square shaped quantization matrix of size 8x8 includes a value of 16 as a DC (0,0) coefficient.” (Emphasis added). Claim 38 does not recite, “wherein the default inter square-shaped quantization matrix of size 8x8 includes a value of 16 as a DC (0,0) coefficient,” as Appellant contends. (Emphasis added). As discussed in the previous section, the Examiner finds Ikeda’s right matrix of Figure 28D corresponds to a default inter matrix because it has different coefficients (e.g., 8 and 16) contained therein and becomes the default matrix for the subsequent quantization. Ans. 5. In this light, we find that Ikeda’s right matrix clearly shows “a value of 16 as a DC (0,0) coefficient.” Therefore, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claim 38 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in view of Zhang and Ikeda. 3. Dependent Claims 25–27, 30–32, and 35–37 Appellant argues claims 25–27, 30–32, and 35–37 on the same basis as for claims 23, 28, and 34. Appeal Br. 13. Therefore, based on the same Appeal 2018-008631 Application 13/597,131 8 reasoning set forth above for claims 23, 28, and 34, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 25–27, 30–32, and 35–37 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in view of Zhang and Ikeda. DECISION SUMMARY Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 23, 25– 28, 30– 32, 34–38 103(a) Zhang, Ikeda 23, 25–28, 30–32, 34– 38 TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation