Munsi Haque et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

May 20, 2020

2018008631 (P.T.A.B. May. 20, 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.
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