PANASONIC INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY CORPORATION OF AMERICA

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 28, 2020

2019004767 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 28, 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.
14/662,737 03/19/2015 Zhong XUE P47503 2104
125331 7590 12/28/2020
Panasonic Intellectual Property Corporation
of America c/o Greenblum & Bernstein, P.L.C.
1950 Roland Clarke Place
Reston, VA 20191
EXAMINER
LEE, Y YOUNG
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2419
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/28/2020 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):
gbpatent@gbpatent.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte ZHONG XUE, SHENG MEI SHEN, TECK WEE FOO,
CHAK JOO LEE, and SHINYA KADONO
____________________

Appeal 2019-004767
Application 14/662,7371
Technology Center 2400
____________________

Before BETH Z. SHAW, JAMES W. DEJMEK, and
SCOTT B. HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judges.

DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant2 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Non-Final
Rejection of claim 1. We have jurisdiction over the pending claim under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b). See Ex parte Lemoine, 46 USPQ2d 1420, 1423 (BPAI
1994) (precedential).
We reverse.

1 This application is related to Application No. 14/662,715 which is
currently on appeal (Appeal No. 2019-004766) before the Board. Appeal
Br. 4.
2 Throughout this Decision, we use the word “Appellant” to refer to
“applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42 (2018). Appellant identifies
GODO KAISHA IP BRIDGE 1 as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2019-004767
Application 14/662,737

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellant’s disclosed and claimed invention generally relates to “a
coding distortion removal method for removing coding distortion that occurs
when encoding a video signal.” Spec. 1. According to the Specification, it
is known that certain block unit coding techniques (e.g., DCT techniques for
video coding) create “block distortion” as coding block boundaries. Spec. 3;
see also Figs. 31–34. Such block distortion may result in significant image
quality issues. Spec. 4. It is known to reduce block distortion by correcting
pixel values across a block boundary. Spec. 4. This process is referred to as
coding distortion removal or deblocking. Spec. 4. According to the
Specification, conventional techniques for deblocking are complex and may
also contribute to degraded image quality. Spec. 7.
In a disclosed and claimed embodiment, a coding distortion removal
process determines whether to perform coding distortion removal based on a
derived difference of pixel values between a pixel in a first block and a pixel
in a second block of a reconstructed image, the first and second blocks being
adjacent to each other and located on opposite sides of a block boundary.
See Spec. 26–27 (explaining a large difference between the pixel values may
suggest an edge and that the filtering should not be applied); Fig. 6 (S28,
S29). If the coding distortion removal is performed, applying a filter for
coding distortion removal based on a comparison of the pixel difference to a
threshold value determined by an average of a quantization parameter of the
first block and a quantization parameter of the second block of the
reconstructed image. Spec. 26–29, Fig. 6 (S30, S31, S32, S33, S34), Fig. 7.
Appeal 2019-004767
Application 14/662,737

3
Claim 1 is reproduced below with the disputed limitation emphasized
in italics:
1. An image decoding apparatus that decodes a coded image,
the coded image being generated by coding an image segmented
into a plurality of blocks on a block basis including a first block
and a second block located adjacent to each other and on both
sides of a block boundary, the image decoding apparatus
comprising:
a quantization parameter obtainer that obtains a first
quantization parameter of the first block and a second
quantization parameter of the second block;
a decoder that decodes the coded image to obtain a
reconstructed image;
a pixel difference value obtainer that obtains a pixel
difference value, which is a difference between a pixel value of
one pixel from the first block of the reconstructed image and a
pixel value of one pixel from the second block of the
reconstructed image adjacent to the first block;
an average deriver that derives an average value of the
first quantization parameter and the second quantization
parameter, the second quantization parameter being different
from the first quantization parameter, wherein the average value
is an average of just two different quantization parameters;
a threshold value setter that sets a threshold value in
accordance with the average value of the first quantization
parameter and the second quantization parameter;
a comparator that compares the pixel difference value with
a threshold value set by the threshold value setter; and
a remover that removes a coding distortion in an area
disposed on both sides of the block boundary between the first
block and the second block, by applying a filter for coding
distortion removal based on the result of the comparator,
wherein the coding distortion removal is not conducted
when the pixel difference value is greater than the threshold
value, and
Appeal 2019-004767
Application 14/662,737

4
further processing is performed to determine whether the
coding distortion removal is conducted by applying the filter
when the pixel difference value is smaller than the threshold
value.

The Examiner’s Rejections3
1. Claim 1 stands rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) as
being anticipated by “H.26L Test Model Long Term Number 8 (TML-8),
draft 0,” Video Standards and Drafts, ITU Q.6/SG16, VCEG, no. VCEG-
N10, Oct. 2001, pp. 1–46 (“VCEG”). Non-Final Act. 2–3.
2. Claim 1 stands rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over VCEG and Kim (US 5,946,421; Aug. 31, 1999).
Non-Final Act. 3.

ANALYSIS4
Rejection under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)
Appellant disputes the Examiner’s findings that VCEG discloses “an
average deriver that derives an average value of the first quantization
parameter and the second quantization parameter, the second quantization
parameter being different from the first quantization parameter, wherein the

3 The Examiner’s rejections refer to and incorporate the findings and
explanations set forth in earlier Office Actions, particularly, Non-Final
Office Action, mailed May 5, 2016 (“2016 Non-Final Act.”) and Final
Office Action, mailed October 27, 2016 (“2016 Final Act.”). See Non-Final
Act. 2–3.
4 Throughout this Decision, we have considered the Appeal Brief, filed
February 15, 2019 (“Appeal Br.”); the Reply Brief, filed May 22, 2020
(“Reply Br.”); the Examiner’s Answer, mailed March 22, 2019 (“Ans.”);
and the Non-Final Office Action, mailed July 2, 2018 (“Non-Final Act.”),
from which this Appeal is taken.
Appeal 2019-004767
Application 14/662,737

5
average value is an average of just two different quantization parameters.”
Appeal Br. 10–11 (emphases omitted); Reply Br. 2–4. In particular,
Appellant argues VCEG, as relied on by the Examiner, describes a QP
clipping process. Appeal Br. 10–11 (citing VCEG 20–21). Appellant
asserts VCEG describes clipping not as an average of quantization
parameters, but rather as a limit of a function of a quantization parameter.
Appeal Br. 10. Moreover, in determining the clip range [-C, C], Appellant
argues VCEG sets forth the equation:
, , / 2
where Clip (QP, strength) is a function of a quantization parameter, and
and are defined as right and left filter activity parameters, respectively.
Appeal Br. 10. Appellant argues that the equation for C (clip range limit)
adds four variables together, none of which are quantization parameters, and
divides the sum by 2. Appeal Br. 11.
As such, Appellant asserts that VCEG fails to disclose an average
deriver that derives an average value of the first quantization parameter and
the second quantization parameter, the second quantization parameter being
different from the first quantization parameter, wherein the average value is
an average of just two different quantization parameters. Appeal Br. 11.
In response, the Examiner explains that VCEG’s clipping process (a
limiting function) would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art as
“limit[ing] the output to a central/typical value, thus meeting the definition
of ‘average’ in it broadest reasonable sense.” Ans. 6. In addition, the
Examiner finds “the average value C is based just on two different QP,”
specifically the quantization parameter of the left block and the quantization
parameter of the right block. Ans. 6–7 (citing VCEG 21).
Appeal 2019-004767
Application 14/662,737

6
“A reference anticipates a claim if it discloses the claimed invention
such that a skilled artisan could take its teachings in combination with his
own knowledge of the particular art and be in possession of the invention.”
In re Graves, 69 F.3d 1147, 1152 (Fed. Cir. 1995); see also Continental Can
Co. v. Monsanto Co., 948 F.2d 1264, 1268–69 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (to
anticipate, every element of the claims must appear in a single prior art
reference, or if not expressly shown, then demonstrated to be known to
persons experienced in the field of technology). The Examiner may rely on
what one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood from a statement
in an anticipatory reference. See In re Baxter Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d 388,
391 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
Moreover, during examination, claims are given their broadest
reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification. See In re Am.
Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Absent an
express intent to impart a novel meaning to a claim term, the words take on
the ordinary and customary meanings attributed to them by those of ordinary
skill in the art. Brookhill-Wilk 1, LLC v. Intuitive Surgical, Inc., 334 F.3d
1294, 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (citation omitted).
As an initial matter, we disagree with the Examiner’s understanding
of a “limit.” In mathematics, a limit is generally understood to be the value
a function approaches as an input approaches a certain value. See The
Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica, Limit, https://www.britannica.com/
science/limit-mathematics, (pub. Jan. 15, 2020). Rather, we understand the
clipping process described in VCEG to identify a range—i.e., a minimum
value (-C) and a maximum value (C)—for the difference between filtered
and unfiltered and pixel values. See VCEG 21.
Appeal 2019-004767
Application 14/662,737

7
In addition, we disagree with the Examiner (see Ans. 6–7) that VCEG
describes “an average value C is based on just two different QP.” Rather, as
reproduced above, VCEG sets forth an equation for C that includes the sum
of four variables—two clip parameters and two filter activity parameters.
As such, VCEG does not disclose “an average deriver that derives an
average value of the first quantization parameter and the second quantization
parameter, the second quantization parameter being different from the first
quantization parameter, wherein the average value is an average of just two
different quantization parameters,” as recited in claim 1.
For the reasons discussed supra, we are persuaded of Examiner error.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 under
pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(a).

Rejection under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
With respect to the rejection under § 103(a), Appellant advances
similar arguments, as discussed above, that VCEG fails to teach or suggest
“an average deriver that derives an average value of the first quantization
parameter and the second quantization parameter, the second quantization
parameter being different from the first quantization parameter, wherein the
average value is an average of just two different quantization parameters.”
Appeal Br. 12–13; Reply Br. 5–6. For similar reasons as those discussed
above, we do not find VCEG teaches or suggests deriving the claimed
average deriver that derives an average value of just two different
quantization parameters.
In addition, Appellant asserts that Kim, as relied on by the Examiner,
fails to remedy the deficiencies of VCEG. Appeal Br. 13–16; Reply Br. 7–9.
Appeal 2019-004767
Application 14/662,737

8
In particular, Appellant argues that although Figure 2 of Kim illustrates a
block (152) entitled “Average Quantization Parameter Calculator,” Kim’s
description of this block describes the function of this block as averaging all
of the quantization parameters of all of the macroblocks with the current
frame of video data. Appeal Br. 13–15; Reply Br. 7–9. Appellant further
asserts that Kim teaches using the average of all the quantization parameters
for all of the macroblocks of a current frame for filter control of the next
frame. Appeal Br. 14–15. That is, Kim does not teach using an average
quantization parameter to provide filter control (i.e., act as a threshold in a
comparison to determine filter behavior) for a current frame. Appeal
Br. 14–15. Appellant argues the use of the averaged quantization parameter
value in Kim is inconsistent with VCEG’s system of applying the clip values
to the frame being processed. Appeal Br. 15.
In response, the Examiner notes that Appellant’s Specification
contemplates the average quantization parameter to be based on more than
just two quantization parameters. Ans. 7 (citing Spec. 29–30). Moreover,
the Examiner determines that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize
Kim’s average quantization calculator could readily calculate an average
value even if only two quantization parameters were used. Ans. 7. In
addition, the Examiner determines that the ordinarily skilled artisan would
have been motivated to combine Kim’s averaging technique “could have
been applied in the same way to the ‘base’ process of [VCEG] and the
results would have been predictable and resulted in reduced errors for both
the left and right blocks located on both sides of a block boundary between
the two adjacent blocks in a frame.” Ans. 7–8.
Appeal 2019-004767
Application 14/662,737

9
As an initial matter, “it is the claims, not the written description,
which define the scope of the patent right.” Laitram Corp. v. NEC Corp.,
163 F.3d 1342, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 1998). The claim language expressly states
that “the average value is an average of just two different quantization
parameters.” Claim 1 (emphasis added). Moreover, we note the portion of
the Specification identified by the Examiner refers to an average of
differences between various numbers of pixels at symmetrical positions left
and right of the boundary between coding unit blocks, not using different
numbers of quantization parameters to calculate the average. See Spec. 29–
30.5
Regarding the Examiner’s proposed combination of VCEG and Kim,
it is unclear as to how Kim’s average quantization calculator would modify
the VCEG system. As recited in claim 1, the average value of the first and
second quantization parameters is used to set a threshold value against which
the difference of pixel values is compared. See claim 1; see also Spec. 26–
29, Figs. 6, 7. Based on the comparison, a determination is made whether to
perform the coding distortion removal process at all and, if so, to identify
particular filter characteristics (e.g., determining on which pixels to perform
the removal). See claim 1; see also Spec. 26–29, Figs. 6, 7.
Although VCEG describes comparing a difference between
corresponding pixels across a boundary (∆ | |) to a value α, “a QP
[(quantization parameter)] dependent threshold,” to determine an overall
activity parameter, n, and, subsequently determining right and left activity

5 This corresponds to paragraph 138, identified by the Examiner (see
Ans. 7), in the published version of the Specification, US 2015/0195535 A1;
July 9, 2015.
Appeal 2019-004767
Application 14/662,737

10
parameters ( and ) (see VCEG 20), the Examiner’s rejection relies on
clipping parameter C, as a derived average value (see 2016 Non-Final
Act. 4; 2016 Final Act. 4; Ans. 6). VCEG does not describe using the
clipping parameter C as a threshold for use in a comparison of a difference
between pixels of adjacent blocks on opposite sides of a block boundary.
Instead, the clipping process is applied to a difference between the filtered
and unfiltered values of a pixel. See VCEG 21. As such, it is unclear as to
how (or what) Kim’s average quantization calculator would modify in the
VCEG system to teach Appellant’s claimed coding distortion removing
method.
For the reasons discussed supra, we are persuaded of Examiner error.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 under
pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

CONCLUSION
We reverse the Examiner’s decision rejecting claim 1 under pre-AIA
35 U.S.C. § 102(a).
We reverse the Examiner’s decision rejecting claim 1 under pre-AIA
35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

DECISION SUMMARY
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1 102(a) VCEG 1
1 103(a) VCEG, Kim 1
Overall
Outcome
1
Appeal 2019-004767
Application 14/662,737

11

REVERSED