Senzaki, Kenta et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Apr 17, 2020

13977756 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Apr. 17, 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.
13/977,756 08/14/2013 Kenta Senzaki Q205131 4437
23373 7590 04/17/2020
SUGHRUE MION, PLLC
2000 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE, N.W.
SUITE 900
WASHINGTON, DC 20006
EXAMINER
BECK, LERON
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2487
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/17/2020 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):
PPROCESSING@SUGHRUE.COM
USPTO@sughrue.com
sughrue@sughrue.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte KENTA SENZAKI, YUZO SENDA,
KEIICHI CHONO, and HIROFUMI AOKI
Appeal 2019-000405
Application 13/977,756
Technology Center 2400
Before JASON V. MORGAN, JEREMY J. CURCURI, and
SCOTT RAEVSKY, Administrative Patent Judges.
RAEVSKY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 6, 16 and 26. 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). Appellant identifies NEC Corporation as the real party in
interest. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2019-000405
Application 13/977,756

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims relate to video encoding and decoding. See Spec. ¶ 1.
Claim 6, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
6. A video decoding device for decoding video using
inter prediction, the video decoding device comprising:
a decoding control unit which restricts inter prediction
direction candidates of an inter-PU partition type of a CU to be
decoded, based on a relationship between a maximum number
of motion vectors allowed for an image block having a
predetermined area and the number of motion vectors of a
decoded CU contained in the image block having the
predetermined area.

REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Ikeda
Lu
Guo
US 2007/0147503 A1
US 2011/0164677 A1
US 2012/0147961 A1
June 28, 2007
July 7, 2011
June 14, 2012

REJECTION
Claims 6, 16, and 26 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Guo, Ikeda, and Lu. Final Act. 2–3.
ANALYSIS
We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues
identified by Appellant and in light of the arguments and evidence produced
thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential).
Arguments not made are waived. See id.; 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
The Examiner initially finds that Guo teaches or suggests all the
limitations of claim 1, apart from “an inter-PU partition type based on the
Appeal 2019-000405
Application 13/977,756

3
maximum number of motion vectors allowed.” Final Act. 3 (citing Guo
Figs. 3, 9, ¶¶ 111, 130). In the Answer, the Examiner makes new findings,
including that Guo teaches or suggests all the limitations of claim 6,
including the limitation the Examiner initially found Guo does not disclose.
Ans. 7 (citing Guo ¶¶ 62, 65, 111, 130).
In the Appeal Brief, Appellant raises two challenges to Guo. First,
Appellant contends Guo fails to teach or suggest “partitioning modes of the
sample block based on the motion vectors.” Appeal Br. 18 (emphases added
and omitted) (citing Guo ¶ 111). Second, Appellant contends Guo “does not
teach or suggest how prediction units are generated nor the basis for
performing division of a CU. In fact, [Guo] fails to teach a prediction
direction.” Id. at 18–19 (citing Guo ¶ 111).
Appellant’s first argument is unpersuasive because it is not
commensurate with the scope of the claim. Claim 6 does not recite
“partitioning modes of the sample block.” Appellant’s second argument is
unpersuasive for two reasons. First, it is also not commensurate with the
claim because the claim does not recite “how prediction units are generated”
or “the basis for performing division of a CU.” Second, Appellant’s
argument does not address the new findings in the Answer that Guo
discloses “interprediction direction candidates” in Guo ¶ 62. See Ans. 7.
Appellant’s Appeal Brief only addresses the Examiner’s initial findings that
Guo paragraph 111 discloses the disputed element. See Appeal Br. 18–19;
Final Act. 3.
Because Appellant did not file a Reply Brief to address the
Examiner’s new findings, Appellant waived any argument that Guo
paragraph 62 does not teach or suggest “interprediction direction
Appeal 2019-000405
Application 13/977,756

4
candidates.” See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (“Except as provided for in
§§41.41 [Reply brief] . . . , any arguments or authorities not included in the
appeal brief will be refused consideration by the Board for purposes of the
present appeal.”); Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010)
(precedential) (The Board reviews the appealed rejections for error based
upon the issues identified by Appellant and in light of the arguments and
evidence produced thereon.).
Appellant’s arguments against Ikeda and Lee are also unpersuasive
because they do not respond to the Examiner’s new findings that Guo
teaches or suggests the entirety of claim 6. See Appeal Br. 15–19; Ans. 7–8.
We, therefore, sustain the rejection, along with the rejection of
independent claims 16 and 26 argued collectively with claim 6, which
Appellant does not argue separately. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected 35 U.S.C. § References Affirmed Reversed
6, 16, 26 103 Guo, Ikeda, Lu 6, 16, 26
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