Chono, Keiichi et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 28, 2020

14114941 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jan. 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.
14/114,941 10/31/2013 Keiichi Chono 12448.0003-00000 1109
133959 7590 01/28/2020
NEC/Finnegan
901 New York Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20001
EXAMINER
BENNETT, STUART D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2481
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/28/2020 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):
Regional-Desk@finnegan.com
nec@finnegan.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte KEIICHI CHONO, HIROFUMI AOKI, and
YUZO SENDA
____________

Appeal 2019-000246
Application 14/114,941
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, KRISTEN L. DROESCH, and
STEPHEN E. BELISLE, Administrative Patent Judges.

BELISLE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, and 10. Appeal Br. 1. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 Throughout this Decision, we use the word “Appellant” to refer to
“applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42 (2017). Appellant identifies the
real party in interest as NEC Corporation. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2019-000246
Application 14/114,941

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Claimed Invention
Appellant’s invention generally relates to “a technique for coding a
video quantization parameter for video coding that uses context-based
adaptive binary arithmetic coding.” Spec. ¶ 1.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on
appeal:
1. A video quantization parameter encoding method for
encoding a quantization parameter for a video encoding process
that is based on context-based adaptive binary arithmetic
encoding, the video quantization parameter encoding method
comprising:
generating a predicted quantization parameter from a past
reconstructed quantization parameter;
generating a delta quantization parameter from a
quantization parameter and the predicted quantization
parameter; and
binary arithmetic encoding a first bin indicating whether
or not the delta quantization parameter is significant, a
sign bin indicating whether the delta quantization
parameter is positive or negative, and other bins
indicating an absolute value of the delta quantization
parameter but not including information about sign of
the delta quantization parameter, in the case where the
delta quantization parameter is significant,
wherein:
the binary arithmetic encoding is performed using
no context for the sign bin, using a first context
for the first bin and using a context different
from the first context for the other bins; and
the other bins are binary arithmetic encoded using
the same context for a predetermined bin and
bins subsequent to the predetermined bin.
Appeal 2019-000246
Application 14/114,941

3
Appeal Br. 19 (Claims Appendix).

The Applied References
The Examiner relies on the following references as evidence of
unpatentability of the claims on appeal:
Shimazaki US 2006/0280371 A1 Dec. 14, 2006
Seki US 2010/0238056 A1 Sept. 23, 2010
Zhou US 2011/0274162 A1 Nov. 10, 2011
Budagavi US 2012/0014454 A1 Jan. 19, 2012

Figure 16 of the subject application, U.S. Patent Appl. No. 14/114,941
(“Applicant Admitted Prior Art” or “AAPA”).

The Examiner’s Rejection
The Examiner made the following rejection of the claims on appeal:
Claims 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, and 10 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Zhou, Shimazaki, Budagavi, AAPA
(Fig. 16), and Seki.

ANALYSIS2
Appellant disputes the Examiner’s findings that the combination of
Zhou, Shimazaki, Budagavi, AAPA (Fig. 16), and Seki render obvious
claims 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, and 10. Appeal Br. 11–17. Appellant argues the
appealed claims as a group. See Appeal Br. 11–17. Thus, for purposes of
our analysis, we select independent claim 1 as the representative claim, and

2 Throughout this Decision, we have considered Appellant’s Appeal Brief
filed April 23, 2018 (“Appeal Br.”); the Examiner’s Answer mailed
August 9, 2018 (“Ans.”); the Final Office Action mailed August 3, 2017
(“Final Act.”); and Appellant’s Specification filed October 31, 2013
(“Spec.”). Appellant did not file a reply brief to the Examiner’s Answer.
Appeal 2019-000246
Application 14/114,941

4
any claim not argued separately will stand or fall with our analysis of the
rejection of claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
Appellant submits three main arguments: (1) there is no motivation to
combine Zhou and Shimazaki (Appeal Br. 12–14); (2) Seki does not provide
a motivation to combine Zhou with Shimazaki, Budagavi, and AAPA
(Appeal Br. 14–15); and (3) the cited references do not teach “the other bins
are binary arithmetic encoded using the same context for a predetermined
bin and bins subsequent to the predetermined bin,” as recited in claim 1
(Appeal Br. 15–17). We find each of Appellant’s arguments unpersuasive,
as discussed below seriatim.
(1) Appellant argues “there is no motivation to combine Zhou with
Shimazaki.” Appeal Br. 12. In particular, Appellant argues “Zhou discloses
a method for coding and decoding video data using coded quantization
parameters,” where “[a] quantization parameter corresponds to data to be
intentionally adjusted for controlling a bit rate between an encoder and a
decoder”; and “[i]n contrast, Shimazaki discloses encoding video data using
motion vectors between pictures of a video signal and through binarization
of coded motion vectors,” where “[a] motion vector is determined by the
image data itself . . . and is not intentionally adjusted.” Appeal Br. 12–13
(emphasis omitted). According to Appellant, “[b]ecause the video encoding
techniques in Zhou and Shimazak[i] are based on different parameters, i.e.,
‘quantization parameter’ as opposed to ‘motion vector’, [a] person of
ordinary skill in the art would have had no reason or motivation to adapt the
video encoding of Shimazaki to that of Zhou.” Appeal Br. 13. Appellant
further contends that “during video encoding[,] the quantization parameter
and motion vector are alternative options selected based on the trade-off
Appeal 2019-000246
Application 14/114,941

5
between their computation loads and encoding/decoding efficiencies,” and
that “the quantization parameter and motion vector usually are not used in
video encoding simultaneously.” Appeal Br. 13 (emphasis added).
The Examiner finds, contrary to Appellant’s above contentions,
“[b]oth Zhou and Shimazaki comprise the use of quantization parameters and
motion vectors, which is a well-established practice in the H.264/AVC
coding standard.” Ans. 9 (record citations omitted). The Examiner further
finds:
When comparing Zhou’s disclosure of an encoder in FIG. 3B
with Shimazaki’s disclosure of an encoder in FIG. 3, the
utilization of quantization parameters and motion vectors in both
is readily apparent. Zhou in FIG. 3B includes ‘quantize 306’ and
‘motion estimation 320’ that are both fed into ‘entropy
encoder 334’ (note the MV for motion vector above the entropy
encoder). Shimazaki’s equivalent disclosure is FIG. 3, which
discloses a ‘quantization unit 22’ and ‘motion compensation unit
10’ that are both fed into ‘CABAC processing unit 16’.
Ans. 9 (emphasis added). The Examiner concludes “the disclosures of Zhou
and Shimazaki are both consistent in the use of quantization parameters and
motion vectors for encoding video data,” and “[f]or this reason, a person
having ordinary skill in the art would consider the references in a
combination for the motivation set forth in the current rejection.” Ans. 10.
We agree with and adopt as our own the Examiner’s findings and
conclusions in the Final Action (Final Act. 5–8) and Answer (Ans. 9–12)
concerning motivation to combine Zhou with Shimazaki, including those
identified above, and find Appellant’s arguments here unpersuasive of
Examiner error. In particular, we find Appellant’s premise that the video
encoding techniques in Zhou and Shimazaki are based on different
parameters is belied by the references themselves, each of which discloses
Appeal 2019-000246
Application 14/114,941

6
coding video using both quantization parameters and motion vectors.
See, e.g., Zhou ¶¶ 4, 42, 54, Fig. 3B; Shimazaki ¶¶ 5–6, Fig. 3; Ans. 9–12.
Notably, Appellant did not reply to the Examiner’s Answer on this issue.
Based on the foregoing, we find Appellant does not show persuasively that
the Examiner erred in finding a motivation or reason to combine Zhou with
Shimazaki.
(2) Appellant argues Seki does not provide a motivation to combine
Zhou with Shimazaki, Budagavi, and AAPA. Appeal Br. 14–15. Appellant
further argues “[t]he Examiner . . . mischaracterizes Seki in claiming that the
reference provides a motivation to combine Zhou with Shimazaki, Budagavi,
and AAPA,” namely “‘simplifying the system by not requiring to continually
change the context information, which would increase the processing
efficiency and furthermore the speed.’” Appeal Br. 14. Appellant contends,
“contrary to the Examiner’s assertion, Seki merely states that ‘processing
speed does not deteriorate significantly,’ ‘even when collectively processing
only consecutive binary symbols having the same value.’” Appeal Br. 14.
Appellant also contends “[p]reventing processing speed from deteriorating
significantly, as mentioned by Seki, is different from increasing processing
efficiency and speed.” Appeal Br. 14. Appellant further contends that “the
Examiner does not explain how Seki teaches that the combination would
‘simplify’ the system,” because according to Appellant, “the combination
would make the system more complicated (and inoperable) by attempting to
simultaneously use a quantization-parameter encoding technique and a
motion-vector encoding technique.” Appeal Br. 14.
The Examiner explains that the “inclusion of Seki is for combining
AAPA with Zhou, Shimazaki, and Budagavi, not for combining Zhou with
Appeal 2019-000246
Application 14/114,941

7
Shimazaki, Budagavi, and AAPA” as argued by Appellant. Ans. 12;
see Final Act. 4 (“For evidencing that utilizing the same context index is
beneficial to a coder, the Examiner will additionally provide . . . [Seki],”
which “discloses . . . that it is possible to collectively process sequential bins
having the same context index for improving the speed.”), 8–9. Similarly,
contrary to Appellant’s argument (Appeal Br. 14–15), the Examiner does not
rely on Seki (but rather Zhou) to teach binarization of a delta quantization
parameter. See Ans. 14 (“Zhou is the primary reference and . . . is relied
upon for the disclosure of a delta quantization parameter.”); Final Act. 6.
Also contrary to Appellant’s argument (Appeal Br. 15), the Examiner does
not rely on AAPA (but rather the combination of Zhou, Shimazaki, and
Budagavi) to teach a first bin, a sign bin, and other bins, and relies on AAPA
to teach that “the context can be the same for ‘other bins’ and ‘bins
subsequent.’” Ans. 14–15; Final Act. 8–9. We agree with the Examiner,
and find Appellant’s above arguments unpersuasive because they are not
responsive to the rejection as articulated by the Examiner.
The Examiner also explains “[p]art of the solution to Seki’s problem is
to increase a speed at which the entropy encoder can process[,] and the
‘collectively processing only consecutive binary symbols’ solution provides
less of a deterioration when compared to other options.” Ans. 13. The
Examiner further explains “any computation has an associated time
consumption and it is understood from ¶ [0125] of Seki’s disclosure that
their proposed solution provides an increase in processing speed when
compare[d] to other more detrimental solutions.” Ans. 13 (citing Seki
¶ 125). We again agree with and adopt as our own the Examiner’s findings
and conclusions noted above, and find Appellant’s contrary arguments
Appeal 2019-000246
Application 14/114,941

8
unpersuasive of Examiner error. In particular, we find Appellant’s argument
concerning Seki’s statement that “processing speed does not deteriorate
significantly” improperly takes that statement out of context, as explained by
the Examiner (Ans. 12–13). We also note that Appellant did not reply to the
Examiner’s Answer on the above issues.
Based on the foregoing, we find Appellant does not show persuasively
that the Examiner erred in finding a motivation or reason to combine Zhou,
Shimazaki, Budagavi, AAPA, and Seki.
(3) Appellant argues the cited references do not teach “the other bins
are binary arithmetic encoded using the same context for a predetermined
bin and bins subsequent to the predetermined bin,” as recited in claim 1.
Appeal Br. 15–17. According to Appellant, the accompanying text of
Figure 16 in AAPA “merely discloses the context indices used for the first
three bins,” and “nowhere does AAPA expressly disclose that the context
index used for binary arithmetic encoding of the forth bin, fifth bin, . . . , or
any bins subsequent to the third bin is fixed to 3.” Appeal Br. 16 (emphasis
added).
The Examiner finds, and we agree, that the limitation, “the other bins
are binary arithmetic encoded using the same context for a predetermined
bin and bins subsequent to the predetermined bin,” as recited in claim 1,
does not require the context to be a fixed value. Ans. 16. Instead, the
Examiner finds, and we again agree, that the subject limitation
“encompasses any state in which the other bin and subsequent bins happen
to have the ‘same context.’” Ans. 16; see In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr.,
367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (During prosecution, an application’s
claims are given their broadest reasonable scope consistent with the
Appeal 2019-000246
Application 14/114,941

9
specification.). As explained by the Examiner, “[t]his is consistent when
interpreted in light of the specification, because both the prior-art and the
specification are concerned with assigning context to bins as part of an
entropy encoding process.” Ans. 16. We agree with the Examiner that to
interpret this claim limitation to necessitate fixing the bins to any single
value would improperly import claim limitations from the Specification.
See Ans. 16; E-Pass Techs., Inc. v. 3Com Corp., 343 F.3d 1364, 1369 (Fed.
Cir. 2003) (Claims must be interpreted “‘in view of the specification’
without unnecessarily importing limitations from the specification into the
claims.” (citing Texas Digital Sys., Inc. v. Telegenix, Inc., 308 F.3d 1193,
1203–04 (Fed. Cir. 2002))).
The Examiner also finds “[t]he disclosure of AAPA in FIG. 16
indisputably discloses sequential bins set to value 3,” “[t]here is no
limitation present in the claim that requires any further narrowing of the
scope of the claimed context for the ‘other bins,’” and “[t]herefore, the prior-
art of record discloses every limitation of claim 1.” Ans. 16. Because
Appellant argues AAPA does not disclose a “fixed context” value, which is
not commensurate in scope with the claim limitation “same context,” we
find Appellant’s arguments here unpersuasive of Examiner error. See In re
Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 1348 (CCPA 1982) (limitations not appearing in the
claims cannot be relied upon for patentability). We also again note that
Appellant did not reply to the Examiner’s Answer on the above issues.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection under pre-AIA
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of independent claim 1. For similar reasons, we sustain
the Examiner’s rejection under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of independent
Appeal 2019-000246
Application 14/114,941

10
claims 3, 5, 7, 9, and 10, which were not argued separately. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(iv).

DECISION SUMMARY
Claims
Rejected 35 U.S.C. §
Reference(s)/
Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 3, 5, 7, 9,
10
103(a)
(pre-AIA)
Zhou, Shimazaki,
Budagavi, AAPA
(Fig. 16), Seki
1, 3, 5, 7,
9, 10

No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f).

AFFIRMED