Ex Parte 7,454,071 B2 et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 30, 2015

95002353 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 30, 2015)

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.
95/002,353 09/14/2012 7,454,071 B2 X42805 9306
83619 7590 12/31/2015
AT & T LEGAL DEPARTMENT - GB
ATTN: PATENT DOCKETING
ROOM 2A- 207
ONE AT & T WAY
BEDMINSTER, NJ 07921
EXAMINER
LAROSE, COLIN M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3992
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/31/2015 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________
LG ELECTRONICS, INC.
Requester

v.

AT&T INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY II, L.P.
Patent Owner and Appellant
____________________

Appeal 2015-007847
Reexamination Control 95/002,353
Patent US 7,454,071 B2
Technology Center 3900

____________

Before RICHARD M. LEBOVITZ, JEFFERY B. ROBERTSON, and
ANDREW J.DILLON, Administrative Patent Judges.

DILLON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2015-007847
Reexamination Control 95/002,353
Patent US 7,454,071 B2

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Owner appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(b) (2002) from the final
decision of the Examiner adverse to the patentability of claims 1, 3, 9, 10,
12, 21, 22, 31, and 32.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 315 (2002).
We heard oral argument in this Appeal on December 7, 2015, a
transcript of which will be entered into the electronic record in due course.
We affirm.

Invention
The '353 patent describes a method of using pattern vectors for image
coding and decoding. The method comprises converting a block of image
data into a set of transform coefficients, quantizing the transform
coefficients such that a number of the coefficients become zero, constructing
a single entity or bit vector indicating which coefficients are non-zero,
coding the single entity or bit vector as an integer using an adaptive, semi-
adaptive or nonadaptive arithmetic coder, coding the values of the
coefficients in any fixed order, using an adaptive, semi-adaptive or non-
adaptive arithmetic coder, or some other coder, and coding all coefficients
except the zero coefficients. Abstract.

Claims
Claims 1, 3, 9, 10, 12, 21, 22, 31, and 32 are subject to reexamination
and have been rejected. Claims 1-35 are original patent claims. Claims 4
and 13 have been canceled. Claims 1, 10, 21, and 31 are independent.
Appeal 2015-007847
Reexamination Control 95/002,353
Patent US 7,454,071 B2

3

Claim 1 is illustrative.
1. A method for identifying non-zero coefficients in a
square block of image data, the method comprising:

mapping a square block of transform coefficients into a
one-dimensional list of transform coefficients in a fixed order;

generating a single entity that identifies which transform
coefficients in the one dimensional list are non-zero; and

coding the single entity.

Prior Art

Meeker US 5,740,283 Apr. 14, 1998
Krause US 5,295,203 Mar. 15, 1994

Wenye Yang and Jerry D. Gibson, "Coefficient Rate and Significance Maps
in Transform Coding," Conference Record of the Thirty-First Asilomar
Conference on Signals, Systems & Computers, Vol. 2, pp. l373-l377,
November 2-5,1997 (hereinafter "Yang");

Vivek K. Goyal, "Theoretical Foundations of Transform Coding," IEEE
Signal Processing Magazine, pp. 9-21, September 2001 (hereinafter
"Goyal");

Henrique S. Malvar, "Lapped Biorthogonal Transforms for Transform
Coding with Reduced Blocking and Ringing Artifacts," Presented at the
IEEE ICASSP Conference, Munich, April 1997 (hereinafter, "Malvar").

Appeal 2015-007847
Reexamination Control 95/002,353
Patent US 7,454,071 B2

4
Owner’s Contentions

Owner contends that the Examiner erred in entering the following
grounds of rejections:
A. The rejection of claims 1, 3, 9, 21, and 22 under 35 U.S.C. §
102(b) as being anticipated by Krause; (App. Br 8-23)
B. The rejection of claims 10, 12, 31, and 32 under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as being unpatentable over Krause and Meeker; (App. Br. 23-25).

Representative Claim
Owner relies on the limitations of claim 1 and does not provide
substantive arguments for separate patentability for any other claim.
Accordingly, we will decide the appeal on the basis of claim 1 alone. See 37
C.F.R. § 41.67(c)(1)(vii).
Owner argues independent claim 1 is not anticipated by Krause in
view of the failure of Krause to disclose mapping “a square block of
transform coefficients into a one-dimensional list of transform coefficients”
and generating “a single entity” that identifies which transform coefficients
“in the one-dimensional list” are not zero. App. Br. 8.
Initially, Owner argues that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1,
by utilizing a faulty interpretation of the claimed “block,” that is, ignoring
the express description of the claimed “block” as a “square” block. Owner
cites the Examiner’s comments at page 7 of the RAN, wherein the Examiner
indicated an intention to interpret the term “block” as including any shape.
App. Br. 9.
Appeal 2015-007847
Reexamination Control 95/002,353
Patent US 7,454,071 B2

5
In response, the Examiner notes that the cited rejection set forth at
page 7 of the RAN was asserted against original claim 1, which merely
recited “blocks.” The Examiner then notes that the amended claim is
rejected in view of the disclosure within Krause that the encoding process
could be applied to 8x8 square blocks of image data. Ans. 4.
Consequently, we find the Examiner did not apply a faulty
interpretation of the term “block,” as asserted by Owner.
Next, Owner asserts the Examiner’s anticipation rejection includes an
“acknowledged erroneous factual finding,” citing the Examiner’s prior
acknowledgment that the irregular shaped regions 40, 42, 44, and 47 of
Krause do not correspond to the claimed square block of transform
coefficients. App. Br. 9-12.
The Examiner responds by acknowledging that the “preferred”
embodiment of Krause does indeed disclose utilizing subregions of a square
block of transform coefficients, but notes that Krause also describes the
processing of an entire block of transform coefficients at Column 7, line 58
through Column 8, line 3, which the Examiner interprets as a ‘non-
preferred” embodiment. Ans. 5.
Owner argues that the claimed invention is addressed to the
processing of an entire block of transform coefficients and that invention is
not disclosed by Krause. Owner characterizes Krause’s description of the
cumbersome nature of processing an entire block of transform coefficients
as a description of the state of the art and a reason why it is desirable to
reduce the size of the region that is vector coded. Reb. Br. 5-6.
Appeal 2015-007847
Reexamination Control 95/002,353
Patent US 7,454,071 B2

6
We find the cited portion of Krause at Column 7, line 58 through
Column 8, line 3, to be an express acknowledgement that the calculation of
all possible combinations of coefficients which are non-zero within an entire
block, while “not easy,” was contemplated in the prior art. We further find
that Krause teaches generating a “single entity” (vector 60) “that identifies
which transform coefficients in the one-dimensional list are non-zero”
within a particular region, and that teaching was appropriately appreciated
by the Examiner to include the calculation of all possible combinations of
coefficients which are non-zero within an entire block. (Krause, col. 8, ll.
39-64.)
It is well settled that “[T]he use of patents as references is not limited
to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems
with which they are concerned. They are part of the literature of the art,
relevant for all they contain.” In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216
USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006,
1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)).
Consequently we are not persuaded by Owner’s arguments that assert
the cited portion of Krause is not an “embodiment” and should not be
considered. We find no erroneous factual finding by the Examiner.
Owner also argues that the “totality of Krause’s disclosure” fails to
support the non-preferred embodiment cited by the Examiner, noting that
claims 1 and 2 of Krause are directed to the broad concept and illustrated
embodiment respectively. App. Br. 17-20.
The Examiner finds that the encoding of an entire 8x8 block of image
data is not preferred because it is “computationally complex.” Further, the
Appeal 2015-007847
Reexamination Control 95/002,353
Patent US 7,454,071 B2

7
Examiner finds there is nothing within Krause that suggests that Krause’s
technique must only be applied to sub-regions within an 8x8 block. Ans. 7-
8.
We concur with the Examiner for the reasons we set forth above. As
evidence thereof we note claim 1 of Krause sets forth expressly the creation
of a vector identifying locations of a group of coefficients from a block, not
a merely a region of that block. Further, claim 2 expressly sets forth
dividing the block up into a plurality of regions. Under the well-established
doctrine of claim differentiation, we conclude that claim 1 of Krause does
not require division of the block into a plurality of regions.
"[T]he presence of a dependent claim that adds a particular limitation
raises a presumption that the limitation in question is not found in the
independent claim." Liebel-Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad, Inc., 358 F.3d 898,
910 (Fed.Cir.2004).
Owner argues the non-anticipation of claims 3, 9, 12, and 22 based
upon the arguments set forth above. App. Br. 22-23.
For the reasons we set forth above we find the Examiner’s position
with regard to the anticipation of these claims by Krause to be persuasive.
With regard to the Examiner’s rejection of claims 10, 12, 31, and 32
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Krause and Meeker,
Owner argues that these claims are directed toward computer readable
medium, noting that the Examiner merely cited Meeker to demonstrate that
it was notoriously well-known at the time of the invention to utilize software
as a preferred means of implementing video codecs. With regard to
patentability, Owner reiterates the arguments set forth above regarding
Appeal 2015-007847
Reexamination Control 95/002,353
Patent US 7,454,071 B2

8
alleged errors by the Examiner regarding claim construction and factual
findings.
For the reasons we set forth above with regard to claim 1, we find no
error in the Examiner’s position with regard to the rejection of claims 10, 12,
31, and 32.

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision adverse to the patentability of claims 1, 3, 9,
10, 12, 21, 22, 31, and 32 is affirmed.
Requests for extensions of time in this proceeding are governed by 37
C.F.R. §§ 1.956 and 41.79(e).

AFFIRMED

Appeal 2015-007847
Reexamination Control 95/002,353
Patent US 7,454,071 B2

9
Patent Owner:

AT&T LEGAL DEPARTMENT - GB
ATTN: PATENT DOCKETING
ROOM 2A-207
ONE AT&TWAY
BEDMINSTER, NJ 07921

Third Party Requester:

LEE, HONG, DEGERMAN, KANG & WAIMEY
600 S. FIGUEROA STREET
SUITE 2300
LOS ANGELES, CA 90017