Ex Parte Bivolarsky et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 31, 201712838168 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 31, 2017) Copy Citation 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. 12/838,168 07/16/2010 Lazar Bivolarsky 336030.02 5699 69316 7590 04/04/2017 MICROSOFT CORPORATION ONE MICROSOFT WAY REDMOND, WA 98052 EXAMINER HESS, MICHAEL J ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2481 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 04/04/2017 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): u sdocket @ micro soft .com chriochs @microsoft.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte LAZAR BIVOLARSKY, MATTIAS NILSSON, RENAT VAFIN, and SOREN VANG ANDERSEN Appeal 2016-005290 Application 12/838,168 Technology Center 2400 Before: JEAN R. HOMERE, DEBRA K. STEPHENS, and JOHN A. EVANS, Administrative Patent Judges. Per Curiam. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a Final Rejection of claims 1—9 and 12—22 (App. Br. 5). Claims 10 and 11 have been canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. Appeal 2016-005290 Application 12/838,168 THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER According to Appellants, the claims are directed to a physical computer storage media for encoding and decoding a bit stream of compressed video and a decoder (Abstract). Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A physical computer storage medium having stored thereon instructions that, responsive to execution by a processor, perform operations comprising: generating an encoded bit stream of compressed video data representing a plurality of successive video frames with each frame being divided into a plurality of portions and each portion corresponding to a plurality of pixels, the encoded bit stream being generated by: determining, for each of the plurality of portions, a set of quantized frequency domain coefficients representing each portion; determining difference data enabling a second portion to be predicted from a first portion, the difference data defining a difference between frequency domain coefficients of the first portion and the second portion; assigning, to each of the plurality of portions, an index value indicating importance of each portion, each index value being based on a respective set of quantized frequency domain coefficients; selecting the first portion for prediction encoding of the second portion from among the plurality of portions based on the assigned index value of the first portion; performing prediction encoding of the second portion based on the determined difference data and the assigned index value of the first portion; and 2 Appeal 2016-005290 Application 12/838,168 including, in the encoded bit stream, an address specifying a location of the first portion relative to a whole number of said portions. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Ozeki et al. Beattie Wang et al. Tsuchiya et al. US 4,833,535 US 2001/0002205 Al US 2006/0153295 Al US 2008/0037642 Al May 23, 1989 May 31, 2001 July 13, 2006 Feb. 14, 2008 REJECTIONS Claims 13, 14, 19, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which Appellants regard as the invention (Final Act. 6).1 Claims 1—3, 12—15, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Ozeki and Tsuchiya (Final Act. 7—10). Claims 4, 16, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Ozeki, Tsuchiya, and Beattie (Final Act. 10-11). Claims 5—9, 17, 18, 21, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Ozeki, Tsuchiya, and Wang (Final Act. 11—14). ISSUE 1 1 The rejection of claims 1—9 and 12—22 under 35 U.S.C. §112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement has been withdrawn. Ans. 13. 3 Appeal 2016-005290 Application 12/838,168 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph: Claims 13, 14, 19, and 22 Appellants argue their invention as recited in claims 13, 14, 19, and 22, is not indefinite. Br. 14—16. The issue presented by the arguments is Issue 1: Has the Examiner erred in concluding claims 13, 14, 19, and 22 are indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph? ANALYSIS Appellants contend the Examiner’s indefmiteness rejection of claim 13 is in error. In particular, Appellants argue the Examiner’s conclusion that “identifying that the first portion is matched to a second portion based on the address received in the encoded bit stream” is indefinite, is improper because the reciting functionality ‘“based on’ information or data is ubiquitous” (Br. 14). We are not persuaded. We agree with the Examiner that the recitation is unclear as to what exactly is matched between the two portions and how that matched element is based on or connected to an address (Final Act. 6; Ans. 14—16). Moreover, Appellants do not address what is matched between the recited first portion and second portion, nor do Appellants address how what is matched is related to an address, nor do Appellants proffer evidence or argument to persuade us of error in the Examiner’s conclusion (Ans. 14—15). Accordingly, because the claims do not particularly point out and distinctly claim what is meant by “identifying that the first portion is matched to a second portion based on the address received,” as recited in claim 13, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection. With respect to claim 14, Appellants argue the Examiner erred in concluding “wherein the encoded bit stream includes motion data encoded in the form of a block address instead of a motion vector expressing an offset 4 Appeal 2016-005290 Application 12/838,168 in pixels,” is indefinite (Br. 14—15). According to the Examiner, the claim recitation is unclear as to how motion data is encoded into a block address and how this is an alternative to the recited motion vector expressing an offset in pixels (Final Act. 6; Ans. 16—18). In particular, the Examiner finds because a block address is a component of a motion vector and motion vectors are a number of pixels are organized into blocks, claim 14 is misleading and unclear (id.). Appellants quote portions of the Specification to show support for claim 14 (Br. 14—16 (quoting Spec. H 79, 103—104, 107)); however, Appellants proffer no explanation as to how the cited portion of the Specification helps clarify the scope of the claim. Thus, we agree with the Examiner that Appellants’ contention does not explain how the motion data is encoded into a block address or how motion data encoded into a block address is different from the recited motion vector expressing an offset in pixels (Ans. 17—18). Similarly, for claim 19, Appellants state the Examiner’s conclusion, provide excerpts from the Specification, and state the rejection is improper (Br. 15—16). We are not persuaded the Examiner’s conclusion is in error because Appellants have not provided a detailed explanation as to why the Examiner erred. More specifically, the Examiner determines for reasons similar to those regarding claim 14, claim 19’s recitation “wherein the encoded bit stream comprises a representation of motion data in the form of a block address” is unclear (Ans. 18—19). Because Appellants’ arguments have not rebutted the Examiner’s findings and ultimate conclusion of indefmiteness, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection. Appellants argue the rejection of claim 22 is improper for “similar reasons” as set forth for claim 13 (Br. 14). The Examiner concludes it is 5 Appeal 2016-005290 Application 12/838,168 unclear as to what an offset of pixels is and how the prediction of the second portion from the first portion based on the frequency domain coefficients is different from the prediction based on an offset of pixels (Final Act. 6). Appellants solely argue the recited “based on” but fail to address the cited Examiner’s inquiries with respect to the disputed claim language. Appellants have failed to clarify the Examiner’s inquiries; therefore, we sustain the Examiner’s conclusion that “based on the frequency domain coefficients rather than an offset of pixels,” as recited in claim 22, is indefinite. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 13, 14, 19, and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph as indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which Appellants regard as the invention. ISSUE 2 35 U.S.C. § 103(a): Claims 1—3, 12—15, and 19 Appellants argue that claims 1, 12, 13, and 14 are not unpatentable over Ozeki and Tsuchiya (Br. 16—21). The issues presented by the arguments are Issue 2a: Has the Examiner shown the combination of Ozeki and Tsuchiya teaches, suggests, or otherwise renders obvious “selecting the first portion for prediction encoding of the second portion from among the plurality of portions based on the assigned index value of the first portion,” and “performing prediction encoding of the second portion based on the determined difference data and the assigned index value of the first portion,” as recited in claim 1? 6 Appeal 2016-005290 Application 12/838,168 Issue 2b: Has the Examiner shown the combination of Ozeki and Tsuchiya teaches, suggests, or otherwise renders obvious “including, in the encoded bit stream, an address specifying a location of the first portion relative to a whole number of said portions and the difference data; and generating a decoded bit stream by: identifying the first portion based on the address received in the encoded bit stream; and determining a set of frequency domain coefficients for the second portion based on the difference data included in the encoded bit stream,” as recited in claim 12? Issue 2c: Has the Examiner shown the combination of Ozeki and Tsuchiya teaches, suggests, or otherwise renders obvious “decoding part of the encoded bit stream to generate a decoded bit stream by: identifying that the first portion is matched to a second portion based on the address received in the encoded bit stream,” as recited in claim 13? Issue 2d: Has the Examiner shown the combination of Ozeki and Tsuchiya teaches, suggests, or otherwise renders obvious “wherein the second portion is from a second one of said plurality of successive frames, and wherein the encoded bit stream includes motion data encoded in the form of a block address instead of a motion vector expressing an offset in pixels,” as recited in claim 14? ANALYSIS Issue 2a Appellants argue the Examiner has not shown how the combination of Ozeki and Tsuchiya teaches “selecting the first portion for prediction encoding of the second portion from among the plurality of portions based on the assigned index value of the first portion,” as recited in claim 1 (Br. 7 Appeal 2016-005290 Application 12/838,168 16). The Examiner finds Tsuchiya teaches motion compensation prediction involving using an index value to rank matches between a current block and a prediction block using a calculated residual energy index value and selecting a portion within a frame for prediction encoding of another portion (Ans.19 (citing Tsuchiya 1 80); Final Act. 3, 5). Similarly, Appellants contend the combination of Ozeki and Tsuchiya does not teach “performing prediction encoding of the second portion based on the determined difference data and the assigned index value of the first portion,” as recited in claim 1 (Br. 18—19). According to Appellants, the Sum of Absolute Transformed Difference (SATD) for block matching in Tsuchiya does not teach the recited performing prediction encoding of the second portion based on the determined difference data and the assigned index value of the first portion (Br. 18). The Examiner finds Tsuchiya teaches a calculated residual energy index value is used for block matching as the recited assigned index value (Final Act. 8; Ans. 19-20 (citing Tsuchiya 1 80), 23). According to the Examiner, Tsuchiya’s SATD metric (resulting in a block similarity score) used for block matching, teaches the recited determined difference between frequency domain coefficients and an index value assigned to each of the plurality of portions (Ans. 23). Because Appellants’ arguments are not responsive to the cited findings made by the Examiner, Appellants have not proffered sufficient evidence or argumentto persuade us the Examiner’s findings are in error. Accordingly, Appellants do not persuade us the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Ozeki and Tsuchiya teaches the disputed limitations recited in claim 1. 8 Appeal 2016-005290 Application 12/838,168 Issue 2b According to Appellants, the Examiner has not demonstrated how the combination of Ozeki and Tsuchiya teaches including, in the encoded bit stream, an address specifying a location of the first portion relative to a whole number of said portions and the difference data; and generating a decoded bit stream by: identifying the first portion based on the address received in the encoded bit stream; and determining a set of frequency domain coefficients for the second portion based on the difference data included in the encoded bit stream, as recited in claim 12 (Br. 16—17). The Examiner explains, and we agree, that the findings for claim 1 apply to the recited limitations of claim 12 because claim 12 is drawn to a decoder performing a process complementary to the encoding process effected by the limitations of claim 1 (Ans. 19—20). Appellants do not rebut these findings (Br. 16—17). Accordingly, Appellants do not persuade us the Examiner erred. Issue 2c Appellants argue the Examiner has not shown how the combination of Ozeki and Tsuchiya teaches “decoding part of the encoded bit stream to generate a decoded bit stream by: identifying that the first portion is matched to a second portion based on the address received in the encoded bit stream,'1'’ as recited in claim 13 (Br. 17). The Examiner relies on the received encoded signal of Ozeki including a block address to teach the address included in the encoded bit stream as similarly recited in claim 1. (Ans. 21; Final Act. 8 (citing Ozeki 20:3—15)). Similar to the discussion of claim 12 above, the Examiner explains an ordinarily skilled artisan would have found it obvious to apply Ozeki’s teaching to the recited address 9 Appeal 2016-005290 Application 12/838,168 received in the encoded bit stream of claim 13 (Ans. 21, 23—24; Final Act. 9). Because Appellants do not rebut these findings (Br. 17), Appellants do not persuade us the Examiner has erred. Issue 2d Appellants argue the combination of Ozeki and Tsuchiya does not teach “wherein the second portion is from a second one of said plurality of successive frames, and wherein the encoded bit stream includes motion data encoded in the form of a block address instead of a motion vector expressing an offset in pixels,” as recited in claim 14 (Br. 20-21). Appellants argue Ozeki teaches using a movement vector, not a block address, to shift an image for output (Br. 20 (citing Ozeki 20:3—15)). According to Appellants, the combination with Ozeki is improper because Ozeki teaches away from the recited “wherein the encoded bit stream includes motion data encoded in the form of a block address instead of a motion vector expressing an offset in pixels” (Br. 21). The Examiner responds that Ozeki teaches using the movement vector solely to shift the previous image’s blocks with respect to the current image by a displacement vector (Ans. 25 (citing Ozeki 20:3—15)). As the Examiner has explained, the motion vector expressing an offset in pixels is used to locate the frequency domain coefficients (Ans. 22). We agree with the Examiner that the movement vector in Ozeki is not relied upon to teach the recited motion vector expressing the offset in pixels. According to the Examiner, the block address in Ozeki is used to locate the first potion relative to other portions (Final Act. 8 (citing Ozeki 20:3—15)). Thus, the 10 Appeal 2016-005290 Application 12/838,168 block address in Ozeki is used to identify that the first portion is matched to a second portion as recited in claim 13 from which claim 14 depends. Furthermore, Appellants have not proffered evidence or argument to persuade us Ozeki criticizes, discredits, or otherwise discourages expressing motion vector using pixels. Thus, we are not persuaded Ozeki teaches away from the subject matter of claim 14. Summary In light of these findings and conclusions, Appellants have not persuaded us the combination of Ozeki and Tsuchiya fails to teach, suggest, or otherwise render obvious the limitations as recited in claims 1, 12, 13, and 14. Appellants have not argued separately the rejections of dependent claims 2, 3, 15, and 19 and thus, these claims fall with their respective independent claims. Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claims 1—3, 12— 15, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for obviousness over Ozeki and Tsuchiya. Issue 3 35 U.S.C. § 103(a): Claims 5—9, 17, 18, 21, and22 Appellants contend their invention as recited in claim 22 is not obvious over Ozeki, Tsuchiya, and Wang. The issue presented by the arguments is Issue 3: Has the Examiner shown the combination of Ozeki, Tsuchiya, and Wang teaches, suggests, or otherwise renders obvious “wherein the encoded bit stream further comprises an indication of a prediction method to be used to predict the second portion from the first 11 Appeal 2016-005290 Application 12/838,168 portion based on the frequency domain coefficients rather than an offset of pixels,” as recited in claim 22? ANALYSIS According to Appellants, the Examiner has not shown how the combination of Ozeki, Tsuchiya, and Wang teaches “wherein the encoded bit stream further comprises an indication of a prediction method to be used to predict the second portion from the first portion based on the frequency domain coefficients rather than an offset of pixels,” as recited in claim 22 (Br. 17—18). The Examiner finds Wang teaches a prediction mode for macroblocks designated in the encoded signal (Ans. 22; Final Act. 13—14 (citing Wang || 12—13)). We agree with the Examiner that the cited disclosure of Wang teaches the recited encoded bit stream further comprises an indication of a prediction method to be used to predict the second portion from the first portion. The Examiner explains that the frequency domain coefficients are used for comparison to find similar blocks and the offset of pixels is used to identity the location of frequency domain coefficients (Ans. 22). The Examiner then finds the combination of Wang’s teaching of encoding prediction modes, combined with the teachings of Ozeki and Tsuchiya, teaches the disputed limitation (id.). Appellants do not rebut these findings (Br. 17—18); therefore, Appellants do not persuade us the combination of Ozeki, Tsuchiya, and Wang fails to teach, suggest, or otherwise render obvious the limitations as recited in claim 22. The remaining claims were not separately argued and thus, these claims fall with their respective independent claims. Therefore, we sustain the rejection of 12 Appeal 2016-005290 Application 12/838,168 claims 5—9, 17, 18, 21, and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for obviousness over Ozeki, Tsuchiya, and Wang. 35 U.S.C. § 103(a): Claims 4, 16, and20 Appellants did not separately argue dependent claims 4, 16, and 20 (Br. 20). For the reasons set forth above, these claims fall with their respective independent claims. Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claims 4, 16, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for obviousness over Ozeki, Tsuchiya, and Beattie. DECISION The Examiner’s rejection of claims 13, 14, 19, and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph as being indefinite is affirmed. The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—3, 12—15, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ozeki and Tsuchiya is affirmed. The Examiner’s rejection of claims 4, 16, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ozeki, Tsuchiya, and Beattie is affirmed. The Examiner’s rejection of claims 5—9, 17, 18, 21, and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ozeki, Tsuchiya, and Wang is affirmed. 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)(l)(iv). AFFIRMED 13 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation