Ex Parte Bivolarsky et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 31, 2017

12838168 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 31, 2017)

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