Ex Parte Bush et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 14, 2016

12579474 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 14, 2016)

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.
12/579,474 10/15/2009 Stephen Francis Bush 236275-1 (NBCU:0070) 8406
12640 7590 07/14/2016
NBCUniversal Media, LLC
c/o Fletcher Yoder, P.C.
PO Box 692289
Houston, TX 77269-2289
EXAMINER
SUN, YULIN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2485
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/14/2016 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
____________

Ex parte STEPHEN FRANCIS BUSH,
JOHN ERIK HERSHEY,
and MICHAEL J. DELL’ANNO
____________

Appeal 2014-009739
Application 12/579,474
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before JASON V. MORGAN, MELISSA A. HAAPALA, and
NABEEL U. KHAN, Administrative Patent Judges.

KHAN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appellants1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection
of claims 1−20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is NBCUniversal Media,
LLC, App. Br. 2.
Appeal 2014-009739
Application 12/579,474

2
THE INVENTION
Appellants’ invention relates to “data compression devices, and more
particularly to video compression devices employing dynamic learning and
control.” Spec. ¶ 1.
Independent claim 1 is illustrative and reproduced below with
emphasis on at-issue subject matter.
1. A data compression system, comprising:
a plurality of encoder-decoder pairs communicatively coupled in
a concatenated chain and configured to receive input data and
transform the input data into compressed output data, wherein
the plurality of encoder-decoder pairs each comprise:
a first encoder-decoder pair comprising:
a first encoder configured to compress and to encode the
input data; and
a first decoder configured to decode the data encoded and
compressed by the first encoder and to provide decoded
data to a subsequent encoder-decoder pair; and
at least one additional encoder-decoder pair comprising:
an additional encoder configured to receive decoded
data from a prior encoder-decoder pair and to
compress and encode the decoded data; and
an additional decoder configured to decode the data
encoded by the additional encoder and to provide
the data decoded by the additional decoder to a
subsequent encoder-decoder pair or provide the data
decoded by the additional decoder as output data of
the concatenated chain when there are no
subsequent encoder-decoder pairs in the
concatenated chain;
Appeal 2014-009739
Application 12/579,474

3
at least one quality estimator communicatively coupled to the
concatenated chain to determine one or more quality metrics
corresponding to the decoded data provided by the first decoder,
the decoded data provided by the additional decoder of the at
least one addition encoder-decoder pairs, or a combination
thereof; and
a processing subsystem configured to optimize operation of each
of the plurality of encoder-decoder pairs based upon the plurality
of quality metrics, to achieve a desired level of optimization for
the concatenated chain.

REFERENCES AND REJECTIONS
1. Claims 1−14 and 17−20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Kitamura (US 2002/0059643; May 16, 2002)
and Chen (US 6,101,278; Aug. 8, 2000).
2. Claims 15 and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Kitamura and Abramoff (US 2010/0220906; Sept. 2,
2010).
ANALYSIS
Appellants argue the Examiner erred in citing Kitamura against the
claimed invention’s estimating of quality metrics, contending:
[T]he independent claims clearly illustrate an estimation of
quality (e.g., quality metrics) of decoded data / encoder-decoder
pair outputs. . . .
The Examiner maintained that Kitamura discloses the quality
estimators/quality metrics recited in the independent claims.
Specifically, the Examiner suggested that “‘quality metrics’ is
interpreted its broadest reasonable interpretation as optimal
prediction mode or target bit rate in [Kitamura’s] Fig. 12.”
Examiner’s Answer, page 10. . . .
Appeal 2014-009739
Application 12/579,474

4
. . . .
In stark contrast to the recited quality metrics that relate to
decoded output data, Kitamura’ s target bit rate is nothing more
than a parameter entered by an operator or a host computer.
Kitamura, paragraph 140. Indeed, Kitamura states, “The
controller 125 also receives information on a target bit rate from
the operator or the host computer.” Id. See also, Kitamura,
paragraph 173. Further, Kitamura’ s “prediction mode” is simply
an encoding parameter. Kitamura, paragraph 120.
Reply Br. 2−3; see also App. Br. 10 (“Instead of providing any quality
estimation, the controller 125 merely controls ‘operation and functions of the
circuits’ of Kitamura, using received target bit rate and/or an optimal
prediction mode setting. See Kitamura, paragraphs 139, 140, and 149.”);
App. Br. 13 (“[O]ptimal prediction mode and target bit rate are merely
configuration settings, not quality metrics.”)
The Examiner finds Kitamura’s prediction mode and target bit rate
teach the independent claims’ estimating of quality metrics as broadly
recited, finding:
Kitamura discloses “determine one or more quality metrics” and
“optimize operation of each of the plurality of encoder-decoder
pairs based upon the plurality of quality metrics” as claimed in
claims 1, 18. Since no further clarification or definition relates
to “quality metrics” in claims 1, 18, “quality metrics” is
interpreted its broadest reasonable interpretation as optimal
prediction mode or target bit rate in Fig. 12[.] . . . [O]ne of
ordinary skill in the art would have no problem recognizing
optimal prediction mode selection . . . [and] optimizing target bit
rate [are] well-known compression techniques to adjust
quantization, improve coding efficiency and enhance image
quality.
Ans. 10−11.

Appeal 2014-009739
Application 12/579,474

5
We agree with Appellants’ argument (and the Examiner does not
dispute) insofar as Kitamura implements the target bit rate and prediction
mode as merely “parameter[s] entered by an operator or a host computer.”
See supra (Appellants’ block quote); see also App. Br. 7 (citing Kitamura
Fig. 13), 10 (citing Kitamura ¶¶ 139−41). As to the target bit rate,
Kitamura’s controller 125 “receives information on a target bit rate from the
operator or the host computer, controlling the quantization circuit 117 so that
the encoder 101 outputs data at a bit rate matching the target bit rate[.]”
Kitamura ¶ 140. And, as to the prediction mode, Kitamura’s controller 125
receives respective errors of prediction modes, “determines the smallest one
among the four prediction errors, and sets a mode corresponding to the
smallest prediction error as a prediction mode.” Id. at ¶ 154. Thus, we
agree with Appellants that the target bit rate and prediction mode are
configuration settings for the encoded data, not quality metrics that are
estimated from the decoded data.
We are constrained to hold, on this record, the Examiner has not
shown Kitamura teaches the addressed limitations of independent claims
claims 1 and 18. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejections
of claims 1 and 18. For the same reasons, we do not sustain the rejections of
dependent claims 2−17, 19, and 20 (each incorporating the addressed
limitations of claim 1 or claim 18).
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1−20 is reversed.
REVERSED