Ex Parte LIM et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jun 21, 2019

13959885 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jun. 21, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/959,885 08/06/2013
154359 7590 06/25/2019
MICHAEL BEST & FRIEDRICH LLP (DEN)
100 E WISCONSIN A VENUE
Suite 3300
MILWAUKEE, WI 53202
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Sung Chang LIM
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
498 l 95-9026-US02 1337
EXAMINER
ANYIKIRE, CHIKAODILI E
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2487
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/25/2019 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):
mkeipdocket@michaelbest.com
smalter@michaelbest.com
lachristiansen@michaelbest.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SUNG CHANG LIM, JONG HO KIM,
HAE CHUL CHOI, HUI YONG KIM, HA HYUN LEE,
JIN HO LEE, SE YOON JEONG, SUK HEE CHO,
JIN SOO CHOI, JIN WOO HONG, and JIN WOONG KIM
Appeal2018-008050
Application 13/959,885
Technology Center 2400
Before JENNIFER S. BISK, LARRY J. HUME, and
JULIET MITCHELL DIRBA, Administrative Patent Judges.
DIRBA, Administrative Patent Judge.
Appeal2018-008050
Application 13/959,885
DECISION ON APPEAL 1
Appellants2 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 3-8, and 10-12, which are all claims
pending in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse the rejection of claims 1, 3-8, and 10-12. We enter a new
ground of rejection for claim 10 pursuant to our authority under 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.50(b).
BACKGROUND
Appellants' disclosed embodiments and claimed invention relate to a
video coding device and method. Spec. 1 :4-5.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the claimed subject
matter (with emphases added to disputed limitations):
1. A video decoding device performing intra-prediction on a
decoding target block in a current picture, the video decoding device
compnsmg:
a receiving unit which receives a bitstream including
information related with a plurality of referencing block
identifiers; and
a control unit which performs an adaptive decoding process
based on the bitstream received,
1 This Decision uses the following abbreviations: "Spec." for the original
specification, filed August 6, 2013, which claims the benefit prior U.S. and
Korean patent applications; "Final Act." for the Final Office Action, mailed
September 13, 2017; "App. Br." for Appellants' Appeal Brief, filed March
20, 2018 ( as corrected by a revised Summary of Claimed Subject Matter,
mailed April 18, 2018); "Ans." for Examiner's Answer, mailed May 30,
2018; and "Reply Br." for Appellants' Reply Brief, filed July 26, 2018.
2 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Electronics and
Telecommunications Research Institute. App. Br. 2.
2
Appeal2018-008050
Application 13/959,885
wherein the plurality of referencing block identifiers indicate a
plurality of intra-prediction directions of a plurality of
referencing blocks in the current picture for the decoding target
block,
the adaptive decoding process determines, based on the
plurality of the referencing block identifiers, the intra-
prediction direction of the decoding target block based on the
plurality of the intra-prediction directions of the plurality of the
referencing blocks, and decodes the decoding target block
based on the intra-prediction direction determined, and
each of the plurality of the referencing blocks is one of a
plurality of previously reconstructed blocks which are adjacent
to the decoding target block in the current picture.
App. Br. 14 ( Claims App 'x) ( emphases added).
THE REJECTION
Claims 1, 3-8, and 10-123 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as obvious over Boon (US 2005/0163216 Al, published July 28,
2005) and Suzuki (US 2008/0063072 Al, published March 13, 2008). Final
Act. 3-6.
ANALYSIS
We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues
identified by Appellants and in light of the arguments and evidence
produced thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010)
(precedential). To the extent Appellants have not advanced separate,
3 Although claims 11 and 12 are not listed in the heading of the rejection
(Final Act. 3), these claims were addressed in the body of the rejection (id.
at 6). Appellants acknowledge these claims are subject to this rejection.
E.g., App. Br. 6. Accordingly, we consider their omission from the header
of the rejection to be a typographical error.
3
Appeal2018-008050
Application 13/959,885
substantive arguments for particular claims, or other issues, such arguments
are waived. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
We have considered all of Appellants' arguments and any evidence
presented. We highlight and address specific findings and arguments for
emphasis in our analysis below. Based upon our review of the record, we
find a preponderance of the evidence supports particular arguments
advanced by Appellants for the specific reasons discussed below.
Independent Claim 1
Claim 1 recites a device operable to decode a "decoding target block"
based on the target block's intra-prediction direction, where that direction is
determined based on the intra-prediction directions of adjacent blocks. App.
Br. 14 (Claims App'x). In particular, claim 1 recites that a process
"determines ... the intra-prediction direction4 of the decoding target block
based on the plurality of the intra-prediction directions of the plurality of the
referencing blocks," where each referencing block is "adjacent to the
decoding target block in the current picture" and where "referencing
identifiers" indicate the "intra-prediction directions of [the] plurality of
referencing blocks." Id. (footnote added). Appellants argue that the cited
Boon-Suzuki combination fails to teach or suggest these claim limitations.
See App. Br. 6-13; Reply Br. 5-8.
The Examiner found Boon teaches determining the target block's
intra-prediction direction "based on the plurality of the intra-prediction
4 Although claim 1 does not provide antecedent basis for the reference to
"the intra-prediction direction of the decoding target block," we interpret
that phrase to be equivalent to "an intra-prediction direction of the decoding
target block."
4
Appeal2018-008050
Application 13/959,885
directions of the plurality of the referencing blocks," but does not teach the
claimed "referencing identifiers" that indicate the referencing blocks'
directions, as required by claim 1. Final Act. 4 ( citing Boon ,i,i 64-80, 115-
117). For the missing limitation, the Examiner pointed to Suzuki. Id. at 4-5
( citing Suzuki ,i,i 54-68). The Examiner concluded that it would have been
obvious "to modify the invention of Boon in view of Suzuki" in order to
"optimiz[ e] coding efficiency." Id. at 5. The Examiner provided the
following explanation:
Id. 2.
First, Boon points that Figures 2 and 3 can be used in areas of
intra-frame prediction (paragraph(s) [0073]). Next, Boon
specifically to the different directions of intra-prediction
through the example of Figure 3 specifically AO and Al which
will be applied to newly added claims 11 and 12. The examiner
contends that it would have been obvious to add the reference
identifiers as applied in Suzuki. Suzuki applies different code
numbers to indicate which direction will take place. The code
numbers are applied to both spatial (i.e., intra) and inter-
prediction modes (paragraph(s) (0067) and (0068)).
Appellants contend Boon discloses intra-prediction directions for use
in coding the target block, but that Boon fails to teach or suggest intra-
prediction direction of reference blocks for use in coding the target block.
App. Br. 7-8, 10-12 (citing Boon, Figs. 2, 3, ,i,i 73-74, 64-90, 115-17).
Appellants assert Suzuki does not disclose this missing feature because the
cited portions of Suzuki relate to inter-prediction, not intra-prediction. Id.
at 12-13 (citing Suzuki ,i,i 54-62).
In the Answer, the Examiner restates the prior explanation ( compare
Ans. 7 with Final Act. 2) and quotes Suzuki, which states:
The mb _ type 12 specifies one mode selected for each
macroblock from the macroblock modes as shown in the table
5
Appeal2018-008050
Application 13/959,885
91 (P-picture) or the table 93 (B-picture) so that data will be
encoded in the selected mode. In the table 91, N of Intra MxN
shown in the records of code numbers 6, 7 indicates the smaller
block size for spatial prediction, and MxN indicates the smaller
block size for motion compensation (mode 1 to mode 4 in FIG.
7). The CABAC mode in the record of code number 5 does not
use NxM. In the table 93, N of Intra MxN shown in the records
of code numbers 23, 24 indicates the smaller block size for
spatial prediction.
Suzuki ,-J 67 ( quoted by Ans. 7) ( emphasis added). The Examiner finds
"Suzuki code numbers indicates [sic] the reference block identifiers as
required by claim l ," and the Examiner further finds Boon teaches using
adjacent blocks to obtain prediction values. Ans. 7 ( citing Boon ,-J 74).
Moreover, the Examiner states that Appellants "fail[] to tie reference block
identifiers strictly to intra-prediction." Id.
Appellants reply that Suzuki's code numbers do not teach or suggest
the claimed reference block identifiers because the code numbers indicate
"just a size of block to which the intra prediction is applied (4x4 or 16xl6),
not an intra prediction direction." Reply Br. 7 (emphasis omitted).
Appellants further note Suzuki fails to teach or suggest using the direction of
a reference block adjacent to the target block. Id. at 8.
We are persuaded of Examiner error. First, the Examiner erred in
finding that the claimed reference block identifiers are not tied to intra-
prediction. See Ans. 7 (Appellants "fail[] to tie reference block identifiers
strictly to intra-prediction."). Claim 1 requires "the plurality of referencing
block identifiers indicate a plurality of intra-prediction directions of a
plurality of referencing blocks." App. Br. 14 (Claims App'x). Thus, while
these identifiers may also include or reflect other information, they must at
least indicate the intra-prediction directions of the referencing blocks.
6
Appeal2018-008050
Application 13/959,885
Second, the Examiner did not sufficiently explain how the disputed
limitation is rendered obvious by the cited references. Missing from the
Final Office Action and the Answer is a clear explanation of the Examiner's
mapping of the relevant portions of the cited references to the limitations of
the claim. The Examiner appears to point to Suzuki to teach the claimed
"reference block identifiers," and the Examiner finds Boon teaches intra-
prediction directions and "use of adjacent blocks" (specifically, the pixels in
those blocks). See Ans. 7; Final Act. 2, 3-5. However, the Examiner fails to
explain why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious
to combine and modify these references to use the intra-prediction directions
of reference blocks (i.e., blocks adjacent to the target block) in coding the
target block.
Moreover, we see nothing in the cited portions of Boon and Suzuki to
teach or suggest this claim language. Boon teaches decoding a target block
using its intra-prediction direction and the adjacent block's pixel values.
Boon, Fig. 2, 3, ,-J,-J 73-75; e.g., id. ,-i 75 ("The prediction mode AO shown in
(a) of FIG. 3 is a mode in which the prediction image is generated by
linearly extending downward the pixel values adjacent to the upper side of
the processing target block."). But, while Boon's decoding process uses the
pixel values in adjacent blocks and the intra-prediction direction of the target
block, we find nothing in the cited portions of Boon that teaches use of the
intra-prediction direction of any adjacent block to decode the target block.
See generally id. at Fig. 2, 3, ,-J,-J 64-80, 115-117.
Suzuki teaches code numbers that identify the mode used when
coding a macroblock. Suzuki ,-J 67, Fig. 20, 21. Most of Suzuki's code
numbers specify a particular inter-prediction mode, but two code numbers
7
Appeal2018-008050
Application 13/959,885
specify intra-prediction modes of different block sizes: "Intra 4X4" and
"Intra 16Xl6." Id. Even if these two code numbers teach an intra-
prediction mode for the target block, we find nothing in the cited portions of
Suzuki that teaches use of the intra-prediction direction ( or mode) of any
adjacent block to decode the target block. See generally id. at ,i,i 54-68.
Therefore, based upon the findings above, on this record, we are
persuaded of error in the Examiner's reliance on the cited prior art
combination to teach or suggest this limitation of claim 1, such that we find
error in the Examiner's resulting legal conclusion of obviousness.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejection of
independent claim 1, or its dependent claims (i.e., claims 3-6 and 11).
Claim 10 includes analogous language to that discussed above with
respect to claim 1. See App. Br. 16 (reciting decode of "decoding target
block based on the intra-prediction direction," which is determined "based
on the referencing block identifier" that "indicat[ es] an intra-prediction
direction of a referencing block"). Further, the Examiner and Appellants
present substantially similar arguments for both claims 1 and 10. Final
Act. 7 (rejecting claim 10 because "arguments analogous to those presented
for claim 1 are applicable for claim 1 O"); Ans. 8 (responding to claim 10 by
reference to Examiner's discussion of claim 1 ); App. Br. 6-9 ( arguing
claims 1, 7 and 10 as a group); Reply Br. 9 (identifying the "distinctive
features" of claim 10 as analogous to the limitations argued for claim 1 ).
Therefore, for the reasons provided above, we are persuaded of error in the
Examiner's reliance on the cited prior art references to teach or suggest the
analogous limitations. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's
obviousness rejection of independent claim 10.
8
Appeal2018-008050
Application 13/959,885
Independent Claim 7
Independent claim 7 is similar to independent claim 1, except that it
refers to the intra-prediction mode, rather than the intra-prediction direction,
of the decoding target block and adjacent blocks. Compare App. Br. 15-16
(Claims App'x) (claim 7) with id. at 14 (claim 1).
Specifically, claim 7 recites an "adaptive decoding process determines
the intra-prediction mode5 of the decoding target block based on both of the
first intra-prediction mode of the first referencing block and the second intra-
prediction mode of the second referencing block, and decodes the decoding
target block based on the intra-prediction mode determined." Id. at 16
(footnote added). The claim also specifies that "each of the first referencing
block and the second referencing block is one of a plurality of previously
reconstructed blocks which are adjacent to the decoding target block in a
current picture.6" Id. (footnote added)
Appellants allege error in the Examiner's rejection of claim 7 based
on the same rationale provided for independent claim 1. E.g., App. Br. 7
(The cited portions of Boon "do not disclose or suggest the intra prediction
mode (or, intra prediction direction) of adjacent blocks."); id. at 13
(referencing arguments provided for claim 1 ); Reply Br. 8 (arguing Suzuki's
5 Although claim 7 does not provide antecedent basis for the reference to
"the intra-prediction mode of the decoding target block," we interpret that
phrase to be equivalent to "an intra-prediction mode of the decoding target
block."
6 The last limitation of the claim recites "a current picture"; however,
claim 7 includes a prior reference to "the current picture." We interpret all
of the claim's references to "current picture" to refer to the same "current
picture." As a result, we interpret this final reference to "a current picture"
to be equivalent to "the current picture."
9
Appeal2018-008050
Application 13/959,885
code number does not relate to "an intra prediction direction (mode) of the
reference block" ( emphasis omitted)); see also Final Act. 7 (rejecting
claim 7 because "arguments analogous to those presented for claim 1 are
applicable for claim 7").
We are persuaded of Examiner error for substantially the same
reasons as provided above. In particular, the Examiner did not sufficiently
explain how the disputed limitation is rendered obvious by the cited
references, and we see nothing in the cited portions of Boon and Suzuki to
teach or suggest this claim language. In particular, we find nothing in the
cited portions of Boon or Suzuki, alone or in combination, to teach or
suggest use of the intra-prediction mode of any adjacent block to determine
the target block's intra-prediction mode used to decode the target block.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejection of
independent claim 7 or its respective dependent claims (i.e., claims 8
and 12).
NEW GROUND OF REJECTION
35 U.S.C. § 112-INDEFINITENESS
During the Office's evaluation, a proposed "claim is indefinite when it
contains words or phrases whose meaning is unclear," i.e., "ambiguous,
vague, incoherent, opaque, or otherwise unclear in describing and defining
the claimed invention." In re Packard, 751 F.3d 1307, 1310-11 (Fed.
Cir. 2014) (per curiam); see also In re McAward, No. 2015-006416, 2017
WL 3669566, at *3 (PTAB Aug. 25, 2017) (precedential).
We enter a new ground of rejection for independent claim 10 as being
indefinite under either 35 U.S.C. § 112 ,-J 2 (pre-AIA) or 35 U.S.C. § l 12(b ).
10
Appeal2018-008050
Application 13/959,885
Claim 10 recites a video decoding device comprising a receiving unit.
App. Br. 16 (Claims App'x). The claim further states "wherein the adaptive
decoding process 7 determines an intra-prediction direction of the decoding
target block based on the referencing block identifier, and decodes the
decoding target block based on the intra-prediction direction determined."
Id. (footnote added). Claim 10 is an apparatus claim, but it includes method
steps that are not tied to a structure-i.e., the claim recites a "process" that
"determines an intra-prediction direction" and "decodes the decoding target
block." The claim's recitation of both an apparatus and method steps in this
manner renders the claim ambiguous. See MPEP § 2173.05(p) (9th ed.
2018) ("A single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps
of using the apparatus is indefinite."); see also IPXL Holdings, L.L.C. v.
Amazon.com, Inc., 430 F.3d 1377, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ("[R]eciting both
an apparatus and a method of using that apparatus renders a claim
indefinite" because it is unclear when infringement occurs.); cf MasterMine
Software, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 874 F.3d 1307, 1315-16 (Fed. Cir. 2017)
( distinguishing between an apparatus with functional language and a mixed
apparatus and method claim).
Thus, we enter a new ground of rejection that claim 10 is indefinite
under 35 U.S.C. § 112 ,-J 2 (pre-AIA) or 35 U.S.C. § l 12(b) for failure to
particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter regarded as the
invention.
7 We also note that claim 10 also does not provide antecedent basis for "the
adaptive decoding process." In particular, although claim 1 recites a device
including "a control unit which performs an adaptive decoding process
based on the bitstream received," claim 10 does not include an analogous
requirement.
11
Appeal2018-008050
Application 13/959,885
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1, 3-8,
and 10-12.
We enter a NEW GROUND OF REJECTION for claim 10 under
either 35 U.S.C. § 112 ,-J 2 (pre-AIA) or 35 U.S.C. § l 12(b) as indefinite.
This decision contains a new ground of rejection pursuant to 3 7
C.F.R. § 41.50(b). Section 41.50(b) provides "[a] new ground of rejection
pursuant to this paragraph shall not be considered final for judicial review."
Section 41.50(b) also provides:
When the Board enters such a non-final decision, the appellant,
within two months from the date of the decision, must exercise
one of the following two options with respect to the new ground
of rejection to avoid termination of the appeal as to the rejected
claims:
(1) Reopen prosecution. Submit an appropriate
amendment of the claims so rejected or new Evidence relating
to the claims so rejected, or both, and have the matter
reconsidered by the examiner, in which event the prosecution
will be remanded to the examiner. The new ground of rejection
is binding upon the examiner unless an amendment or new
Evidence not previously of Record is made which, in the
opinion of the examiner, overcomes the new ground of rejection
designated in the decision. Should the examiner reject the
claims, appellant may again appeal to the Board pursuant to this
subpart.
(2) Request rehearing. Request that the proceeding be
reheard under § 41.52 by the Board upon the same Record. The
request for rehearing must address any new ground of rejection
and state with particularity the points believed to have been
misapprehended or overlooked in entering the new ground of
rejection and also state all other grounds upon which rehearing
is sought.
12
Appeal2018-008050
Application 13/959,885
Further guidance on responding to a new ground of rejection can be
found in the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure§ 1214.01.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § l.136(a)(l)(iv). See
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(±).
REVERSED
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b).
13