Ex Parte Minezawa et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 17, 2018

13378974 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 17, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/378,974 12/16/2011
127226 7590 07/19/2018
BIRCH, STEW ART, KOLASCH & BIRCH, LLP
8110 Gatehouse Road
Suite 100 East
Falls Church, VA 22042-1248
Akira Minezawa
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.
1163-0964PUS1 1026
EXAMINER
HUNG, YUBIN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2666
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/19/2018 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):
mailroom@bskb.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte AK.IRA MINEZA WA, SHUNICHI SEKIGUCHI,
KAZUO SUGIMOTO, YUSUKE ITANI,
YOSHIMI MORIY A, NO RIMI CHI HIW ASA,
SHUICHI Y AMAGISHI, YOSHIHISA YAMADA,
YOSHIAKI KATO, KOHTARO ASAI, and
TOKUMICHI MURAKAMI
Appeal2017-011718
Application 13/378,974
Technology Center 2600
Before JAMES R. HUGHES, ERIC S. FRAHM, and
MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges.
FRAHM, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2017-011718
Application 13/378,974
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of
claims 17, 19, 21, and 22. Claims 1-16, 18, 20, and 23 have been canceled.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm.
Appellants' Disclosed Invention
Appellants' disclosed invention provides image encoding and
decoding, and, in particular, seeks to reduce image degradation when a high
compression ratio is used to encode an image. See Spec. ,r,r 1-2. To this
end, the invention classifies regions of a locally decoded image into classes
according to respective qualities of the regions, and generates a filter for
each class to compensate for distortion, thereby improving the accuracy of
the image quality. See Spec. ,r,r 16-17.
Exemplary Claim
Claim 17, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
17. An image decoding device comprising:
a variable length decoding circuit which performs a
variable length decoding process on a bit stream to obtain a
prediction parameter and a compressed difference image; and
1 Appellants identify Mitsubishi Electric Corporation as the real party in
interest. App. Br. 1.
2
Appeal 2017-011718
Application 13/378,974
a loop filter circuit which carries out a filtering process on
a block of a decoded image which is generated by adding a
prediction image to a difference image, said prediction image
being generated by performing an intra-frame prediction process
or an inter-frame prediction process on each of prediction blocks
each comprising plurality of pixels using said prediction
parameter, said difference image being generated by decoding
said compressed difference image,
wherein said variable length decoding circuit performs a
variable length decoding process to obtain information
associated with said block which is a unit for said filtering
process, said information specifying said block on which said
filtering process is to be performed, said block comprising each
of said prediction blocks, and
wherein said loop filter circuit categorizes each one of said
plurality of pixels of said block into one of plurality of classes
and carries out said filtering process using selected one of
plurality of filters corresponding to one of said classes.
The Examiner's Rejection2
Claims 17, 19, 21, and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
being unpatentable over Park (US 2009/0252221 Al; published Oct. 8,
2009) and Miao (US 2005/0265452 Al; published Dec. 1, 2005).
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections (Final Act. 6-10) in light
of Appellants' contentions in the Appeal Brief (App. Br. 5-9) and the Reply
2 Although the Examiner also rejected claim 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 in the
Final Rejection, claim 23 has since been canceled (see Advisory Act. dated
November 10, 2016), thus rendering the§ 101 rejection moot.
3
Appeal 2017-011718
Application 13/378,974
Brief (Reply Br. 1--4) that the Examiner has erred, as well as the Examiner's
response to Appellants' arguments in the Appeal Brief (Ans. 9--16). With
regard to representative independent claim 17, we adopt as our own (1) the
findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this
appeal is taken, and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the
Examiner's Answer in response to Appellants' Appeal Brief. We highlight
the following additional points.
Appellants contend Miao does not teach "wherein said loop filter
circuit categorizes each one of said plurality of pixels of said block into one
of plurality of classes and carries out said filtering process using selected
one of plurality of filters corresponding to one of said classes," as recited in
claim 17. App. Br. 6-7. In particular, Appellants note that in Miao's Figure
3A, a frame is divided into six segments, where pixels within the same
segment are assigned to the same class for filtering. App. Br. 7. Further,
Appellants note the Examiner finds Miao' s segment cannot be equated with
a "block" as claimed, and assert that this shows a deficiency in the
Examiner's reliance on Miao. Id. That is, Appellants argue "when it is
understood that a segment in Miao does not correspond to a block as
claimed, it cannot reasonably be asserted that Miao somehow discloses
categorizing each one of a plurality of pixels constituting a block as claimed
(in other words, a block comprising a plurality of pixels)." App. Br. 7-8.
We are not persuaded by Appellants' argument.
Miao describes a "target frame is divided into fixed size blocks and
block matching is performed to find the motion vectors for each block. All
the pixels in the same block share the same motion vector." Miao, ,r 30.
Further, Miao describes, "the pixels in the target frame are classified into
4
Appeal 2017-011718
Application 13/378,974
several segments based on the motion vectors of the pixels," where "the
pixels with similar motion vectors will be grouped together into the same
segment." Id. Finally, "[a] unique filter We is assigned for each class c of
the pixels." Id. Accordingly, Miao teaches that a target frame is divided
into blocks of pixels, and that the pixels are classified into classes for class-
specific filtering based on the pixels' respective motion vectors. We find
these teachings meet the claim 17 limitation of categorizing "each one of
said plurality of pixels of said block into one of plurality of classes and
carries out said filtering process using selected one of plurality of filters
corresponding to one of said classes."
Indeed, Miao describes that "[a]ll the pixels in the same block share
the same motion vector," and that pixels are classified based on respective
motion vectors (Miao, ,r,r 30-31 ), which means that all the pixels in the same
block are classified into the same class in Miao. However, the broadest
reasonable interpretation of claim 17 does not preclude all the pixels within
a block from being classified into the same class. That is, claim 1 7 only
requires that "each one of said plurality of pixels of said block" be
categorized "into one of plurality of classes," without requiring any pixels
within the same block be categorized into different classes of the available
"plurality of classes." The Specification supports this interpretation by
disclosing examples in which classification is done on the block level. See
Spec. ,r,r 36-39, 66; Figs. 4, 5, 12. Further, the fact that Miao's segments
and blocks are not coextensive does not change the analysis. Nothing in
claim 17 precludes identifying spatial constructs in addition to blocks, such
as Miao' s segments, that encompass pixels that are classified into the same
class.
5
Appeal 2017-011718
Application 13/378,974
Additionally, in the Reply Brief, Appellants contend the combination
of Park and Miao is not supported by an adequate rationale. Reply Br. 3--4.
However, we note that arguments raised for the first time in the Reply Brief
that could have been presented in the Appeal Brief are waived. See
37 C.F.R. § 41.41(b)(2) ("Any argument raised in the reply brief which was
not raised in the appeal brief, or is not responsive to an argument raised in
the examiner's answer ... will not be considered by the Board ... unless
good cause is shown."). Even so, Appellants' argument is unpersuasive.
Appellants assert "Miao provides no suggestion, or other rationale, for
somehow modifying the loop filter of Park based on motion vector-based
classification." Reply Br. 4. "Miao's reference to 'more compression gain
and better visual results' relates to the 'temporal classified filtering'
technique described therein, which is separate and distinct from loop
filtering of a decoded image in Park." Id. We disagree with Appellants
because both Park and Miao relate to encoding and decoding frames, and
both describe filtering the frames to improve the results of the encoding and
decoding processes. See Park, Abstract, ,r,r 57-62; Miao, Abstract, ,r 15. In
particular, Miao discloses "using temporal classified filtering (TCP) together
with conventional motion compensation to achieve more compression gain
and better visual results." Miao, ,r 15. We agree with the Examiner's
conclusion that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to
apply Miao' s temporal classified filtering technique that achieves "more
compression gain and better visual result" to Park's filtering (see Ans. 9),
because "if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person
of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar
devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual
6
Appeal 2017-011718
Application 13/378,974
application is beyond his or her skill." KSR Int 'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550
U.S. 398, 417 (2007).
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 17, and claims 19, 21, and 22 not specifically argued separately.
CONCLUSION
Appellants have not shown the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 17,
19, 21, and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
DECISION
The Examiner's decision to reject claims 17, 19, 21, and 22 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)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
7