Ex Parte Minezawa et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJul 17, 201813378974 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 17, 2018) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation