Ex Parte Sole Rojals et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 19, 2018

13362928 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 19, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/362,928 0113112012
15150 7590 03/21/2018
Shumaker & Sieffert, P.A.
1625 Radio Drive, Suite 100
Woodbury, MN 55125
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Joel Sole Rojals
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.
1010-781USOl/l 11220 9696
EXAMINER
FEREJA, SAMUEL D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2486
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/2112018 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):
pairdocketing@ssiplaw.com
ocpat_uspto@qualcomm.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JOEL SOLE ROJALS and MAR TA KARCZEWICZ
Appeal2017-000004
Application 13/362,928
Technology Center 2400
Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, CARLL. SILVERMAN, and
SCOTT E. BAIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
DIXON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal2017-000004
Application 13/362,928
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Non-Final
rejection of claims 1-39 and 41--48. Claim 40 has been canceled. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We REVERSE and enter a NEW GROUND OF REJECTION for all
pending claims under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, pursuant
to our authority under 3 7 C.F .R. § 41. 50(b ).
The claims are directed to a quantized pulse code modulation in video
coding. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A method for encoding video data, the method
compnsmg:
encoding at least one block of a frame of video data using
intra-prediction relative to another block of the frame of video
data; and
encoding samples of one or more other blocks of the frame
of video data using quantized pulse code modulation according
to an output bit-depth, wherein the encoding is performed
without any frequency domain transformation of the samples,
and wherein the samples of the one or more other blocks of video
data have a bit-depth greater than the output bit-depth so as to
introduce loss to the samples.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Lu et al.
Gharavi-Alkhansari et al.
US 2010/0290524 Al Nov. 18, 2010
US 2011/0292247 Al Dec. 1, 2011
2
Appeal2017-000004
Application 13/362,928
REJECTIONS
The Examiner made the following rejections:
Claims 1-6, 8-11, 13-15, 18-24, 26-29, 31-33, 36- 39, and 42--47
stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by
Gharavi-Alkhansari.
Claims 7, 12, 16, 17, 25, 30, 34, 35, 41, and 48 stand rejected under
pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over by Gharavi-
Alkhansari in view of Lu.
ANALYSIS
Anticipation
Appellants argue each of the independent claims separately under
separate headings, but present a similar line of reasoning for each of the
independent claims. As a result, we address Appellants' arguments with
respect to illustrative independent claim 1.
Appellants contend that Gharavi-Alkhansari is clear that any "intra-
prediction" or "intra-coding" techniques described are performed such that
"each block is coded independent from the other blocks." Moreover,
Appellants contend Gharavi-Alkhansari's definition and description of
"intra-coding" is the exact opposite of how intra-coding is defined in
Appellants' claims which recites "encoding at least one block of a frame of
video data using intra-prediction relative to another block of the frame of
video data." (App. Br. 1 O; see claim 1 )(emphasis omitted).
Appellants further contend that "[b ]oth the pulse code modulation (PCM)
and differential pulse code modulation (DPCM) techniques described in
Gharavi-Alkhansari are performed independently of other blocks of video
3
Appeal2017-000004
Application 13/362,928
data, and are not performed "relative to another block of the frame of video
data," (App. Br. 10).
The Examiner maintains:
Gharavi-Alkhansari discloses video compression coding (intra-
coding and inter-coding) wherein intra-coding uses information
from the current frame and an image is partitioned into blocks,
each block is coded independent from the other blocks, and for
each block a fixed and predetermined number of blockBitBudget
bits is generated by the encoder ([0018]). Here, there are at least
two blocks of the image and are cod[]ed in the same frame
independently to one another in the same or different manner
relative to one another. The limitation "relative to another block
of the frame" [is] interpreted to address coding in the same frame
independently relative to other blocks of the frame.
(Ans. 14).
In the Reply Brief, Appellants contend that the Examiner's analysis is
inconsistent with the plain language of the claim and Appellants'
Specification. (Reply Br. 6). Appellants further identify various paragraphs
in the Specification which use the term "relative." (Reply Br. 7-8).
Appellants further contend that a close reading of the Specification
demonstrates that the term "relative," as used throughout the Appellants'
Specification, cannot reasonably be interpreted as "independently relative"
at least because relative is used to indicate a correspondence or dependence.
(Reply Br. 8). Finally, Appellants provide various dictionary definitions1 to
evidence that the term "relative" cannot reasonably be interpreted as
"independently relative" at least because the Examiner's addition of the
word "independently" is not consistent with the ordinary and customary
meaning of the term "relative." (Reply Br. 8).
1 We note the dates provided for the definitions are after the filing date.
4
Appeal2017-000004
Application 13/362,928
Appellants and the Examiner present different interpretations of the
term "relative." Based on the record, we find neither the Examiner nor
Appellants have convinced us of an appropriate interpretation of the claimed
invention, and we would have to speculate as to the scope of the claimed
invention and the application of the prior art thereto. We decline to
speculate.
A prior art rejection of a claim, which is so indefinite that
"considerable speculation as to meaning of the terms employed and
assumptions as to the scope of such claims" is needed, is likely imprudent.
See In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 862 (CCPA 1962) (holding that the Examiner
and the board were wrong in relying on what at best were speculative
assumptions as to the meaning of the claims and basing a rejection under 3 5
U.S.C. § 103 thereon.)
Considering now the rejections of claims 1-39 and 41--48 under 35
U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103, we have carefully considered the subject matter
defined by these claims. However, for reasons stated infra in our new
rejection under the second paragraph of Section 112 entered under the
provisions of 37 CPR 4 l .50(b ), no reasonably definite meaning can be
ascribed to certain language appearing in the claims. As the court in In re
Wilson, 424 F.2d 1382, 1385, (CCPA 1970) stated:
All words in a claim must be considered in judging the patentability of
that claim against the prior art. If no reasonably definite meaning can
be ascribed to certain terms in the claim, the subject matter does not
become obvious --the claim becomes indefinite.
In comparing the claimed subject matter with the applied prior art, it
is apparent to us that considerable speculations and assumptions are
necessary in order to determine what in fact is being claimed. Since a
5
Appeal2017-000004
Application 13/362,928
rejection based on prior art cannot be based on speculations and
assumptions, see In re Steele, 305 F .2d at 862, we are constrained to reverse,
proforma, the Examiner's rejections of claims through under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103. This procedural reversal should not be construed as a decision on the
merits of the Sections 102 and 103 rejections.
Indefiniteness
We reject claims 1-39 and 41--48 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and
distinctly claim the subject matter regarded as the invention.
With respect to each of the eight independent claims 1, 13, 19, 31, 3 7,
39, 42, and 45, each independent claim includes a similar limitation
regarding encoding or decoding at least one block of a frame of video data
"using intra-prediction relative to another block of the frame of video data,"
and we find this claim terminology is unclear as to the proper interpretation
of the phrase "relative to another block of the frame of video data" so as to
determine the metes and bounds of the claimed invention and provide a
comparison to the prior art reference. Accordingly, independent claims 1,
13, 19, 31, 37, 39, 42, and 45 are indefinite, as are their dependent claims
which include the limitations of their parent independent claims.
From our review of Appellants' Summary of the Claimed Subject
Matter, we find Appellants identify paragraphs 6, 36, 57, 65-82 and Figures
2, 3, and 7 as a concise explanation of the subject matter defined in each of
the rejected independent claims. (App. Br. 3--4). From our review of these
portions of Appellants' Specification in paragraphs 56 and 57, we find a
directional relative location for coding in the intra-prediction unit 46, but we
6
Appeal2017-000004
Application 13/362,928
find no express definition of the term "relative to" therein. Alternatively, in
the paragraphs 65-82, also identified in the Summary of the Claimed
Subject Matter, the term "relative to" is used with regards to "the
quantization step for each of the subsequent PCM mode blocks in the frame
may be signaled as a delta value relative to the previously signaled
quantization step." (Spec. ,-i 80).
Because this ambiguity renders claim 1 amenable to at least two
plausible constructions, the claim is indefinite. See Ex parte Miyazaki, 89
USPQ2d 1207, 1211 (BPAI 2008) (precedential). Similarly, independent
claims 13, 19, 31, 37, 39, 42, and 45 contain similar limitations and the
ambiguity renders these claims amenable to at least two plausible
constructions, and the claims are indefinite. Each of the dependent claims
contains the same deficient claim limitations and are rejected based upon the
same reasonmg.
DECISION
We proforma reverse the anticipation and obviousness rejections of
claims 1-39 and 41-48 under§§ 102 and 103(a).
In a NEW GROUND OF REJECTION pursuant to our authority
under 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b), we reject claims 1-39 and 41--48 under pre-AIA
35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite.
TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
This decision contains a new ground of rejection pursuant to
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b). Section 41.50(b) provides "[a] new ground of
7
Appeal2017-000004
Application 13/362,928
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.
Further guidance on responding to a new ground of rejection can be
found in MPEP § 1214.01.
No time for taking any action connected with this appeal may be
extended under 37 C.F.R. § l.136(a)(l). See 37 C.F.R. § l.136(a)(l)(iv).
REVERSED
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b)
8