Ex Parte Staelin et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 27, 201410946940 (P.T.A.B. May. 27, 2014) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE _____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD _____________ Ex parte CARL STAELIN, MANI FISCHER, and HILA NACHLIELI _____________ Appeal 2011-007569 Application 10/946,940 Technology Center 2400 ______________ Before, JEFFREY T. SMITH, MAHSHID D. SAADAT, and ROBERT E. NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judges. Per Curiam. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2011-007569 Application 10/946,940 2 This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the rejection of claims 1 through 37. We affirm-in-part. INVENTION The invention is directed to a method for processing video frames where a respective set of three-dimensional forward transform coefficients is computed for each of multiple positions of a three-dimensional blocking grid relative to an input video block comprising a selected set of video frames. See Abstract of Appellants’ Specification. Claim 1 is illustrative of the invention and reproduced below: 1. A method of processing a sequence of video frames, comprising operating a processor to perform operations comprising: computing a respective set of three dimensional forward transform coefficients for each of multiple positions of a three dimensional blocking grid relative to an input video block comprising a selected set of video frames: processing the sets of three dimensional forward transform coefficients: computing a respective three-dimensional inverse transform from each set of processed forward transform coefficients generating an output video block based on the computed three dimensional inverse transforms. Appeal 2011-007569 Application 10/946,940 3 REJECTIONS AT ISSUE The Examiner has rejected claims 1 through 4, 7, 8, 13 through 16, 19, 20, 25 through 28, 31, 32 and 37 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Naimpally (EP 0616465; March 14, 1994 ) and Nagasaki (U.S. 5,289,289; Feb. 22, 1994). Answer 3-5.1 The Examiner has rejected claims 5, 6, 17, 18, 29 and 30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Naimpally, Nagasaki, and Yan (U.S. 5,623,312; Apr. 22, 1997). Answer 5-6. The Examiner has rejected claims 9 through 12, 21 through 24, and 33 through 36 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Naimpally, Nagasaki, and Yamaguchi (U.S. 6,519,285 B2; Feb. 11, 2003). Answer 6-7. ISSUES Appellants argue, on pages 6 through 9 of the Appeal Brief, that the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1 is in error. Appellants’ arguments present us with the issue: 1. Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Naimpally and Nagasaki teaches calculating a set of three dimensional forward transform coefficients for each of multiple positions? 1 Throughout this opinion we refer to the Appeal Brief dated December 3, 2010, Reply Brief dated March 28, 2011, and the Examiner’s Answer mailed on February 17, 2011. Appeal 2011-007569 Application 10/946,940 4 On pages 9 and 10 of the Brief, Appellants present additional arguments with respect to claim 8. These arguments present us with the issue: 2. Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Naimpally and Nagasaki teaches generating a video output block by combining three-dimensional inverse transforms? ANALYSIS Appellants’ arguments directed to the first issue have not persuaded us the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Naimpally and Nagasaki teaches calculating a set of three dimensional forward transform coefficients for each of multiple positions. The Examiner has provided a detailed response to Appellants’ arguments on pages 7 and 8 of the Answer. We have reviewed the Examiner’s response and concur with the Examiner’s fact finding and conclusions. Accordingly we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1. However, Appellants’ arguments directed to the second issue have persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s finding the combination of Naimpally and Nagasaki teaches generating a video output block by combining three-dimensional inverse transforms. The Examiner, in response to Appellants’ arguments cites to Naimpally, column 6, lines 11- 30, to support a finding that combining three-dimensional inverse transforms is known in the art. We disagree with the Examiner; we have reviewed this passage of Naimpally, and do not find it supports the Examiner’s finding. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 8. Appellants have not presented additional arguments with respect to the rejection of claims 2 through 7 and 9 through 37. As Appellants’ Appeal 2011-007569 Application 10/946,940 5 arguments directed to claim 8 do not apply to claims 2 through 7, 13 through 19, 25 through 31, and 37, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of these claims. However, as Appellants’ arguments directed to claim 8 also apply to claims 9 through 12, 20 through 24, and 32 through 36, we similarly do not sustain the Examiners’ rejection of these claims. DECISION We sustain the Examiner’s rejection of 1 through 7, 13 through 19, 25 through 31, and 37. We do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 8 through 12, 20 through 24, and 32 through 36. The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1 through 37 is affirmed-in-part. AFFIRMED-IN-PART dw Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation