Ex Parte Tanida et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 21, 2016

12528434 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 21, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/528,434 08/24/2009
27572 7590 01/25/2016
HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C.
P.O. BOX 828
BLOOMFIELD HILLS, MI 48303
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Ryuichi Tanida
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.
5259-000103/US/NP 3536
EXAMINER
CARTER, RICHARD BRUCE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2485
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01125/2016 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):
troydocketing@hdp.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte RYUICHI TANIDA and ATSUSHI SHIMIZU
Appeal2014-001703
Application 12/528,434
Technology Center 2400
Before BRUCE R. WINSOR, LINZY T. McCARTNEY, and
NATHAN A. ENGELS, Administrative Patent Judges.
WINSOR, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection
of claims 1--4 and 6. Claim 5 is canceled. See Response to Non-Final
Office Action (filed Aug. 17, 2012) at 6. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse and institute a new ground of rejection within the
provisions of 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) (2012).
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Nippon Telegraph and
Telephone Corporation. App. Br. 3.
Appeal2014-001703
Application 12/528,434
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Invention
Appellants' invention "relates to a code amount estimating method
and corresponding apparatus, program, and storage medium in video
encoding in which a video image is subjected to orthogonal transformation
and encoding using variable length code." Spec. i-f 1.
Claims 1 and 4 are independent. Claim 1 is illustrative of the subject
matter on appeal:
1. A code amount estimating method, used in video
encoding, for estimating an amount of code generated in a first
information source encoding method in which a plurality of
orthogonal transformation sizes are selectable and encoding is
performed by rearranging quantized two-dimensional
orthogonal transformation coefficients to have a one-
dimensional form, wherein the amount of code is estimated
using a second information source encoding method which has
a lower computation cost than the first information source
encoding method and performs encoding using a variable
length encoding table, and the code amount estimating method
comprises the steps of:
performing rearrangement, when encoding quantized
values of coefficients of a larger-sized orthogonal
transformation than an orthogonal transformation size assigned
to the variable length encoding table, by rearranging the
quantized values to have a one-dimensional form in the order
defined in the first information source encoding method,
wherein in the one-dimensional form, Run-Level sets of the
number Run of successive "O" coefficients and a significant
coefficient Level which follows them are obtained, and the
obtained Run-Level sets are stored;
computing the number of groups based on a proportion
between an orthogonal transformation area corresponding to the
orthogonal transformation size assigned to the variable length
encoding table and an orthogonal transformation area for an
encoding target;
2
Appeal2014-001703
Application 12/528,434
classifying the Run-Level sets into groups having the
number of groups;
dividing Run of each Run-Level set by the number of
groups, and setting the obtained quotient as Run of the
Run-Level set;
determining a code length of each Run-Level set in each
group by referring to the variable length encoding table; and
computing the total sum of the determined code lengths,
wherein the amount of code generated in the first
information source encoding method is estimated to be the total
sum of the code lengths of all groups,
wherein the first information source encoding method is
a context-adaptive binary arithmetic coding [("CABAC")]
method, and the second information source encoding method is
a context-adaptive variable length coding [("CA VLC")]
method.
App. Br. 21-22 (Claims App'x).
Rejections on Appeal
Claims 1--4 and 6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Sugahara et al. (US 2004/0120404 Al; published June 24,
2004) ("Sugahara"), Masuda et al. (US 5,398,078; issued Mar. 14, 1995)
("Masuda"), and Hussain et al. (US 2007/0296613 Al; published Dec. 27,
2007) ("Hussain"). See Final Act. 2-7.
ISSUE
The issue presented by Appellants' contentions are as follows:
Under§ 103(a), did the Examiner err in concluding the combination
of Sugahara, Masuda, and Hussain teaches or suggests "using a [CAVLC]
method" "for estimating an amount of code generated in a [CABAC]
method" as required by claim 1?
3
Appeal2014-001703
Application 12/528,434
ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds Hussain teaches "using a [CA VLC] method" "for
estimating an amount of code generated in a [CABAC] method" because it
uses CABAC and CA VLC methods sequentially, wherein both CABAC and
CA VLC are inherently lossless compression techniques. Ans. 10 (citing
Hussain, Fig. 5C; i-f 77). Appellants argue Hussain does not teach
sequentially using CABAC and CA VLC, but rather merely selectable
encoding methods that allow selection between CABAC and CA VLC. App.
Br. 15, 18; Reply Br. 2-3. Therefore, Appellants argue, the Examiner erred
in finding that Hussain teaches or suggests "using a [CA VLC] method" "for
estimating an amount of code generated in a [CABAC] method" as required
by claim 1. App Br. 15, 18; Reply Br. 2-3.
We agree with Appellants. Hussain teaches that "[t]he H.264
specification provides for two types of entropy encoding processes,
including context-adaptive binary arithmetic coding (CABAC) and
context-adaptive variable length coding (CA VLC)." Hussain i-f 4. Hussain
further teaches CA VLC and CABAC modules for use in a variable length
decoding ("VLD") unit and that "CAB AC and CA VLC decoding is [sic]
very sequential .... " Hussain i-fi-1 29, 77; Fig. 5C.
These cited passages of Hussain teach selecting between CAB AC or
CA VLC methods in a video decoder. They do not teach or suggest using a
CA VLC method for estimating an amount of code generated in a CABAC
method. See Hussain, Fig. 5C; i-f 77. Although Hussain teaches that
CABAC and CA VLC methods are sequential, the skilled artisan would
understand this to mean that each method individually has a sequence of
steps, not that one of the methods is performed before or after the other.
4
Appeal2014-001703
Application 12/528,434
See Hussain il 29. Furthermore, the cited passages of Hussain relate to video
decoding, not "video encoding," as claimed. See Hussain, Fig. 5C; i-f 77.
The Examiner has not directed us to any passages that persuade us
that Hussain, Sugahara, or Masuda teaches or suggests, either individually or
in combination, the elements of the disputed limitation as recited in claim 1.
Nor has the Examiner provided any rationale that fills the gaps in the cited
art. Appellants have demonstrated error in the rejection of claim 1 as
unpatentable over Sugahara, Masuda, and Hussain. Accordingly,
constrained by this record, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection with
respect to independent claim 1. For the same reason, we do not sustain the
rejections of independent claim 4 and dependent claims 2, 3, and 6, each of
which include the same deficiency discussed above with respect to the
rejection of claim I. See App. Br. 12-19; Ans. 9-11; Final Act. 2-7.
NEW GROUNDS OF REJECTION WITHIN 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b)
Rejection under 35 USC§ 101
Claims 1--4 and 6 are rejected on a new ground of rejection under
35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to nonstatutory subject matter, in particular to a
judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea) without significantly more.
To be statutorily patentable, the subject matter of an invention must be
a "new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter,
or [a] new and useful improvement thereof." 35 U.S.C. § 101. The
Supreme Court has held that there are implicit exceptions to the categories
of patentable subject matter identified in § 101, including laws of nature,
natural phenomena, and abstract ideas. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank
Int'!, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2355 (2014).
5
Appeal2014-001703
Application 12/528,434
The Court has "set forth a framework for distinguishing patents that
claim laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that
claim patent-eligible applications of those concepts." Id. (citing Mayo
Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc., 132 S. Ct. 1289
(2012)). The evaluation follows the two-part analysis set forth in Mayo:
1) determine whether the claim is directed to an abstract idea; and 2) if an
abstract idea is present in the claim, determine whether any element, or
combination of elements, in the claim is sufficient to ensure that the claim
amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. See Alice, 134 S.
Ct. at 2350.
Given that claim 1 is directed to a process, which is one of the
statutory categories of invention, we analyze the claim to determine whether
it is directed to any judicial exception. Claim 1 recites a method that
estimates a code amount using a CA VLC method, which is a known
mathematical algorithm in the art of video coding. See Hussain i-f 4; Spec.
i-f 3. Specifically, claim 1 recites a CA VLC method that rearranges values,
computes a number of groups based on a proportion, classifies sets of data
into groups, divides data by the number of groups, sets values, determines a
code length by referring to a table, and computes a total sum of the
determined code lengths. Such a process falls within the "abstract idea"
exception to the categories of patentable subject matter identified in § 101
because mathematical algorithms have been characterized by the Court as
abstract ideas. See Gottschalkv. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 67 (1972); Parkerv.
Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 591-92 (1978). Moreover, these elements of claim 1
represent a process that employs a mathematical algorithm to manipulate
existing information to generate additional information, which the Federal
6
Appeal2014-001703
Application 12/528,434
Circuit has held to be an abstract idea. Digitech Image Techs., LLC v. Elecs.
For Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344, 1350-51 (Fed. Cir. 2014). As is the case
here, "[i]f a claim is directed essentially to a method of calculating, using a
mathematical formula, even if the solution is for a specific purpose, the
claimed method is nonstatutory." Id (citing Flook, 437 U.S. at 595). For
these reasons, we conclude that claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea.
Next, we analyze the claim as a whole to determine whether any
element, or combination of elements, is sufficient to ensure that the claim
amounts to significantly more than the exception. Claim 1 recites an
additional element that the amount of code generated in a CABAC method is
estimated to be the computed total sum of the CA VLC method. Also, the
preamble of claim 1 recites the method's field of use as video encoding.
Nevertheless, none of these additional elements amounts to
significantly more than the exception. Defining the total sum of the CA VLC
method to be an estimate for the amount of code generated with another
known lossless compression technique, CABAC, is merely insignificant
post-solution activity, at most an additional step in the recited algorithm.
See Flook, 437 U.S. at 590; Hussain i-f 4; Spec. i-f 3; Ans. 10. Furthermore,
simply limiting the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological
environment, i.e., video encoding, does not mitigate preemption concerns or
circumvent the prohibition against patenting an abstract idea. See Alice, 134
S. Ct. at 2358 (citing Bilski v. Kappas, 561 U.S. 593, 610-11 (2010)).
As discussed above, the elements of claim 1 merely calculate an
estimate using a known mathematical algorithm, CA VLC; they do not add
any meaningful limits that transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible
application thereof. Accordingly, we reject claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 101
7
Appeal2014-001703
Application 12/528,434
as directed to nonstatutory subject matter in the form of an ineligible abstract
idea. For similar reasons, we reject dependent claims 2 and 3, which merely
provide additional limitations to the classifying step of the CA VLC
algorithm. See App. Br. 22 (Claims App'x). Claims 4 and 6, which are
directed to an apparatus and non-transitory computer readable storage
medium for performing the method steps described above, are similarly
rejected because their generically recited computer components add nothing
of substance to the underlying abstract idea. See Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358;
Flook, 437 U.S. at 594; App. Br. 23-24 (Claims App'x).
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1--4 and 6 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is reversed.
We enter a new ground of rejection for claims 1--4 and 6 under
35 U.S.C. § 101.
Section 41.50(b) provides that "[a] new ground of rejection ... shall
not be considered final for judicial review."
Section 41.50(b) also provides that Appellants, 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 ....
(2) Request rehearing. Request that the proceeding be reheard
under § 41.52 by the Board upon the same Record.
8
Appeal2014-001703
Application 12/528,434
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal maybe extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l).
See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
REVERSED
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b)
ACP
9