Ex Parte ZHAO et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 21, 2016

12857168 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 21, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/857, 168 08/16/2010 XU GANG ZHAO
93253 7590 07/25/2016
Garlick & Markison (VIXS)
P.O. Box 160727
Austin, TX 78716-0727
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.
VIXS167US 3519
EXAMINER
JEBARI, MOHAMMED
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2482
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/25/2016 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):
MMurdock@texaspatents.com
ghmptocor@texaspatents.com
bpierotti@texaspatents.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte XU GANG ZHAO, XIN GUO, and ERIC YOUNG 1
Appeal2014-009288
Application 12/857, 168
Technology Center 2400
Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY, III, TERRENCE W. McMILLIN, and
MONICA S. ULLAGADDI, Administrative Patent Judges.
McMILLIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision2 on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the final
rejection of claims 1, 3-8, and 10-16, which are all the pending claims. 3
Final Act. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is VIXS Systems, Inc.
App. Br. 2.
2 Our decision refers to the Final Office Action mailed Dec. 31, 2013 ("Final
Act."); Appellants' Appeal Brief filed May 7, 2014 ("App. Br."); the
Examiner's Answer mailed July 14, 2014 ("Ans."); the Appellants' Reply
Brief filed Aug. 12, 2014 ("Reply Br."); and the Specification filed Aug. 16,
2010 ("Spec.").
3 Claims 2 and 9 are cancelled. App. Br. 7-8.
Appeal2014-009288
Application 12/857, 168
THE CLAIIvIED INVENTION
According to the Specification, "[t]he present invention relates to
encoding used in devices such as video encoders/decoders." Spec. 1.
Independent claim 1 is directed to a scaled motion search section for use in a
video processing device and independent claim 8 is directed to a method for
use in a video processing device. App. Br. 7-8 (Claims App'x). Claim 1
recites:
A scaled motion search section for use in a video
processing device that processes a video input signal that
includes a plurality of pictures, the scaled motion search section
compnsmg:
a downscaling module that downscales the plurality of
pictures to generate a plurality of downscaled pictures, wherein
the downscaling module includes a horizontal downscaling filter
and a vertical downscaling filter, and wherein the vertical
downsizing filter generates downscaled pixels for a macroblock
pair using only pixels from the macro block pair and preserves a
phase difference between a top macroblock and a bottom
macroblock of the macroblock pair; and
a reduced-scale motion search module, coupled to the
downscaling module, that generates a plurality of motion vector
candidates at a downscaled resolution, based on the plurality of
downscaled pictures;
wherein a full-scale motion search module coupled to the
scaled motion search module generates a plurality of motion
search motion vectors at a full resolution, based on a plurality of
pictures and further based on the plurality of motion vector
candidates.
App. Br. 7 (disputed limitation highlighted).
REJECTIONS ON APPEAL
Claims 1, 5, 6, 8, 12, 13, 15, and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 (a) as being unpatentable over Kim (US 2002/0196854 Al; published
Dec. 26, 2002); Francois et al. (US 2009/0225846 Al; published Sept. 10,
2
Appeal2014-009288
Application 12/857, 168
2009) ("Francois"); and Takashima et al. (US 6, 128,042; issued Oct. 3,
2000) ("Takashima"). Final Act. 3.
Claims 3, 4, 10, and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (a) as
being unpatentable over Kim, Francois, Takashima, and Holcomb (US
2006/0233258 Al; published Oct. 19, 2006). Final Act. 6.
Claims 7 and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (a) as being
unpatentable over Kim, Francois, Takashima, and Roman (US
2008/0107174 Al; published May 8, 2008). Final Act. 7-8.
GROUPING OF CLAIMS
Appellants rely on the arguments presented as to claim 1 for all the
pending claims. App. Br. 7. Accordingly, we decide this appeal as to all
pending claims based on our consideration of representative claim 1. 3 7
C.F.R.§ 41.37( c )(1 )(iv).
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the rejection of claim 1 in light of Appellants'
arguments. In reaching this decision, we have considered all evidence cited
by and all arguments made by Appellants. We are not persuaded that
Appellants identify reversible error. We agree with and adopt the
Examiner's findings, reasoning, and conclusions as set forth in the Final
Office Action (Final Act. 2-8) and the Examiner's Answer (Ans. 5-12). We
highlight the following for emphasis.
Appellants argue the cited combination of references fails to teach or
suggest, "the vertical downscaling filter ... preserves a phase difference
between a top macro block and a bottom macro block of the macro block
3
Appeal2014-009288
Application 12/857, 168
pair," as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 4-7; Reply Br. 2-5. The Examiner
cites Figure 36 and the related description in column 21, lines 47-62, of
Takashima. Ans. 7, 12; Final Act. 4. Figure 36 of Takashima is reproduced
below.
, _ ......... ..._,..._ ............... .._ .......................... _ ............ o
.X
O·''··-·"-""'- ·--·-·"'""'0;;;· --- --·-· ---· --- ··- ---·--·-----· c(
x
,,
. .: .. !
c(-------------------i':s-·· --.•wv •• - ---- --- ,. ---u,
x
FI G. 36
Figure 36 of Takashima depicts sampled phases relating to feature
extraction. Takashima 7:51-52. The related description states:
FIG. 36 shows that the sampled phases are positioned at
regular intervals after feature extraction using the method
described in FIG. 35. The symbol "O" represents sampled
phases for the odd-field block, and since the symbol "o"
represents sampled phases after being passed through the two-
dimensional filter according to a coefficient ratio of lines, the
symbol "o" represents sampled phases after sub-sampling. The
symbol "x" represents sampled phases for the even-field block,
and since the symbol"~" represents sampled phases after being
passed through the two-dimensional filter according to a
coefficient ration of lines, the symbol"~" represents sampled
phases after sub-sampling.
4
Appeal2014-009288
Application 12/857, 168
Accordingly, the sampled phases for the merged data
(frame matching elements) are positioned at regular intervals.
Takashima 21 :47-62.
Appellants argue that the cited portions of Takashima are "entirely
silent" as to preserving the phase difference. App. Br. 7. The Examiner
responds:
Takashima (US 6, 128,042) discloses in (fig. 36; col. 21
lines 47-62) a two-dimensional filter, which includes vertical
and horizontal downscaling or sub-sampling. The sampled
phases for the odd-field block and the even-field block after
being passed through the two-dimensional filter, which means
after having a horizontal and vertical downscaling, are
positioned at regular intervals (fig. 36, the distance between the
symbols o' and~' depicted in the line under the name of
MERGED DATA is kept the same; see also col. 21 lines 59-
62). Therefore, the phase difference between the odd-field
block and the even-field block after having a horizontal and
vertical downscaling I o' - ~' I is preserved.
Ans. 12 (emphasis added). The Examiner finds the phase differences
between symbols o and~ are regular based on Figure 36 of Takashima.
Appellants fail to squarely address, and thus fail to persuasively rebut, the
Examiner's finding that Takashima teaches symbols having constant, regular
phase differences between odd-field blocks and even-field blocks, both
before and after horizontal and vertical downscaling, and that preserving the
distance between symbols preserves the phase differences between the
symbols.
For these reasons, we sustain the rejection of claim 1, and of the other
pending claims which were not separately argued, which fall with
representative claim 1.
5
Appeal2014-009288
Application 12/857, 168
DECISION
The rejection of claims 1, 3-8, and 10-16 under 35U.S.C.§103(a) is
affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § l .136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
6