Ex Parte Adachi et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 2, 2016

11966609 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 2, 2016)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
11/966,609 12/28/2007 Satoru Adachi 9683/283 5431
79510 7590 08/03/2016
BGL/NTT DoCoMo, Inc
P.O. Box 10395
Chicago, IL 60610
EXAMINER
BAILEY, FREDERICK D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2483
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/03/2016 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte SATORU ADACHI, CHOONG SENG BOON, SADAATSU
KATO, MINORU ETOH, and THIOW KENG TAN
____________

Appeal 2015-001851
Application 11/966,609
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before CATHERINE SHIANG, CARL L. SILVERMAN, and
NORMAN H. BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judges.

BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 1–3 and 7.1 Claims 4–6 and 8–10 are cancelled.
We have jurisdiction over the pending claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

1 In the Appeal Brief, Appellants identify NTT DOCOMO Inc. as the real
party in interest. (App. Br. 2.)
Appeal 2015-001851
Application 11/966,609

2
THE INVENTION
Appellants’ disclosed and claimed inventions are directed to video
processing system implementing backward interframe prediction from a
temporally subsequent frame and outputting information indicating that an
option to eliminate use of a decoded image of the temporally subsequent
frame was chosen. (Abstract.) Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of
the claimed subject matter:
1. A video encoding method for video encoding apparatus
which implements backward interframe prediction, using a
temporally subsequent frame, the video encoding method
comprising computer executable steps executed by the video
encoding apparatus to implement signaling, separately from a
memory management control operation (MMCO) command, an
IDR picture and a flag associated with the IDR picture which is
indicative of an instruction for a decoder to either delete, from a
decoded picture buffer, only a decoded reference picture unused
for reference or empty the decoded picture buffer.

REJECTION
The Examiner rejected claims 1–3 and 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Agrawal et al. (US 6,570,926 B1; issued May 27,
2003), Wiegand et al., Final Committee Draft of Joint Video Specification
(ITU-T Rec.H.264/ISO/IEC 14496-10 AVC), and Yanagihara et al. (US
2001/0001024 A1; pub. May 10, 2001). (Final Act. 4–10.)

Appeal 2015-001851
Application 11/966,609

3
ISSUE ON APPEAL
Appellants’ arguments in the Appeal Brief present the following
issue:2
Whether the combination of Agrawal, Wiegand, and Yanagihara
teaches or suggests the independent claim 1 limitation, “an IDR picture and
a flag associated with the IDR picture which is indicative of an instruction
for a decoder to either delete, from a decoded picture buffer, only a decoded
reference picture unused for reference or empty the decoded picture buffer,”
and similar limitations recited in independent claims 2, 3, and 7. (App. Br.
13–14.)

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
arguments that the Examiner errs. We disagree with Appellants’ arguments,
and we adopt as our own (1) the pertinent findings and reasons set forth by
the Examiner in the Action from which this appeal is taken (Final Act. 4–10)
and (2) the corresponding reasons set forth by the Examiner in the
Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellants’ Appeal Brief (Ans. 3–6). We
concur with the applicable conclusions reached by the Examiner and
emphasize the following.
Appellants argue Agrawal is cited by the Examiner as a “general
reference,” and “is silent about the subject matter claimed in the pending

2 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and positions of the
Examiner, we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed Aug. 8, 2014); the Reply Brief
(filed Nov. 14, 2014); the Final Office Action (mailed Oct. 10, 2013); and
the Examiner’s Answer (mailed Sep. 17, 2014) for the respective details.
Appeal 2015-001851
Application 11/966,609

4
claims.” (App. Br. 13.) Appellants also argue “Wiegand et al is silent about
a flag associated with an IDR frame to control the memory management
operation for the decoded picture buffer.” (Id.)
These arguments are unpersuasive as conclusory and directed to the
references individually, whereas the Examiner relies on the combination of
references for the rejection. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413 (CCPA 1981); In
re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Appellants do not address
Yanagihara, which the Examiner finds teaches or suggests the requirement
of a flag associated with a picture which is indicative of an instruction for a
decoder to either delete, from a picture buffer, only a picture unused for
reference or empty the picture buffer. (Final Act. 4.) We are unpersuaded
the Examiner errs in finding the combination of Agrawal, Wiegand, and
Yanagihara teaches or suggests the claim limitation at issue.

CONCLUSIONS
For the reasons discussed above, we sustain the obviousness rejection
of claims 1–3 and 7.

DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–3 and 7.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED