Ex Parte Adachi et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 27, 2016

12537600 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 27, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/537,600 08/07/2009
79510 7590
BGL/NTT DoCoMo, Inc
P.O. Box 10395
Chicago, IL 60610
07/27/2016
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Satoru Adachi
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.
9683/321 5703
EXAMINER
AN,SHAWNS
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2483
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
07/27/2016 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 ETHOH, and
THIOW KENG TAN
Appeal2014-008276
Application 12/537 ,600 1
Technology Center 2400
Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, NATHAN A. ENGELS, and
CARLL. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 2 and 3, which are the only claims pending. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
1 The real party in interest is identified as NTT DOCOMO, Inc. App. Br. 2.
Appeal2014-008276
Application 12/537,600
The invention relates to video processing wherein decoding includes
delay to address decoding order and output order. Abstract. Claim 2,
reproduced below, is exemplary of the subject matter on appeal:
2. A method of decoding encoded pictures, the method
comprising computer implemented steps performed by a
processor of a computer system to implement:
receiving the encoded pictures and delay time syntaxes
associated respectively with the encoded pictures, wherein the
delay time syntaxes represent time periods defined respectively
for the encoded pictures;
decoding the encoded pictures into decoded pictures; and
holding at least some of the decoded pictures in a decoded
picture buffer respectively for time periods represented by the
delay time syntaxes associated with the at least some of the
decoded pictures before outputting the at least some of the
decoded pictures from the decoded picture buffer for display,
wherein the decoded picture buffer holds at least one decoded
picture used for reference to decode at least one of the encoded
pictures.
App. Br. 11 (Claims Appendix).
THE REJECTION
Claims 2 and 3 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Girod et al. (US 6,205, 177 B 1; issued Mar. 20, 2001)
("Girod"). Final Act. 2-3.
ANALYSIS
Appellants argue the "time delay" discussed in Girod is totally
irrelevant to the time delay syntax recited in the claims" because "Girod's
time delay is used in the inter-frame prediction and used as a parameter to
2
Appeal2014-008276
Application 12/537,600
select one reference frame among multiple reference frames stored in a
frame buffer." App. Br. 9. According to Appellants, Girod's "motion
estimator 212 references one of the reference frames in the frame memory
140, using the time delay information, and provides the motion vector and
time delay parameters for the decoder 122 to perform inter-frame
prediction." Id.
The Examiner finds:
even though the time delay information [in Girod] is utilized/used as a
parameter in selecting a reference frame/picture, the video display
images are ultimately displayed at the decoder as a function of the
parameter (time delay information), which means the parameter (time
delay information) is clearly/directly related to an output timing of
decoded picture at the decoder, since displaying the video
images/pictures inherently involves timing (for example, display
decoded picture A at T- 1, display decoded picture Bat T, and display
decoded picture C at T + 1, wherein T =actual instant of time when the
particular picture was displayed). Moreover, Fig. 2 illustrates/indicates
that the time delay information is essentially the timing information
directly related to the decoded/reconstructed pictures/frames (140) at
the decoder.
Ans. 4--5.
Therefore, the broadly claimed time delay syntax, which represent time
periods is clearly met by the time delay information, which is also
defined as having time periods/information as discussed above.
Ans. 5.
3
Appeal2014-008276
Application 12/537,600
\Ve are not persuaded by 1A .. ppellants' arguments2 and, instead, agree
with the Examiner's findings. In particular, Appellants present no
persuasive evidence to limit the meaning of "time delay syntax" to exclude
the teaching of Girod' s time delay nor that the Examiner's interpretation of
"time delay syntax" is unreasonable or overbroad. Claim terms in a patent
application are given the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with
the specification, as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. In re
Crish, 393 F.3d 1253, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2004). However, great care should be
taken to avoid reading limitations of the Specification into the claims. E-
Pass Techs., Inc. v. 3Com Corp., 343 F.3d 1364, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
In view of the above, we sustain the rejection of claim 2, and claim 3
which recites a similar limitation and is argued together with claim 2. App.
Br. 8-9. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 2 and 3.
2 Appellants present arguments in the Reply Brief that "[t]he Examiner
merely speculates that the identification of a reference picture must be
somehow related to an output timing of a decoded picture" and "[t]he
Examiner fails to give a reason how the identification of a reference delays
output of a decoded picture by the value in the identification." Reply Br. 2.
These arguments are presented for the first time in the Reply Brief and are
not responsive to a new rejection or shift in the Examiner's position raised in
the Answer. Therefore, in the absence of good cause shown, these untimely
arguments are waived, and we do not consider them in our decision. Ex
Parte Borden, 93 USPQ2d 1473, 1474 (BPAI 2010) (informative).
4
Appeal2014-008276
Application 12/537,600
}Jo time period for taking any subsequent action in connection \'l1ith
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
5