Ex Parte Bossen

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 5, 2016

12570383 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 5, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/570,383 0913012009
79510 7590
BGL/NTT DoCoMo, Inc
P.O. Box 10395
Chicago, IL 60610
08/05/2016
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Frank Jan Bossen
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.
9683/316 1055
EXAMINER
TORRES, JOSE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2667
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
08/05/2016 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 FRANK JAN BOSSEN
Appeal2015-002313
Application 12/570,383
Technology Center 2600
Before CATHERINE SHIANG, JOHN P. PINKERTON, and
NATHAN A. ENGELS, Administrative Patent Judges.
PINKERTON, Administrative Patent Judge
DECISION ON APPEAL
.6. .... ,1 .... ,....,-TTr'1.r-"\ l\-1,....Al/'\.r'" , .. T"""1 • -, Appeuant' appeals unaer j) u.~.L. s U4~aJ rrom me bxammer s
Final Rejection of claims 2-9, which are the only claims pending in the
application. Claim 1 is canceled. App. Br. 16 (Claims App'x). We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 Appellant identifies NTT DOCOMO Inc. as the real party in interest. App.
Br. 2.
Appeal2015-002313
Application 12/570,383
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellant's disclosed and claimed invention relates generally to the
encoding and decoding of data sequences in a reduced complexity bound
manner. Spec. 1.2
Claim 4 is illustrative and reproduced below (with the disputed
limitations emphasized):
4. A video encoder for coding a picture, comprising a
processor of a computer system and a memory that stores
programs executable by the processor to implement:
an arithmetic encoder that compresses events
representative of a coded picture to information pieces for
decoding thereof at a video decoder, wherein compressing the
events is constrained such that a number of the events does not
exceed a threshold proportional to a number of the information
pieces resulting from compressing the events,
wherein the video decoder comprises an arithmetic
decoder configured to decompress the information pieces back
to events for further decoding of the coded picture, under a
constraint that a number of the events resulting from
decompressing the information pieces does not exceed the
threshold proportional to a number of the information pieces.
2 Our Decision refers to the Final Action mailed May 10, 2012 ("Final
Act."); Appellant's Appeal Brief filed Apr. 15, 2013 ("App. Br."); the
Examiner's Answer mailed Oct. 4, 2013 ("Ans."); and, the original
Specification filed Sep. 30, 2009 ("Spec.").
2
Appeal2015-002313
Application 12/570,383
Rejections on Appeal
Claims 2--4 and 6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Benamara (US 6,128,413; issued Oct. 3, 2000). Final Act. 2-
4.
Claims 5 and 7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Benamara and Rorie (US 6,677,869 B2; issued Jan. 13,
2004). Final Act. 4--5.
Claims 8 and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Benamara and Sako (US 6,643,405 Bl; issued Nov. 4,
2004). Final Act. 5-7.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejection in light of Appellant's
arguments in the Appeal Brief and are not persuaded the Examiner erred.
Unless otherwise noted, we agree with, and adopt as our own, the findings
and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Final Action from which this
appeal is taken (Final Act. 2-7), and in the Answer in response to
Appellant's Appeal Brief (Ans. 7-12), and we concur with the conclusions
reached by the Examiner. For emphasis, we consider and highlight specific
arguments as presented in the Briefs.
Appellant contends "there is nothing in Benamara which teaches the
claimed arithmetic encoding or decoding performed under a constraint that
the number of the events does not exceed a threshold proportional to the
number of the information pieces." App. Br. 12-13. In particular, Appellant
argues Benamara compares the amount of the information pieces resulting
3
Appeal2015-002313
Application 12/570,383
from the arithmetic coding with the bit budget and the coding stops if the
amount of information pieces reaches the bit budget, but "the bit budget has
nothing to do with the number of the events" as it is "a predetermined
threshold for the amount of the information pieces resulting from the
arithmetic coding." Id. at 13. Referring to independent claims 2--4, 6, 8, and
9, Appellant also argues the claims define a constraint in which a number of
the events is compared to a threshold proportional to a number of the
information pieces, but Benamara is silent "about whether the ... number of
events is compared with the number of information pieces resulting from the
arithmetic coding of the events or whether the arithmetic coding is somehow
regulated based [on] the comparison result." Id. Thus, Appellant argues
claims 2--4 and 6 are not anticipated by Benamara. Id.
Regarding Rorie and Sako, Appellant argues each of these references
is "totally silent about the claimed limitation which requires that a number of
the events resulting from decompressing the information pieces does not
exceed a threshold proportional to a number of the information pieces," as
recited in claims 8 and 9. Id. at 14--15. Thus, Appellant argues none of
claims 2-9 is obvious in view of Benamara, Rorie, and Sako, alone or in
combination. Id.
The Examiner finds the disputed limitations are taught by Benamara:
With respect to the compression of events constrained
such that a number of the events does not exceed a threshold
proportional to a number of the information pieces resulting from
compressing the events, Benamara disclose that the number of
the events (i.e., size of the original data set 110) will not exceed
the determined bit budget 240, see Benamara at col. 5 lines 60-
63 and col. 8 lines 1-20. This bit budget being proportional to
the number of the information pieces (number of bits of the
4
Appeal2015-002313
Application 12/570,383
compressed data set 150) resulting from the compression of the
original data set (See for example, the comparison made after
each working threshold is determined such that the
predetermined output data size is reached, col. 8 lines 22-60).
* * *
With respect to the video decoder comprising an arithmetic
decoder configured to decompress the information pieces back
to events for further decoding of the coded picture, under a
constraint that a number of the events resulting from
decompressing the information pieces does not exceed the
threshold proportional to a number of the information pieces,
Benamara disclose[ s] that the decoding used in decoder 250, for
example, uses the same entropy coding algorithm as used in the
entropy encoding module 230 (col. 5 line 63 through col. 6 line
3).
Ans. 8-10.
Appellant did not file a Reply Brief and has not presented persuasive
evidence or argument to rebut the Examiner's findings. Thus, for the
reasons set forth by the Examiner, we agree with the Examiner's findings
and adopt them as our own. Furthermore, we are not persuaded by
Appellant's argument "the bit budget has nothing to do with the number of
the events" (see App. Br. 13) because, consistent with the Examiner's
findings, we note Benamara teaches that the number of the events (i.e., the
size of the original data set) and a target compression ratio are used to
determine a bit budget for the compressed data. See Ans. 8; Benamara 5:56-
63). We further note Benamara teaches that "the size of the original data set,
together with a target compression ratio, is used to determine the size of a
compressed data set representing the original data set, thereby determining a
5
Appeal2015-002313
Application 12/570,383
'bit budget' for the compressed data" (see Benamara 2:41--44) and that the
data compression process continues until the size of the output data set (the
information pieces) reaches the pre-determined bit budget (see Benamara
2:50-58). Accordingly, we do not find error in: (1) the Examiner's findings
that Benamara teaches or suggests the disputed limitations; (2) the
Examiner's finding that claims 2--4 and 6 are anticipated by Benamara; (3)
the Examiner's conclusion that dependent claims 5 and 7 are obvious over
the combination of Benamara and Rorie; or (4) the Examiner's conclusion
that claims 8 and 9 are obvious over the combination of Benamara and Sako.
For these reasons, and on this record, we sustain the Examiner's
rejection of claims 2--4 and 6 for anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). For
the same reasons, we also sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 5 and
6-9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 2--4 and 6 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b).
We affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 5 and 7-9 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a).
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
6