Ex Parte Budagavi

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 8, 2018

13917540 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 8, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/917,540 06/13/2013
23494 7590 06/12/2018
TEXAS INSTRUMENTS IN CORPORA TED
P 0 BOX 655474, MIS 3999
DALLAS, TX 75265
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Madhukar Budagavi
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.
TI-72472 1221
EXAMINER
MCINNISH, KEVIN K
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2483
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/12/2018 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):
uspto@ti.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MADHUKAR BUDAGA VI
Appeal 2018-001019
Application 13/917,540
Technology Center 2400
Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, AMBER L. HAGY, and
KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, Administrative Patent Judges.
MacDONALD, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL 1
1 Appellant indicates the real party in interest is Texas Instruments
Incorporated of Dallas, Texas, United States of America. App. Br. 2.
Appeal 2018-001019
Application 13/917,540
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 19 and 20. Appellant has cancelled claims 1-18. App. Br. 2. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM.
Claims
Claims 19 and 20 under appeal read as follows (emphasis and
bracketed material added):
19. A method comprising:
[A.] determining, with a video coder that includes one or
more processors, a region of a transform block to
which a one-dimensional (JD) inverse discrete
cosine transformation (IDCT) is to be applied in a
first direction based on a group significance map
corresponding to the transform block; and
[B.] applying, with the video coder, the ID IDCT in the
first direction to the determined region of the
transform block to generate an interim results block,
wherein 1 D IDCT computations are not performed
on transform coefficients outside of the region.
20. The method of claim 19, wherein the group
significance map includes a plurality of significant coefficient
group flags, each of the significant coefficient group flags being
indicative of whether a respective one of a plurality of blocks in
a significance map includes at least one non-zero transform
coefficient.
2
Appeal 2018-001019
Application 13/917,540
Handley et al.
Nguyen et al.
References
US 2008/0232475 Al Sep. 25, 2008
US 2013/0188735 Al Jul. 25, 2013
Rejections
1. The Examiner rejected claim 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by Applicant Admitted Prior Art ("AAPA").
2. The Examiner rejected claims 19 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over the combination of Handley and Nguyen.
Issues on Appeal
Did the Examiner err in rejecting claim 19 as being anticipated?
Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 19 and 20 as being obvious?
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellant's
arguments (Appeal Brief and Reply Brief) that the Examiner has erred.
A. Section 102 Argument
Appellant raises the following argument in contending that the
Examiner erred in rejecting claim 19 under 3 5 U.S. C. § 102 (b).
The Examiner alleged that paragraphs [0006] and [0007]2
of the published application for Applicant's disclosure allegedly
admit as prior art all of the limitations of claim 19. The Examiner
erred, however, because paragraphs [0006] and [0007] make no
mention of a "group significance map" in the first place, much
disclose "determining a region of a transform block ... based on
2 Paragraphs 6 and 7 of Appellant's published application correspond to
paragraphs 4 and 5 of Appellant's application as filed.
3
Appeal 2018-001019
Application 13/917,540
a group significance map," as positively recited in pending claim
19.
If paragraphs [0006] and [0007] of the published
application for Applicant's disclosure fail to even mention a
"group significance map" in the first place, then such paragraphs
also fail to admit as prior art any group significance map-based
determination.
In the Final Office Action, the Examiner pointed to a
statement in paragraph [0007] of the published application for
Applicant's disclosure, which states "IDCT pruning is a well
known technique." However, this statement makes no mention
of a "group significance map," and therefore fails to admit as
prior art "determining ... a region of a transform block to which
a [ID IDCT] is to be applied in a first direction based on a group
significance map corresponding to the transform block," as
recited in pending claim 19.
App. Br. 4.
The Examiner responds:
[Appellant's] paragraph [0007] makes it clear that "[t]he
knowledge that a large portion of a transform block may be zero
is exploited for IDCT pruning, also referred to as partial inverse
transformation . . . . IDCT pruning is a well known technique
supported by existing video coding standards that use a zigzag
scan patter to scan coefficients in a transform block." This very
language is one of the steps utilized in constructing significance
maps in the H.264/ A VC standard, which Appellant's disclosure
refers to and is understood by a person having ordinary skill in
the art. Examiner also made it of record "paragraph [0006] refers
to H.264/ A VC which supports CABAC and thus significance
maps." (See Final Rejection point 17). Thus, at minimum,
Appellant's admitted prior art enables the determined region of a
transform block to be "based on a group significance map".
Ans. 5 (emphasis omitted).
4
Appeal 2018-001019
Application I3/9I 7,540
In response to the Examiner's Answer, Appellant further contends that
the Examiner erred in rejecting claim I9 under 35 U.S.C. § I02(b) because:
The Examiner's logic is flawed ... because it assumes that
because the H.264 standard is admitted prior art, then making ID
IDCT pruning decisions based on any data structure that is
allegedly inherent in the H.264 standard is also admitted prior
art. This logic is not sound, and should not be used as the basis
for an applicant admitted prior art[§ I02] rejection.
Reply Br. 2.
We conclude, consistent with Appellant's arguments as to claim I9,
there is insufficient articulated reasoning to support the Examiner's findings
that AAP A discloses the argued limitations. Therefore, we conclude that
there is insufficient articulated reasoning to support the Examiner's findings
that claim I 9 is anticipated by AAP A.
B. Section 103 Argument
1.
Appellant raises the following arguments in contending that the
Examiner erred in rejecting claim I9 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a).
Handley et al. identifies optimized sets of transpose
operations based on patterns of non-zero coefficients of a 2D-
encoded block, and performs the optimized set of transpose
operations on a ID-encoded block. No mention is made of a
group significance map, much less determining a region of a
transform block to which a one-dimensional (ID) inverse
discrete cosine transformation (IDCT) is to be applied based on
a group significance map.
Therefore, Handley et al. fails to disclose or suggest
"determining ... a region of a transform block to which a one-
dimensional (ID) inverse discrete cosine transformation (IDCT)
is to be applied in a first direction based on a group significance
5
Appeal 2018-001019
Application 13/917,540
map corresponding to the transform block," as recited m
pending claim 19.
App. Br. 7-8 (emphasis added).
No mention is made in Nguyen et al. of determining a
region of a transform block to which a JD IDCT is to be applied
in a first direction based on a group significance map
corresponding to the transform block. Therefore, Nguyen et al.
fails to overcome the deficiencies discussed above with respect
to Handley et al.
App. Br. 8 (emphasis added).
As to Appellant's contentions regarding claim 19, we disagree. First,
Appellant argues the Handley reference fails to disclose or suggest the
limitation of a group significance map corresponding to the transform block.
However, Examiner did not cite Handley for this limitation. Rather, the
Examiner cited Nguyen. Final Act. 12. Then, Appellant argues the Nguyen
reference fails to disclose or suggest the limitation of determining a region
of a transform block to which a ID IDCT is to be applied. However,
Examiner did not cite Nguyen for this limitation. Rather, the Examiner cited
Handley. Final Act. 11.
We conclude that Appellant's arguments do not address the actual
reasoning of the Examiner's rejection. Instead, Appellant attacks each of the
Handley and Nguyen references singly for lacking teachings that the
Examiner relied on the combination of references to show. It is well
established that one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references
individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references.
See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d
1091 (Fed. Cir. 1986). This form of argument is inherently unpersuasive to
show Examiner error. Our reviewing court requires that references must be
6
Appeal 2018-001019
Application I3/9I 7,540
read, not in isolation, but for what they fairly teach in combination with the
prior art as a whole. Merck, 800 F.2d at I097 (Fed. Cir. I986).
2.
Appellant also raises the following argument in contending that the
Examiner erred in rejecting claim I9 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a).
The Examiner further erred because the Examiner's
proposed combination of references for previously presented
claim I does not result in a system that "determin[ es] a region of
a transform block to which a [ID IDCT] is to be applied ... based
on a group significance map," as recited in pending claim I9.
Instead, the Examiner's proposed combination would appear,
at most, to identify optimized sets of transpose operations based
on significant-coefficient flags, which does not correspond to
determining regions of a transform block to which a ID IDCT is
to be applied, as recited in claim I 9.
App. Br. 9-IO (emphasis added).
We are unpersuaded by Appellant's above contention. Appellant's
argument speculates that the combination of Handley and Nguyen would
render obvious "identify[ing] optimized sets of transpose operations based
on significant-coefficient flags." App. Br. 9-IO. Even if we were to agree
that the cited combination also renders obvious an invention other than the
invention of Appellant's claim I9, this is simply not a relevant argument as
to whether the Examiner has provided a proper final conclusion that the
combination of references renders obvious the claimed invention. A
combination of references is not precluded from rendering obvious any
number of distinct inventions.
7
Appeal 2018-001019
Application 13/917,540
3.
Appellant also raises the following argument in contending that the
Examiner erred in rejecting claim 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
[E]ven if step 1205 in Handley et al. were modified to have the
pattern of coefficients identified based on a group significance
map, such a process would still perform complete ID IDCTs for
the entire transform block in Handley et al. In other words, there
would be no regions of the transform block in which an IDCT is
not performed. This is because the patterns that are identified
in step 1205 serve only to determine what set of transpose
operations to use in a transpose step (which is not a 1 D IDCT) of
Handley et al. Such patterns are not used in Handley et al. to
prune JD IDCT operations or to determine regions to which a
JD IDCT is to be applied, and the applied references make no
suggestion of using the patterns for such a purpose.
Reply Br. 6 (emphasis added).
We are unpersuaded that the Examiner erred based on Appellant's
above contention. Even if we adopt Appellant's argument that step 1205 of
Handley is insufficient to show using identifying patterns to determine
regions to which encoding operations are applied, paragraph 53 Nguyen of
does teach identifying non-zero coefficients to determine where encoding is
to be applied as Examiner points out at page 12 of the Final Action.
4.
Appellant also raises the following argument in contending that the
Examiner erred in rejecting claim 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
[T]here is no mention anywhere (in either Handley et al. or
Nguyen et al.) of pruning 1 D IDCT operations in general, much
less the particular group significance map-based pruning
described in pending claim 19.
Reply Br. 6 (emphasis added).
8
Appeal 2018-001019
Application 13/917,540
We are unpersuaded by Appellant's above contention. Again, we
conclude that Appellant's argument does not address the actual reasoning of
the Examiner's rejection. Instead, Appellant attacks each of the Handley
and Nguyen references singly for lacking teachings that the Examiner relied
on the combination of references to show.
5.
Appellant also raises the following argument in contending that the
Examiner erred in rejecting claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Examiner erred because Handley ... in view of Nguyen ... fails
to disclose or suggest "determining ... a region of a transform
block to which a [ 1 D IDCT] is to be applied in a first direction
based on a group significance map corresponding to the
transform block ... wherein the group significance map includes
a plurality of significant coefficient group flags, each of the
significant coefficient group flags being indicative of whether a
respective one of a plurality of blocks in a significance map
includes at least one non-zero transform coefficient" as
positively recited in claims 19 and 20.
App. Br. 10.
Appellant's contention does not persuade us that the Examiner erred.
Appellant merely recites the particular language of claims 19 and 20, and
asserts the cited prior art references does not teach or suggest the claim
limitations. Without more, this fails to constitute an argument on the merits.
See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv); In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir.
2011).
9
Appeal 2018-001019
Application 13/917,540
CONCLUSIONS
(1) Appellant has established that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 19 as being anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
(2) The Examiner has not erred in rejecting claims 19 and 20 as
being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
(3) Claims 19 and 20 are not patentable.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection of claim 19 as being unpatentable under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is reversed.
The Examiner's rejection of claims 19 and 20 as being unpatentable
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is affirmed.
Because we have affirmed at least one ground of rejection with
respect to each claim on appeal, the Examiner's decision is affirmed. See
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(a)(l).
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
10