Ex Parte Budagavi

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Apr 29, 2019

13530920 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Apr. 29, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/530,920 06/22/2012
23494 7590 05/01/2019
TEXAS INSTRUMENTS IN CORPORA TED
PO 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-70966 5921
EXAMINER
FEREJA, SAMUEL D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2486
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/01/2019 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
Appeal2018-000807
Application 13/530,9201
Technology Center 2400
Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, JOHN A. JEFFERY, and
SCOTT B. HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOW ARD, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection
of claims 4, 8, and 12, which constitute all of the claims pending in this
application. Claims 1-3, 5-7, 9-11, and 13-15 have been cancelled. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 Appellant identifies Texas Instruments Incorporated as the real party in
interest. App. Br. 2.
Appeal2018-000807
Application 13/530,920
THE INVENTION
The disclosed and claimed invention "relates to a method and an
apparatus for sample adaptive offset parameter estimation for image and
video coding." Spec. ,i 2.
Claim 4, reproduced below with the relevant limitation italicized, is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
4. A video decoding method, comprising:
estimating sample adaptive offset parameters using non-
deblock filtered pixels of a portion of an image and without
using any de block filtered pixels of the portion of the image;
performing de block filtering for the portion of the image
to generate de block filtered pixels for the portion of the image;
and
applying sample adaptive offset processing to the
de block filtered pixels of the portion of the image using the
estimated sample adaptive offset parameters.
App. Br. 8 (Claims Appendix).
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner as evidence in rejecting the
claims on appeal is:
Fu
Tsai
US 2012/0177107 Al
US 2012/0207227 Al
REJECTIONS
July 12, 2012
Aug. 16, 2012
Claims 4, 8, and 122 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Fu and Tsai. Final Act. 3-5.
2 Claims 4-15 were rejected in the Final Action. Claims 5-7, 9-11, and 13-
15 were cancelled. Adv. Act. 1.
2
Appeal2018-000807
Application 13/530,920
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejection in light of Appellant's
arguments that the Examiner erred. In reaching this decision, we have
considered all evidence presented and all arguments made by Appellant. We
are persuaded by Appellant's arguments regarding claims 4, 8, and 12.
The Examiner finds Fu teaches the "performing" and "applying" steps
recited in claim 4. Final Act. 3. The Examiner further finds Tsai teaches the
disputed "estimating" step recited in claim 4. Id. at 4 ( citing Tsai ,-J 79, Fig.
19A); see also Ans. 10 (citing Tsai ,-J 79). Specifically, the Examiner finds
Tsai teaches "selecting a filter type according to the determined sample
adaptive offset edge type." Final Act. 4; see also Ans. 10.
Appellant argues that although Tsai "teaches 'selecting a filter type
according to the determined sample adaptive offset edge type,' ... this has
nothing to do with the feature that is alleged to be missing from Fu."
App. Br. 5. Appellant further notes the Examiner's findings and arguments
appear to be directed to an older version of the claim and does not address
the features recited in the claim as amended in April 2016. Reply Br. 2-3.
We are persuaded by Appellant's argument as the Examiner has not
identified sufficient evidence or provided sufficient explanation as to how
Tsai teaches "estimating sample adaptive offset parameters using non-
deblock filtered pixels of a portion of an image and without using any
de block filtered pixels of the portion of the image" as recited in claim 4.
Although-as the Examiner finds and Appellant concedes-Tsai teaches
using deblocking and non-deblocking filters, paragraph 79 does not teach
estimating SAO parameters as recited in claim 4. To the contrary, Tsai
paragraph 79 is silent as SAO parameters. See Tsai ,-J 79.
3
Appeal2018-000807
Application 13/530,920
Accordingly, we agree with Appellant that the Examiner's finding that
Fu in view of Tsai teaches the disputed limitation is in error because it is not
supported by a preponderance of the evidence. See In re Caveney, 761 F.2d
671, 674 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Examiner's burden of proving non-patentability is
by a preponderance of the evidence); see also In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011,
1017 (CCPA 1967) ("The Patent Office has the initial duty of supplying the
factual basis for its rejection. It may not, because it may doubt that the
invention is patentable, resort to speculation, unfounded assumptions or
hindsight reconstruction to supply deficiencies in its factual basis.").
Accordingly, we are constrained on this record to reverse the
Examiner's rejection of claim 4, along with the rejections of claims 8 and
12, which recite a limitation commensurate in scope to the disputed
limitation discussed above.
DECISION
For the above reasons, we reverse the Examiner's decision rejecting
claims 4, 8, and 12.
REVERSED
4