Ex Parte Comer

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 4, 2016

11663318 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 4, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
11/663,318 0312012007
24498 7590 08/08/2016
Robert D, Shedd, Patent Operations
THOMSON Licensing LLC
4 Research Way
3rd Floor
Princeton, NJ 08543
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Mary Lafuze Comer
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.
PU040269 7764
EXAMINER
CALLAHAN, PAULE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2437
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/08/2016 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@technicolor.com
pat. verlangieri@technicolor.com
russell. smith@technicolor.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MARY LAFUZE COMER
Appeal2014-005869
Application 11/663,318
Technology Center 2400
Before ERIC S. FRAHM, NATHAN A. ENGELS, and
NORMAN H. BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judges.
FRAHM, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal2014-005869
Application 11/663,318
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a non-final rejection
of claims 1-21. Non-Final Act. 8-22. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ).
We affirm.
Appellant's Disclosed Inventions
Appellant's disclosed and claimed inventions are encoders (claims 1-
9), decoders (claims 10 and 11), encoding methods (claims 12-18), decoding
methods (claims 19 and 20), and a non-transitory storage media (claim 21)
for video signal data for an image block (Abs.; Fig. 5). 1
Illustrative Claims
Illustrative claims 1, 6, and 10 under appeal are reproduced below:
1. An apparatus for encoding video signal data for an image
block, comprising a reduced resolution update (RRU)
downsampler,
wherein said RRU downsampler downsamples a full
resolution prediction residual using data from at least one
neighboring image block to form a low resolution
downsampled prediction residual for the image block.
6. An apparatus for encoding video signal data for an image
block, comprising a reduced resolution update (RRU)
1 It is noted that the claims present more than one invention. "If two or more
independent and distinct inventions are claimed in a single application, the
examiner in an Office action will require the applicant in the reply to that
action to elect an invention to which the claims will be restricted, this
official action being called a requirement for restriction (also known as a
requirement for division)." 37 C.F.R. § 1.142(a).
2
Appeal2014-005869
Application 11/663,318
interpolator for interpolating a coded low resolution prediction
residual using data from at least one neighboring image block
to form a coded interpolated prediction residual for the image
block.
10. An apparatus for decoding video signal data for an image
block, comprising a filter for filtering a prediction residual of
the image block without filtering a prediction that is added to
the prediction residual to reconstruct the image block.
Examiner's Rejections
( 1) The Examiner rejected claims 1-11 as being unpatentab le under
35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a non-statutory
category and therefore ineligible subject matter. Non-Final Act. 8.
(2) The Examiner rejected claims 1, 2, 6, 12, 13, 17, and 21 under
§ 102(e) as being anticipated by Boyce et al. (US 2008/0304567 Al;
published Dec. 11, 2008) (hereinafter, "Boyce '567"). Non-Final Act. 9-10.
(3) The Examiner rejected claims 10 and 19 under § 102( e) as being
anticipated by Boyce et al. (US 8,213,508 B2; published July 3, 2012)
(hereinafter, "Boyce '508"). Non-Final Act. 11.
(4) The Examiner rejected claims 3-5, 7-9, 14--16, and 18 under
§ 103(a) as being obvious over Boyce '567 and Hsu et al. (US
2005/0053150 Al; published Mar. 10, 2005). Non-Final Act. 11-15.
(5) The Examiner rejected claim 11 and 20 under§ 103(a) as being
obvious over Boyce '508 and Hsu. Non-Final Act. 15-16.
(6) The Examiner rejected claim 1, 2, 6, 12, 13, 17, and 21 under
§ 103(a) as being obvious over Appellant's Admitted Prior Art found at page
1, line 24 through page 2, line 6 of the Specification (hereinafter, "AAP A"),
3
Appeal2014-005869
Application 11/663,318
and Yamaguchi et al. (US 2004/0091049 Al; published May 13, 2004).
Non-Final Act. 16-18.
(7) The Examiner rejected claim 3-5, 7-9, 14--16, and 18 under
§ 103(a) as being obvious over Appellant's Admitted Prior Art found at page
1, line 24 through page 2, line 6 of the Specification (hereinafter, "AAP A"),
Yamaguchi, and Hsu. Non-Final Act. 18-22.
Appellant's Contentions2
(1) Appellant contends (Br. 10-11) the Examiner erred in rejecting
claims 1-11 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for being directed
to non-statutory subject matter; 3
(2) Appellant contends (Br. 12-18) that the Examiner erred (a) in
rejecting claims 1, 2, 12, 13, and 21 as being anticipated by Boyce '567 for
numerous reasons, including (i) Boyce '567 fails to disclose the limitation "a
reduced resolution update (RRU) downsampler" as recited in claim 1 (Br.
14); (ii) Boyce ;567 discloses a decoder at paragraph 62 and that "a decoder
does not include an encoder" (Br. 15-16); and (iii) Boyce '567 fails to
disclose the use of data from at least one neighboring image block when
downsampling a full resolution prediction residual, let alone "to form a low
2 Appellant's Appeal Brief fails to present any arguments with regard to the
rejection of claims 3-5, 7-9, 14--16, and 18 under§ 103(a) over AAPA,
Yamaguchi, and Hsu (see Br. 39-40). Therefore, because Appellant has not
disputed the Examiner's rejection set forth in the non-final rejection (see
Non-Final Act. 18-22), Appellant has not shown that the Examiner erred in
rejecting claims 3-5, 7-9, 14--16, and 18. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
3 Based on Appellant's argument (Br. 10-11) with regard to the§ 101
rejection of claims 1-11 we select claim 1 as representative of the group of
claims.
4
Appeal2014-005869
Application 11/663,318
resolution downsampled prediction residual for the image block" as recited
in claim 1 (Br. 16-17); 4 and (b) in rejecting claims 6 and 17 as being
anticipated by Boyce '567 because Boyce '567 fails to disclose
"interpolating a coded low resolution prediction residual using data from at
least one neighboring image block to form a coded interpolated prediction
residual for the image block," as recited in claim 6 (Br. 19--20); 5
(3) Appellant contends (Br. 23-26) that the Examiner erred in
rejecting claims 10 and 19 as being anticipated by Boyce '508 because
Boyce '508 fails to disclose "filtering a prediction residual of the image
block without filtering a prediction that is added to the prediction residual to
reconstruct the image block" as recited in claim 10 (Br. 25-26); 6 and
(4) Appellant contends (Br. 33-39) that the Examiner erred in
rejecting claims 1, 2, 6, 12, 13, 17, and 21 as being unpatentable by AAPA
and Yamaguchi because Yamaguchi teaches away from AAP A and therefore
it would be improper to combine them (Br. 38-39).7
4 Based on Appellant's argument (Br. 12-18) with regard to the§ 102(e)
rejection of claims 1, 2, 12, 13, and 21 as being anticipated by Boyce '567
we select claim 1 as representative of the group of claims.
5 Based on Appellant's separate argument (Br. 18-22) with regard to the
§ 102( e) rejection of claims 6 and 17 as being anticipated by Boyce '567 we
select claim 6 as representative of the group of claims.
6 Based on Appellant's argument (Br. 18-22) with regard to the§ 102(e)
rejection of claims 10 and 19 as being anticipated by Boyce '508 we select
claim 10 as representative of the group of claims.
7 Based on Appellant's argument (Br. 33-39) with regard to the§ 103(a)
rejection of claims 1, 2, 6, 12, 13, 17, and 21 as being unpatentable by
AAP A and Yamaguchi we select claim 1 as representative of the group of
claims.
5
Appeal2014-005869
Application 11/663,318
Issues on Appeal
( 1) Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 1-11 as being
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 101 based on a determination that the
claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter?
(2) Did the Examiner err (a) in rejecting claims 1, 2, 12, 13, and 21
under§ 102(e) because Boyce '567 fails to disclose the limitation "a reduced
resolution update (RRU) downsampler," an encoder, and "downsamples a
full resolution prediction residual using data from at least one neighboring
image block to form a low resolution downsampled prediction residual for
the image block" as recited in representative claim 1 8, (b) in rejecting claims
6 and 17 under§ 102(e), because Boyce '567 fails to disclose "interpolating
a coded low resolution prediction residual using data from at least one
neighboring image block to form a coded interpolated prediction residual for
the image block" as recited in representative claim 69, and (c) in rejecting
claims 10 and 19 under§ 102(e) because Boyce '508 fails to disclose
"filtering a prediction residual of the image block without filtering a
prediction that is added to the prediction residual to reconstruct the image
block" as recited in representative claim 10 (Br. 25-26)? 10
8 The obviousness rejection of claims 3-5 and 14--16 under§ 103(a) over
Boyce '567 and Hsu will respectively stand or fall for the same reasons as
representative claim 1 as discussed with regard to the anticipation rejection
of claims 1, 2, 6, 12, 13, 17, and 21 over Boyce '567.
9 The obviousness rejection of claims 7-9 and 18 under§ 103(a) over
Boyce '567 and Hsu will respectively stand or fall for the same reasons as
representative claim 6 as discussed with regard to the anticipation rejection
of claims 6and17 over Boyce '567.
10 The obviousness rejection of claims 11 and 20 under§ 103(a) over
Boyce '508 and Hsu will respectively stand or fall for the same reasons as
6
Appeal2014-005869
Application 11/663,318
(3) Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 1, 2, 6, 12, 13, 17, and 21
under § 103 (a) because Yamaguchi teaches away from AAP A and therefore
it would be improper to combine them?
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections (Non-Final Act. 2-22) in
light of Appellant's contentions in the Appeal Brief (Br. 9-39) that the
Examiner has erred, as well as the Examiner's response to Appellant's
arguments in the Appeal Brief (see Ans. 17-27). We agree with Appellant's
first contention listed above as to the rejection under§ 101. We disagree
with Appellant's second and third contentions listed above as to the
anticipation rejection over Boyce '567, Appellant's fourth contention listed
above as to the anticipation rejection over Boyce '508, and Appellant's fifth
contention listed above as to the obviousness rejection over AAP A and
Yamaguchi.
Subject Matter Eligibility Rejection
With regard to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101, we agree with
Appellant that claims 1-9 are drawn to an apparatus for encoding video
signal data and that claims 10 and 11 are drawn to an apparatus for decoding
video signal data (Br. 11; Spec. 6-8). An apparatus is one of the four
statutory categories eligible for patenting. It follows that Appellant's claims
drawn to an encoding apparatus with a reduced resolution update
downsampler ( 515 of Fig. 5), an encoding apparatus with a reduced
representative claim 10 as discussed with regard to the anticipation rejection
of claims 10 and 19 over Boyce '508.
7
Appeal2014-005869
Application 11/663,318
resolution update interpolator (563 of Fig. 5), and a decoding apparatus with
a filter (635 of Fig. 6) are subject matter eligible. Accordingly, we will not
sustain the Examiner's subject matter eligibility rejection of claims 1-11
under§ 101.
Anticipation Rejections
We disagree with Appellant's conclusion regarding the anticipation
rejections of claims 1, 2, 6, 12, 13, 17, and 21 over Boyce '567 and claims
10 and 19 over Boyce '508. With regard to the representative claims 1, 6,
and 10, we adopt as our own (1) the findings and reasons set forth by the
Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken (Non-Final Act. 9-
16), and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner's Answer
in response to Appellant's Appeal Brief (Ans. 18-25). We highlight and
amplify certain disclosures of Boyce '567 as follows.
Boyce '567 discloses a video encoder, a video encoding method, a
video decoder, and a video decoding method (see Abs.) with a reduced
resolution update (RRU) mode (see Boyce '567, i-fi-fl 7 and 66) for
downsampling (see Boyce, i1i169-70) a full resolution prediction residual
using data from at least one neighboring image block to form a low
resolution downsampled prediction residual for the image block (see
Boyce '567, i162). Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner that
Boyce '567 anticipates the subject matter of representative claim 1,
including disclosing "a reduced resolution update (RRU) downsampler," an
"encoder," and the limitation "downsamples a full resolution prediction
residual using data from at least one neighboring image block to form a low
resolution downsampled prediction residual for the image block."
8
Appeal2014-005869
Application 11/663,318
In view of all of the foregoing, we sustain the anticipation rejection
based on Boyce '567 of representative claim 1, as well as claims 2-5, 12-16,
and 21 grouped therewith.
Additionally, we agree with the Examiner that Boyce '567 anticipates
claim 6, separately argued by Appellant, in light of the disclosure of Boyce
'567 of interpolating a coded low resolution prediction residual using data
from at least one neighboring image block to form a coded interpolated
prediction residual for the image block (see Boyce '567, i-fi-169, 70, and 77).
In view of all of the foregoing, we sustain the anticipation rejection
based on Boyce '567 of claim 6, as well as claim 17 grouped therewith.
Lastly, we agree with the Examiner that Boyce '508 anticipates claim
10 in light of Boyce '508 's disclosure of filtering a prediction residual of the
image block without filtering a prediction that is added to the prediction
residual to reconstruct the image block (see Boyce '508, col. 9, 11. 20-30 and
col. 11, 11. 50-55).
In view of all of the foregoing, we sustain the anticipation rejection
based on Boyce '508 of representative claim 10, as well as claims 19 and 20
grouped therewith.
Obviousness Rejections
We disagree with Appellant's conclusions regarding the obviousness
rejection of claims 1, 2, 6, 12, 13, 17, and 21 over AAPA and Yamaguchi.
We adopt as our own ( 1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner
in the action from which this appeal is taken (Non-Final Act. 16-22), and (2)
the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner's Answer in response
to Appellant's Appeal Brief (Ans. 25-27). We highlight and amplify certain
teachings and suggestions of AAP A and Yamaguchi as follows.
9
Appeal2014-005869
Application 11/663,318
We are unpersuaded by Appellant's contention (Br. 38-39) that the
Examiner has failed to provide evidentiary support for the motivation to
combine AAP A with the teachings of Yamaguchi. Evidentiary support from
the teaching reference is not necessary because the motivation can come, for
instance, from general knowledge within the art. 11 However, AppeHant has
not responded to or refuted the Exami1ier•s citation (Ans. 25-27; Final Act
16----17) to Yamaguchi