Ex Parte Dane et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 29, 2016

12312646 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 29, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/312,646 05/20/2010
24498 7590 08/31/2016
Robert D, Shedd, Patent Operations
THOMSON Licensing LLC
4 Research Way
3rd Floor
Princeton, NJ 08543
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Gokce Dane
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.
PU060266 3055
EXAMINER
ITSKOVICH, MIKHAIL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2483
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/31/2016 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 GOKCE DANE, WUTTIPONG KUMWILAISAK,
and CRISTINA GOMILA
Appeal2015-000736
Application 12/312,646
Technology Center 2400
Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, LINZY T. McCARTNEY, and
JOYCE CRAIG, Administrative Patent Judges.
CRAIG, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 1-9, 11-21, 23, and 24, which constitute of all the
claims pending in this application.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ).
We reverse.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is THOMSON
LICENSING. App. Br. 3.
2 Claims 10 and 22 have been canceled. App. Br. 17, 19.
Appeal2015-000736
Application 12/312,646
INVENTION
Appellants' invention relates to method and apparatus for automatic
visual artifact analysis and artifact reduction. Abstract. Claim 1 is
illustrative and read as follows:
1. A video processing method comprising:
generating a plurality of metrics associated with a plurality
of video compression artifact types present in a video picture
included in a sequence of video pictures, wherein each metric
indicates a severity of a respective one of said artifact types in
said video picture and wherein each of said artifact types is
characterized by a respective visible distortion of said artifact
type; and
correcting said video picture in response to said plurality
of metrics.
REJECTION
Claims 1-9; 11-21; 23; and 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as anticipated by Peterson et al. (US 6,529,631 Bl; issued Mar. 4,
2003).
ANALYSIS
The Examiner found that Peterson discloses all of the recited steps of
independent claims 1 and 13. Final Act. 4--5, 8. The Examiner cited column
4, lines 25--45, column 11, lines 56-58, and Figures 1 and 2 of Peterson as
disclosing "a plurality of metrics associated with a plurality of video
compression artifact types ... , wherein each metric indicates a severity of a
respective one of said artifact types in said video picture," as recited in
claims 1 and 13. Id. at 4--5.
2
Appeal2015-000736
Application 12/312,646
Appellants contend the cited portions of Peterson do not disclose "a
plurality of metrics associated with a plurality of video compression artifact
types ... , wherein each metric indicates a severity of a respective one of said
artifact types in said video picture," as recited in claims 1 and 13. App. Br.
6-8, 10. Appellants argue that the cited portions of Peterson teach using a
single fidelity metric to represent the fidelity of the reconstructed image and
to determine whether the reconstructed video accurately represents the
original video. Id.
The Examiner responded by explaining that, because column 11, lines
56-58, of Petersen "lists several fidelity metrics," Peterson is not limited to
using a single fidelity metric. Ans. 6.
We agree with Appellants that the cited portions of Peterson merely
disclose generation of a single fidelity metric used to adjust one or more
encoding parameters, and not generation of a plurality of metrics associated
with a plurality of video compression artifact types, wherein each metric
indicates a severity of a respective one of said artifact types, as claims 1 and
13 require. We note that, in the sentence following the sentence in column
11 relied on by the Examiner, Peterson discloses that "once an artifact is
detected, the system adjusts one or more encoding parameters to reduce that
particular artifact in the decoded video." Peterson col 11, lines 58---60
(emphasis added).
Therefore, Appellants' arguments have persuaded us of error in the
Examiner's position with respect to the anticipation rejection of claims 1 and
13, and claims 2-9, 11, 12, 14--21, 23, and 24 dependent thereon. 3
3 Because a rejection under § 103 is not before us on appeal, we do not reach
and express no opinion as to whether adding a second metric to the teachings
3
Appeal2015-000736
Application 12/312,646
DECISION
We reverse the decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 1-9, 11-21,
23, and 24.
REVERSED
of Peterson would have merely been a "predictable use of prior art elements
according to their established functions." KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550
U.S. 398, 417 (2007); see also In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 671 (CCPA 1960)
("It is well settled that the mere duplication of parts has no patentable
significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced."). In the event
of further prosecution, we leave this issue to the consideration of the
Examiner. Although the Board is authorized to reject claims under 37
C.F .R. § 41.50(b ), no inference should be drawn when the Board elects not
to do so. See Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) § 1213.02
(9th Ed., Rev. 07.2015, Nov. 2015).
4