Ex Parte Divorra Escoda et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 14, 2019

12309496 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 14, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/309,496 11/09/2009
147897 7590
Tutunjian & Bitetto, P.C.
401 Broadhollow Road
Suite 402
Melville, NY 11747
02/19/2019
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Oscar Divorra Escoda
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.
PU070128 7299
EXAMINER
LEE, YYOUNG
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2485
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/19/2019 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):
docketing@tb-iplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte OSCAR DIVORRA ESCODA and PENG YIN 1
Appeal2 2018-006405
Application 12/309,496
Technology Center 2400
Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, ALLEN R. MacDONALD, and
JOHN P. PINKERTON, Administrative Patent Judges.
MacDONALD, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
1 The Appellants identify the real party in interest as Thomas Licensing.
App. Br. 7.
2 Appellants indicate they are unware of any other related appeals. See App.
Br. 8. However, Appeals 2013-005790 (Application 12/309,540) and 2014-
000709 are related to this appeal, where Appeal 2014-000709 is a previous
appeal of the instant application. See Ans. 26. We respectfully request
Appellants and Appellants' counsel review pending and future proceedings
before the Board and ensure that all related appeals are identified. See
37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(ii).
Appeal2018-006405
Application 12/309,496
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1-3, 7-24, 26-29, 33-50, and 52-53. Claims 4--6, 25, 30-32, and 51
were cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm.
Exemplary Claim
Exemplary claim 1 under appeal reads as follows ( emphasis added):
1. An apparatus, comprising:
a decoder for decoding image data corresponding to
picture blocks by reconstructing pixels of a current picture
block partitioned into at least two partitions using at least one
parametric model, wherein the at least one parametric model
involves at least one of implicit formulation based on at least
one curve, said at least one curve being defined by a polynomial
equation with a degree greater than one; and
wherein said decoder comprises a deblocking filter for
filtering boundaries of said current picture block, and wherein
filter strength of said deblocking depends on a particular shape
of an internal block partition of neighbor picture blocks, and not
according to a 4x4 block side.
App. Br. 60 (Claims Appendix).
Re} ections on Appea/3
The Examiner rejected claims 1-3, 7-24, 26-29, 33-50, and 52-53
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over various combinations
3 The patentability of claims 2-3, 7-24, 26, 28-29, 33-50, and 52 is not
separately argued by Appellants. See App. Br. 27-28, 37, 41, 45, 49-50,
54--58. Thus, except for our ultimate decision, claims 2-3, 7-24, 26, 28-29,
33-50, and 52 are not discussed further herein.
2
Appeal2018-006405
Application 12/309,496
of Appellants' admitted prior art (i.e., Spec. 1:15-9:11; Figs. 1--4, 8, and 10)
(hereinafter, "AAP A"), Takahiro (JP 8-205172 A2; published Aug. 9, 1996)
(hereinafter "Takahiro"), and other cited prior art references. See Ans. 2-26.
The Examiner also rejected claims 2-3, 7-24, 26, 28-29, 33-50, and
52-53 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Satoshi Kondo
& Hisao Sasai, A Motion Compensation Technique Using Sliced Blocks in
Hybrid Video Coding, IEEE International Conference on Image Processing
("ICIP"), Sept. 2005 (hereinafter "Kondo"), Takahiro, G. Ruhl, Simulation
eines Verfahrens zur Bewegungsschatzung undsegmentierung in digital
Bildsequendzen unter Verwendung eines Blockverzerrungsmodells,
Femmeldetehnik, Berlin, Germany, February 1996 (1996-02) (hereinafter
"Ruhl"), I. N. Bronshtein et al., Handbook of Mathematics, (Springer ed., 5th
ed. 2007) (hereinafter "Bronshtein"), Jens Ohm, Multimedia Communication
Technology, 11. Quantization and Coding (Springer-Verlag Berlin
Heidelberg ed. 2004) (hereinafter "Ohm '448"), and Jens Ohm, Multimedia
Communication Technology, 5 .2 Signal Enhancement (Springer-Verlag
Berlin Heidelberg ed. 2004) (hereinafter "Ohm '449"). See Ans. 21.
Issue on Appeal
Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 1, 27 and 53 as being obvious?
PRINCIPLES OF LAW
The mere existence of differences between the prior art and the claim
does not establish non-obviousness. See Dann v. Johnston, 425 U.S. 219,
230 (1976). Instead, the relevant question is "whether the difference
between the prior art and the subject matter in question is a [difference]
sufficient to render the claimed subject matter unobvious to one skilled in
3
Appeal2018-006405
Application 12/309,496
the applicable art." Dann, 425 U.S. at 228 (internal quotations and citations
omitted). Indeed, the Supreme Court made clear that when considering
obviousness, "the analysis need not seek out precise teachings directed to the
specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can take account
of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art
would employ." KSR Int 'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007).
ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds the combination of AAPA and Takahiro teaches
or suggests all the elements of independent claims 1, 27, and 53. See
Ans. 2---6. Appellants contend the combination of AAP A and Takahiro does
not teach or suggest "wherein said decoder comprises a deblocking filter for
filtering boundaries of said current picture block, and wherein filter strength
of said deblocking depends on a particular shape of an internal block
partition of neighbor picture blocks, and not according to a 4x4 block side,"
as recited in claim 1 because:
Applicant's Admitted Prior Art does not teach a deblocking
filter in the sense of claim 1.
[T]he Examiner considers that Figures 1, 3 and 4 of AAP A
(reproduced below) discloses the feature related to the filter
strength that is adapted to the particular shape of an internal
block.
However, the Figure 3 of AAP A only describes several modes
for the encoding. Once, the filtering strength of the deblocking
filter has to be determined, one skilled in the art would use the
classical way of determining the strength based on values of
groups of 4 pixels on each side of the boundary
4
Appeal2018-006405
Application 12/309,496
Nothing in Figures 1, 3 and 4 relate on how a deblockingfilter
is used, therefore no information concerning the strength of a
deb locking filter is disclosed.
[A]s the Examiner acknowledged[,] Takahiro [also] does not
disclose at least the following feature of claim 1: "and wherein
filter strength of said deblocking depends on a particular shape
of an internal block partition of neighbor picture blocks, and not
according to a 4x4 block side"[.]
App. Br. 15, 17, 25-26 (Appellants' emphasis and citations omitted; panel's
emphasis added). Appellants make similar contentions regarding claims 27
and 53. See App. Br. 27.
In the Examiner's Answer, the Examiner further finds:
Figures 1, 3, and 4 of AAPA illustrate the concept of such
common shapes of an internal block partition of any size (i.e.
Fig. 1, 16x16, 8x8, 16x8, 4x8, etc.), not necessarily according
to a 4x4 block side. Appellant also concedes on p. 17, last
paragraph of the Brief that AAP A discloses "the filtering
strength of the deblocking filter has to be determined".
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have had no
difficulty in recognizing that the deblocking filtering strength
of AAPA is adaptively determined dependent on the particular
shapes of these internal block partitions ( e.g. horizontal,
vertical, curved, zig-zag, etc.), consistent with appellant's own
definition in [O 171 ], lines 21-22.
Ans. 27 (emphasis added).
Appellants fail to respond to the Examiner's findings in the
Examiner's Answer. Thus, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred for
the reasons articulated in the Examiner's Answer. More specifically, we
agree with the Examiner that AAP A discloses the claimed "deb locking
filter" which includes a filter strength (see Ans. 2; see also AAPA 8:8-9:11;
5
Appeal2018-006405
Application 12/309,496
Fig. 10) and further discloses the claimed "shape of an internal block
partition" (see Ans. 2; see also AAPA 4:7-17). In light of this disclosure,
we see no error in the Examiner's finding that having the filter strength of
the deb locking filter depend on the shape of an internal block partition
would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art. See Ans. 2,
27.
Appellants also contend the various other combinations of AAP A,
Takahiro, and other cited prior art references do not teach or suggest all the
elements of claims 1, 27, and 53, for substantially identical reasons. 4 See
App. Br. 29-49. The above analysis equally applies to these contentions as
well. Thus, these arguments are not persuasive either.
The Examiner further finds the combination of Kondo, Ruhl,
Bronshtein, Ohm '448 and Ohm '449 teaches or suggests all the elements of
claim 53. See Ans. 21. Appellants contend the combination of Kondo,
Ruhl, Bronshtein, Ohm '448 and Ohm '449 does not teach or suggest
"wherein said decoder comprises a deblocking filter for filtering boundaries
4 Appellants additionally argue that Junichi (JP 9-065338 A2; Mar. 7, 1997),
Yoshihiro (JP 6-327003 A2; Nov. 25, 1994), and Toshiro (JP 2005-277968
A2; Oct. 6, 2005) each fail to teach or suggest a "curve," as recited in claim
I. See App. Br. 39-40, 43--44, 47--48. As correctly found by the Examiner,
Appellants made these same arguments in the previous appeals 2013-005790
and 2014-000709, where the Board affirmed the Examiner's rejections. See
Ans. 28-29. Thus, Appellants improperly seek to have us review a second
time the same claims and same prior art that were finally decided in the prior
appeals without any additional evidence. See Manual of Patent Examining
Procedure (9th Ed., Rev. 08.2017, Jan. 2018) (hereinafter "MPEP")
§ 706.03(w) (stating that a patent application is precluded from seeking a
claim that is not patentably distinct from a claim that was finally refused
during a previous administrative proceeding, where there is no opportunity
for further court review of the previous decision).
6
Appeal2018-006405
Application 12/309,496
of said current picture block, and wherein filter strength of said deblocking
depends on a particular shape of an internal block partition of neighbor
picture blocks, and not according to a 4x4 block side," as recited in claim 53
because:
[The Examiner cites Fig. 5.9 of Ohm '449 as teaching the
claimed "deblocking filter" and "wherein filter strength of said
deblocking depends on a particular shape of an internal block
partition of neighbor picture blocks, and not according to a 4x4
block side."]
However, ... 4X4 blocks should be used/or determining a filter
strength (as in [Ohm '449], no mention to the determination of
the strength of the deb locking filter is done; only the mention
of a deblocking filter is described in in [Ohm '449].
App. Br. 52-53 (Appellants' emphasis and citations omitted; panel's
emphasis added). In the Examiner's Answer, the Examiner reiterates the
finding that Ohm '449 teaches the concept of shapes of an internal block
partition. See Ans. 29.
Similar to the above discussion regarding AAPA, we are not
persuaded that the Examiner erred for the reasons articulated in the
Examiner's Answer. More specifically, we agree with the Examiner that
Ohm '449 discloses the claimed "de blocking filter" which includes a filter
strength (see Ans. 21; see also Ohm '449 at 181; Fig. 5.9) and further
discloses that the filter strength can be adapted (see Ans. 21; see also see
also Ohm '449 at 182). In light of this disclosure, we see no error in the
Examiner's finding that having the filter strength of the deb locking filter
depend on the shape of an internal block partition would have been obvious
to a person of ordinary skill in the art. See Ans. 21, 29.
7
Appeal2018-006405
Application 12/309,496
We have considered Appellants' other arguments, and they are not
persuasive either. Accordingly, Appellants have not shown the Examiner
erred in rejecting claims 1, 27, and 53 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
CONCLUSIONS
(1) The Examiner has not erred in rejecting claims 1-3, 7-24, 26-29,
33-50, and 52-53 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
(2) Claims 1-3, 7-24, 26-29, 33-50, and 52-53 are not patentable.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-3, 7-24, 26-29, 33-
50, and 52-53 as being unpatentable 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
8