Ex Parte Fishwick

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 30, 2018

14732406 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 30, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/732,406 06/05/2015
125968 7590 11/01/2018
V orys, Sater, Seymour and Pease LLP
(ImgTec)
1909 K St., N.W.
Ninth Floor
Washington, DC 20006
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Steven Fishwick
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.
070852.000186 4728
EXAMINER
LIMA, FABIO S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2486
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/01/2018 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):
patlaw@vorys.com
vmdeluca@vorys.com
rntisdale@vorys.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Exparte STEVENFISHWICK
Appeal2018-006805
Application 14/732,406
Technology Center 2400
Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, IRVINE. BRANCH, and
SHARON PENICK, Administrative Patent Judges.
MacDONALD, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims
1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE.
Appeal2018-006805
Application 14/732,406
Representative Claim
Representative claim 1 under appeal reads as follows ( emphases,
formatting, and bracketed material added):
1. A motion estimation method comprising:
[A.] computing at least first and second candidate bi-directional
motion vectors for a first region of an interpolated frame of video
content by performing double ended vector motion estimation on the
first region;
[B.] selecting one of the candidate bi-directional motion
vectors;
[C.] identifying a remote region of the interpolated frame, the
remote region being located at an off-set location from the first
region, based on an endpoint of the selected candidate bi-directional
motion vector;
[D.] obtaining a remote motion vector for the remote region of
the interpolated frame; and
[E.] biasing a selection between the first and second candidate
vectors based on one or more properties associated with the remote
motion vector.
Rejections on Appeal
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 2, 6-10, and 19 under 35 U.S.C.
§ I02(a)(l) as being anticipated by Samuelsson et al. (US 2010/0149422 Al;
pub. Jun. 17, 2010). 1
1 Appellant does not argue separate patentability for claims 2, 6-10, and 19.
Except for our ultimate decision, we do not discuss the rejection of claims 2,
6-10, and 19 further herein.
2
Appeal2018-006805
Application 14/732,406
The Examiner rejected claims 11, 12, 14--18, and 20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ I03(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Samuelsson et al.
and Suzuki et al. (US 2009/0279799 Al; Nov. 12, 2009). 2
The Examiner rejected claims 3-5 and 13 as being unpatentable under
35 U.S.C. § I03(a) over Samuelsson in various combinations with other
references.
Issue on Appeal
Did the Examiner err in rejecting claim 1 as being anticipated because
Samuelsson fails to disclose the argued limitations?
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellant's
arguments (Appeal Brief and Reply Brief) that the Examiner has erred.
Appellant contends that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 under
35 U.S.C. § I02(a)(l) because3
The final rejection relies on Fig. 13 of Samuelsson ... as
allegedly disclosing [ the claimed remote region of the
interpolated frame]. By contrast, Fig. 13 shows a first frame 10,
a second frame 20, and an intermediate frame 30. First frame 10
includes a region 15, which the rejection asserts corresponds to
the "remote region of the interpolated frame" as recited in the
present claims. This interpretation of the claim language is
improper because it is outside of the broadest reasonable
interpretation standard, which must be used in examination. The
2 As to claims 3-5, 11-18, and 20, our decision as to claim 1 is
determinative. Except for our ultimate decision, we do not discuss
these claims further herein.
3 This contention is determinative as to the rejection of claim 1. Therefore,
we do not discuss Appellant's other contentions herein.
3
Appeal2018-006805
Application 14/732,406
region 15 identified in Samuelsson is a portion of the first frame
10, not the intermediate frame 30. Accordingly, region 15 of
Samuelsson is not a region of the interpolated frame, as recited
in the present claims. Thus, Samuelsson fails to disclose
identifying a remote region of the interpolated frame, the remote
region being located at an off-set location from the first region,
as recited in the present claims.
App. Br. 10-11.
The Examiner responses that "the region 15 in Samuelson can within
the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification be viewed
as a remote region of the interpolated frame." Ans. 6.
Appellant further contends:
One of skill in the art, when reading the claim in light of
the specification, would understand "identifying a remote region
of the interpolated frame, the remote region being located at an
off-set location from the first region, based on an endpoint of the
selected candidate bi-directional motion vector" to require
identifying a region of the interpolated frame that is remote from
(e.g., offset relative to) the first region. That is, one of skill in
the art would recognize that "a remote region of the interpolated
frame" is, in fact, a portion of the interpolated frame. This is
consistent with the plain meaning of the term "a remote region
of the interpolated frame."
Reply Br. 2.
As to Appellant's above argument, we agree with Appellant that
region 15 in Samuelsson is not part of Samuelsson's interpolated frame, and
thus, region 15 in Samuelson is not within the broadest reasonable
interpretation of "a remote region of the interpolated frame," as recited in
claim 1. Therefore, we conclude that there is insufficient articulated
reasoning to support the Examiner's finding that claim 1 is anticipated by
Samuelson.
4
Appeal2018-006805
Application 14/732,406
CONCLUSIONS
(1) Appellant has established that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claims 1, 2, 6-10, and 19 as being anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(l).
(2) Appellant has established that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claims 3-5, 11-18, and 20 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
(3) On this record, claims 1-20 have not been shown to be
unpatentable.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejections of claims 1-20 are reversed.
REVERSED
5