Ex Parte He et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 25, 2012

10888268 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 25, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
________________

Ex parte YONG HE and SIU-WAI WU
________________

Appeal 2010-004811
Application 10/888,268
Technology Center 2400
________________

Before DEBRA K. STEPHENS, JASON V. MORGAN, and
RAMA G. ELLURU Administrative Patent Judges.

MORGAN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-004811
Application 10/888,268

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1 – 4, 6 – 13, 15 – 22, and 24 – 27. Claims 5, 14, and 23
are canceled. App. Br. 2. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b)(1).
We affirm.
Invention
The invention relates to a dual pass encoding system where a scanning
mode can be adaptively selected. See Spec. ¶ [0001]. Two encoders are
employed, where the first encoder receives an input image sequence and
encodes a portion of each frame of the image sequence using a first scanning
mode and a second portion of each frame using a different scanning mode.
This first encoding provides look-ahead information so that a second
encoder is able to assign DCT (discrete cosine transformation) quantized
coefficients in a more efficient scanning order, thereby reducing encoding
bits or improving the picture quality. See Abstract.
Exemplary Claim (Emphases Added)
1. A method for selecting a scanning mode for a picture in an
image sequence, comprising:
encoding the picture in a first encoder using at least two
scanning modes by dividing the picture into at least two
portions where the at least two portions are coded using at
least two different scanning modes;
determining coding efficiency information of said at least
two scanning modes; and
Appeal 2010-004811
Application 10/888,268

3
selecting one of said at least two scanning modes for
encoding the picture in a second encoder based upon said
coding efficiency information.
Rejections
The Examiner rejects claims 1 – 4, 10 – 13, and 19 – 22 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Je-Chang (US 6,263,026 B1; July
17, 2001). Ans. 3 – 5.
The Examiner rejects claims 6 – 9, 15 – 18, and 24 – 27 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Je-Chang and Chen (US
7,046,910 B2; May 16, 2006; filed May 2, 2001). Ans. 6 – 8.
ISSUE
Did the Examiner err in finding that Je-Chang discloses (1) “encoding
the picture in a first encoder using at least two scanning modes by dividing
the picture into at least two portions where the at least two portions are
coded using at least two different scanning modes” and (2) “encoding the
picture in a second encoder,” as recited in claim 1?
ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds that Je-Chang discloses “encoding the picture in a
first encoder using at least two scanning modes by dividing the picture into
at least two portions where the at least two portions are coded using at least
two different scanning modes,” as recited in claim 1. See Ans. 3 (citing, e.g.,
Je-Chang figs. 3A, 3D, and 3E and col. 3, ll. 39 – 44). Appellants contend
that the Examiner erred because in Je-Chang “[n]o picture or video signal is
ever divided into at least two portions, as claimed, and subjected to different
scanning modes.” App. Br. 5. Specifically, Appellants argue that “Je-Chang
Appeal 2010-004811
Application 10/888,268

4
is directed to the concept of encoding an entire image signal according to
just one of a plurality of different scanning patterns.” Id.
The Examiner correctly finds that Je-Chang discloses scanning
patterns that consist of multiple scanning modes. See Ans. 8. Je-Chang,
figure 3D, for example, illustrates a scanning pattern that combines a zigzag
scanning mode with a horizontal scanning mode. Je-Chang, figure 3E, is
similar, except that the second scanning mode is a vertical scanning mode
instead of a horizontal scanning mode. The Examiner also correctly finds
that these multi-mode scanning patterns are employed by a multi-scanner 80
(i.e., a first encoder). See Ans. 8 – 9 (citing, e.g., Je-Chang fig. 2 and col. 3,
ll. 39 – 44).
Appellants do not provide persuasive arguments or evidence to
convince us of Examiner error. Further, the invention as recited does not
distinguish between using scanning patterns that combine different scanning
modes and dividing a picture into at least two portions where the at least two
portions are coded using at least two different scanning modes. Therefore,
we agree with the Examiner that Je-Chang discloses encoding the picture
(using multi-scanner 80) in a first encoder using at least two scanning modes
(employing a scanning pattern consisting of two scanning modes).
Specifically, Je-Chang divides the picture into at least two scanning modes
by dividing the picture into at least two portions where the at least two
portions are coded using at least two different scanning modes (where the
two scanning modes are used for different parts of the scanning pattern).
The Examiner further finds that Je-Chang discloses “encoding the
picture in a second encoder,” as recited in claim 1. See Ans. 3 (citing, e.g.,
Je-Chang figs. 2). Appellants argue that “Je-Chang makes no teaching or
Appeal 2010-004811
Application 10/888,268

5
suggestion of multiple encoders performing [the] different functions as
recited in claim 1.” App. Br. 8. However, the Examiner correctly finds that
Je-Chang’s multi-scanner 80 employs various scanning patterns, including
scanning patterns consisting of multiple scanning modes. See Ans. 8 – 9
(citing, e.g., Je-Chang fig. 2 and col. 3, ll. 7 – 11 and 39 – 44). The image is
scanned according to various scanning patterns to produce efficient sub-
block coding and identify a selected coded version. See Id. The most
efficient pattern is selected by selector 90, which provides the pattern
selection to variable length coder 60 for compressing the image signal. See
Je-Chang col. 3, ll. 12 – 19. Variable length coder 60, by compressing the
image signal using the selected pattern, encodes the image signal. Moreover,
variable length coder 60 is a different encoder than the multi-scanner 80, and
thus constitutes a second encoder. Therefore, we agree with the Examiner
that Je-Chang discloses encoding the picture (compressing the image signal)
in a second encoder (using an encoder other than multi-scanner 80).
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejections of claim 1, and
dependent claims 2 – 4 and 6 – 9, which are not argued separately. See App.
Br. 9 and 11. Appellants arguments with respect to claims 10 – 13, 15 – 22,
and 24 – 27 are substantially similar to those made with respect to claim 1.
See App. Br. 9 – 12. Accordingly, we also sustain the Examiner’s rejections
of these claims.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1 – 4, 6 – 13, 15 – 22, and
24 – 27 is affirmed.
Appeal 2010-004811
Application 10/888,268

6
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

tj