Ex Parte Heuer et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 31, 2014

10398633 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 31, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte JOERG HEUER and ANDRE KAUP
____________________

Appeal 2011-009242
Application 10/398,633
Technology Center 2400
____________________

Before JEAN R. HOMERE, CARLA M. KRIVAK, and
IRVIN E. BRANCH, Administrative Patent Judges.

BRANCH, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2011-009242
Application 10/398,633

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 10–19. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b). Claims 1–9 are canceled.
We affirm.
Illustrative Claim
Appellants’ disclosure relates to transmitting a vector having at least
two vector components, each of the vector components described in a
frequency. Each vector is represented as a bit number with a predetermined
number of bit levels. The bit numbers are encoded according to a priority of
the bit levels and the encoded bit numbers are transmitted. Abstract.
Claim 10, reproduced below with the disputed limitation italicized, is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
10. A computer program stored on a computer-readable
memory medium embodied in hardware and operable to
perform a method of transmitting a vector having at least two
vector components, each of which describes a frequency, the
method comprising:
representing each vector component as a bit number with
a varying number of bit levels, wherein each of the bit levels
have an assigned priority that is applied throughout each of the
at least two vector components;
encoding the bit numbers in a same bit level by
combining each of the at least two vector components
according to the priority of the bit levels; and
transmitting the encoded bit number according to the
priority of the bit levels.
Evidence Relied Upon
Lei
Lin
US 6,272,180 B1
US 6,421,466 B1
Aug. 7, 2001
Jul. 16, 2002
Appeal 2011-009242
Application 10/398,633

3
Rejection
Claims 10–19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Lin in view of Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art (AAPA)
and Lei. Ans. 3–5.

ISSUES
1) Whether the combination of Lin, AAPA, and Lei teaches or
suggests “representing each vector component as a bit number with a
varying number of bit levels,” as recited in claim 10; and
2) Whether the Examiner erred in concluding claim 10 obvious
over the combination of Lin, AAPA, and Lei.

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
arguments in the Appeal Brief (“App. Br.” filed Nov. 22, 2010). We refer to
the Brief and the Answer (“Ans.” mailed Feb. 17, 2011) for the respective
positions of Appellants and the Examiner.
35 U.S.C. § 103 Rejection of Claim 10 Over Lin, AAPA, and Lei
The Examiner cites Lin and AAPA for the disputed limitation. Ans.
3, 6 (citing Spec. 3 (AAPA); Fig. 3; Lin Figs. 4–8; col. 6, ll. 1–25, 41–67).
Lin discloses image compression employing motion estimation using
reduced-width pixels. See generally Lin col. 5, l. 45–col. 6, l. 67.
Appellants argue “nothing in Lin discloses the number of bits that are
used to represent the motion vector,” “the passage on which the Examiner
relies does not say anything about the bit width of the disclosed motion
vector,” and “[w]hile Lin’s motion vector may be calculated based on
Appeal 2011-009242
Application 10/398,633

4
images that have varying bit widths, the bit width of the motion vector itself
is not disclosed.” App. Br. 7–8. Appellants also argue “the Examiner has
not provided sufficient rationale for combining the cited references” (id. at
8; see also id. at 8–10) and Lei teaches away (id. at 11).
The Examiner finds because Lin’s “motion vector is determined using
reduced bit width pixels, the vector will be represented by a varying number
of bit levels proportional to the level of bit reduction.” Ans. 6. The
Examiner also finds AAPA discloses “Haar wavelet coefficients . . .
represented by seven varying bit levels.” Id. The Examiner thus finds the
combination of Lin, AAPA, and Lei “would result in a system that helps
reduce drift,” and because “all the elements are known, could have been
combined without any change of function, and would give predictable
results.” Id.
We find Appellants’ arguments unavailing of error in the Examiner’s
conclusion that claim 10 is obvious. Even if the bit width (upon which the
claimed bit level reads) of Lin’s motion vector is not explicitly disclosed,
AAPA does disclose bit levels, and Lin discloses both pixel values and
motion vector values (see, e.g., col. 6, ll. 1–25, 41–67), upon either of which
the claimed bit numbers read. Accordingly, we are not persuaded the
Examiner erred in finding AAPA and Lin teach or suggest “representing
each vector component as a bit number with a varying number of bit levels,
wherein each of the bit levels have an assigned priority that is applied
throughout each of the at least two vector components.”
As to issue 2, for the reasons stated by the Examiner (Ans. 6), we
disagree with Appellants’ arguments that the Examiner’s rejection lacks
rationale for combining the references and that Lei teaches away.
Appeal 2011-009242
Application 10/398,633

5
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 10 and of
claims 11–19, which Appellants do not separately argue with particularity.

DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner’s rejection of claims 10–19 is
affirmed.
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

bab