Ex Parte Jeon et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jun 12, 2012

10465819 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 12, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte BYEUNG-WOO JEON, YONG-JE KIM,
and JEONG-HOON PARK
____________

Appeal 2010-003001
Application 10/465,819
Technology Center 2400

____________

Before DEBRA K. STEPHENS, MICHAEL R. ZECHER, and
BRYAN F. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judges.

MOORE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1, 8, 9, 15, 18, 21-23, 29, 30, 32-35, and 41-46. Claims
2-7, 10-14, 16, 17, 19, 24-28, 32, and 36-40 were withdrawn from
consideration as not directed to the elected embodiment. Claims 20 and 31
were cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
Appeal 2010-003001
Application 10/465,819

2
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.

Invention
Appellants’ invention relates to a coding and decoding method and
apparatus using a plurality of scanning patterns. (Abstract)

Claims
Claim 1, which is the only independent claim and illustrative of the
invention, is reproduced below with key disputed language emphasized:
1. A coding method of image data, comprising:
(a) obtaining an N x M block by firstly source-coding the image
data;
(b) scanning the N x M block using a scan pattern selected from
a plurality of scan patterns based on the size of the obtained N x M
block; and
(c) secondly source-coding data obtained by the scanning the N
x M block using the selected scanned pattern, wherein
the size of the obtained N x M block is equal to N x M.

Prior Art
The Examiner relies on the following references as evidence:
Jeong US 5,714,950 Feb. 3, 1998

Examiner’s Rejection
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 8, 9, 15, 18, 21-23, 29, 30, 33-35,
and 41-46 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Jeong.

Appeal 2010-003001
Application 10/465,819

3
Appellant’s Contention
Appellants contend that Jeong fails to disclose the limitation of
“scanning the N x M block using a scan pattern selected from a plurality of
scan patterns based on the size of the obtained N x M block,” as recited in
independent claim 1. (App. Br. 11-14.)
Appellants further contend in contrast to the recitation of claim 8,
Jeong discloses the decoder of Figure 6 receives scanning pattern data,
selects a scanning pattern, and applies the scanning pattern to coded data
input to the decoder (App. Br. 14).

ISSUES
Based upon our review of the record and Appellants’ contention, we
have determined that the following issue is dispositive in this appeal:
1) Did the Examiner err in determining that Jeong discloses the
claimed “scanning the N x M block using a scan pattern selected
from a plurality of scan patterns based on the size of the obtained
N x M block?” (Claim 1)
2) Did the Examiner err in determining that the Jeong discloses the
claimed “producing scan pattern selection information?” (Claim 8)

1

1
Appellants argue independent claims 1 and 29 and dependent claims 30,
33, 41, and 45 as a group. Appellants argue the remaining claims at issue as
a separate group. Because the “producing scan pattern selection
information” limitation is found in all pending claims except claim 1, we
treat claim 1 alone as a group and treat the rest of the pending claims a
standing or falling with claim 8. We also note Appellants’ arguments
present additional issues with regard to claim 8 but we do not reach them as
this issue is dispositive of the Appeal as to claim 8.
Appeal 2010-003001
Application 10/465,819

4

ANALYSIS
ISSUE 1
Appellants argue that the Jeong fails to disclose the claimed “scanning
the N x M block using a scan pattern selected from a plurality of scan
patterns based on the size of the obtained N x M block.” (See App. Br. 11-
14.) The claim requires selecting a scan pattern from a plurality of scan
patterns based on the size of the N x M block. Examiner argues:
Jeong et al discloses the conventional zigzag scanning pattern
for one or more blocks during video signal compression in at
least two different patterns (Figs. 3C, 3G). The 8 x 8 block that
is scanned in Figure 3C has a 64 pixel size and is scanned
according to a first zigzag pattern whereas the 6 x 6 block that
is scanned in Figure 3G has a 36 pixel size and is scanned
according to a different zigzag pattern.

(Ans. 5). We agree with and adopt that finding. Indeed, Figs. 3C and 3G
disclose a plurality of patterns and the pattern selected is based on the size of
the block. Appellants argue that Examiner changed the language and scope
of the claims. (Rep. Br. 6) However, the claim requires that a scan pattern
is selected based on the size of the block. Appellant fails to present
particular arguments to rebut the Examiner’s finding that Figures 3C and 3G
are different scan patterns that are selected.
Appellants also argue that the Examiner’s use of the zigzag pattern
“teaches away from the disclosure of the original specification as filed which
discloses that using the zigzag scan pattern (as shown in FIG. 5 of the
original specification) results in coding efficiencies being lowered . . . thus
further undermining the Examiner’s stated position” (Rep. Br. 6.) However,
the claim is not limited to patterns other than a zigzag pattern. Additionally,
Appeal 2010-003001
Application 10/465,819

5
“[t]eaching away is irrelevant to anticipation.” Seachange International,
Inc., v. C-Cor, Inc., 413 F.3d 1361, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2005); see also Twin
Disc, Inc. v. United States, 231 USPQ 417, 424 (Cl. Ct. 1986) (quoting In re
Self, 671 F.2d 1344 (CCPA 1982)). Therefore, we are not persuaded by
those arguments.
ISSUE 2
Further, with respect to claim 8, Appellants argue that “Jeong
discloses that the decoder of Figure 6 receives scanning pattern data Dscan
is from the coder of Figure 5 . . . [However], Jeong’s decoder does not
produce scan pattern selection information, as recited by claim 8.” (App. Br.
14 (emphasis in original).) We agree. The Examiner has not presented a
reasonable rationale as to whether Jeong produces scan pattern selection
information. Therefore, with respect to claim 8, Appellants have shown the
Examiner erred in finding Jeong discloses the scan pattern selection
information is produced on the basis of the size of the N x M block (Ans. 3-
4).
Moreover, we note “[a]ny bases for asserting error, whether factual or
legal, that are not raised in the principal brief are waived." Ex parte Borden,
93 USPQ2d 1473, 1474 (BPAI 2010) (informative); see also Optivus Tech.,
Inc. v. Ion Beam Appl’ns. S.A., 469 F.3d 978, 989 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ("[A]n
issue not raised by an appellant in its opening brief . . . is waived.")
(citations and quotation marks omitted).

CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in determining that rejected claim 1 is
anticipated by Jeong. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C.
Appeal 2010-003001
Application 10/465,819

6
§102(b) rejection of claim 1. The Examiner erred in determining that
rejected claims 8, 9, 15, 18, 21-23, 29, 30, 33-35, and 41-46 are anticipated
by Joeng. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. §102(b)
rejection of claims 8, 9, 15, 18, 21-23, 29, 30, 33-35, and 41-46.

ORDER
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) is affirmed. The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 8, 9, 15,
18, 21-23, 29, 30, 32-35, and 41-46 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is reversed.
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-IN-PART

ELD