Ex Parte Kim et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 31, 2016

13124225 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 31, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/124,225 04/14/2011 HayoonKim
22429 7590 11/02/2016
HAUPTMAN HAM, LLP
2318 Mill Road
Suite 1400
ALEXANDRIA, VA 22314
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.
126587-0064 4726
EXAMINER
MESSMORE, JONATHAN R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2482
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/02/2016 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@ipfirm.com
pair_lhhb@firsttofile.com
EAnastasio@IPFirm.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte HA YOON KIM, YUNGHO CHOI,
YOONSIK CHOE, YONGGOO KIM, and BYONGHO KIM 1
Appeal2015-003757
Application 13/124,225
Technology Center 2400
Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, AMBER L. HAGY, and
MICHAEL M. BARRY, Administrative Patent Judges.
HAGY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 1-17, which are all of the pending claims. We
have jurisdiction over these claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We reverse.
1 Appellants identify SK Telecom Co., Ltd., as the real party in interest.
(App. Br. 3.)
Appeal2015-003757
Application 13/124,225
Introduction
According to Appellants, their claimed invention "provid[ es] a video
encoding/decoding apparatus, and method and apparatus for hybrid block
motion compensation/overlapped block motion compensation[,] which
allow[ s] for performing optimum motion compensation for each pixel with
the least computation volume or complexity that has been possible." (Spec.
i-f 11.) Appellants further state their invention achieves the stated objectives
by selecting between "block motion compensation" ("BMC") and
"overlapped block motion compensation" ("OBMC") on a pixel-by-pixel
basis:
[T]he present disclosure performs an adaptive pixel overlapped
block motion compensation with a reduced calculation volume
and an optimized selection of motion compensation for each
pixel by using dedicated BMC I OBMC determination criteria
in an encoder for determining the best motion compensation
method by pixel units of an image block, and has the encoder
assign a very small bit [sic] for generating information that can
identify the BMC I OBMC determination with respect to each
pixel of the block, and allows the decoder to determine the
motion compensation method for each pixel by referring to a
very small bit transmitted from the encoder without the need to
reproduce the formula used in the encoder for the best BMC I
OBMC determination, thereby the decoder can perform the best
motion compensation by pixel units with a small calculation
volume.
(Spec. i-f 12 (emphases added).)
2
Appeal2015-003757
Application 13/124,225
Exemplary Claim
Claims 1 and 10, reproduced below with relevant disputed limitations
italicized, are exemplary of the claimed subject matter:
1. A hybrid block motion compensation/adaptive
overlapped block motion compensation (BMC/OBMC)
apparatus comprising:
a BMC/OBMC selector configured to perform a pixel-by-
pixel selection of one of a block motion compensation (BMC)
and an overlapped block motion compensation (OBMC) with
respect to each pixel of a current block according to a preset
criterion;
an adaptive motion compensator configured to perform a
motion compensation according to the selected one of the BMC
and the OBMC;
a scan mode setter configured to scan the current block in
a plurality of scan modes and establish a scan mode causing a
smallest number of transitions between the BMC and the
OBMC with respective to each pixel of the current block in the
course of the scanning with respect to the established scan
mode; and
an information recorder configured to record transition
information at locations of pixels corresponding to the
transitions between the BMC and the OBMC with respective to
the established scan mode.
10. A video decoding apparatus comprising:
an information interpreter configured to interpreting
information on a scan mode of a current block and information
on transitions between a block motion compensation (BMC) or
an overlapped block motion compensation (OBMC) in the
course of pixel-by-pixel scanning with respective to each pixel
of the current block based on the interpreted information on the
scan mode; and
3
Appeal2015-003757
Application 13/124,225
an adaptive motion compensator configured to perform
pixel-by-pixel adaptive motion compensation with respective to
each pixel of the current block based on the interpreted
information about the transitions.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Ramasastry et al.
("Ramasastry")
Woods et al.
("Woods")
US 2005/0207664 Al
US 2006/0193388 Al
REJECTIONS
Sept. 22, 2005
Aug. 31, 2006
Claims 1-17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Ramasastry. (Final Act. 3---6.)
Claims 1-17 stand, alternatively, rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by Woods. (Final Act. 6-9.)
ISSUES 2
(1) Whether the Examiner erred in finding Ramasastry, or,
alternatively, Woods, discloses all limitations of claims 1-9, including
"pixel-by-pixel selection of one of a block motion compensation (BMC) and
an overlapped block motion compensation (OBMC) with respect to each
pixel of a current block according to a preset criterion," as recited in
2 Appellants' contentions present additional issues. Because the identified
issues are dispositive of Appellants' arguments on appeal, we do not reach
the additional issues.
4
Appeal2015-003757
Application 13/124,225
independent claim 1 and commensurately recited in independent claims 4
and 7.
(2) Whether the Examiner erred in finding Ramasastry, or,
alternatively, Woods, discloses all limitations of claims 10-17, including
"interpreting information ... on transitions between a block motion
compensation (BMC) or an overlapped block motion compensation
(OBMC)," as recited in independent claim 10 and commensurately recited in
independent claim 14.
ANALYSIS
A. Claims 1-9: "pixel-by-pixel selection of one of" BMC and OBMC
1. Ramasastry
Appellants argue, inter alia, the Examiner's findings are in error
because Ramasastry does not teach "a pixel-by-pixel selection of one of'
BMC and OBMC, as recited in independent claim 1 (emphasis added), and
commensurately recited in independent claims 4 and 7. (App. Br. 12-13,
15-16; Reply Br. 6.) The Examiner finds Ramasastry discloses this
limitation even though, as the Examiner acknowledges, Ramasastry does not
teach selection between the two modes. (Final Act. 4; see also Ans. 10.) In
particular, the Examiner finds "Ramasastry discloses wherein the preset
criterion of Ramasastry is to select only OBMC be performed." (Final Act. 4
(emphasis added); see also Advisory Action mailed Mar. 4, 2014 ("Adv.
Act.") (finding Ramasastry discloses "always select OBMC"); Ans. 10.)
During prosecution, claims are given "their broadest reasonable
meaning of the words in their ordinary usage as they would be understood
by one of ordinary skill in the art, taking into account whatever
enlightenment ... may be afforded by the written description contained in
5
Appeal2015-003757
Application 13/124,225
the applicant's specification." In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir.
1997). It is well settled that "[a]ll words in a claim must be considered in
judging the patentability of that claim against the prior art." In re Wilson,
424 F.2d 1382, 1385 (CCPA 1970).
We agree with Appellants that the Examiner's implicit construction of
the disputed limitation renders the term "selection," as recited therein,
superfluous, and thus is unreasonable. See Stumbo v. Eastman Outdoors,
Inc., 508 F.3d 1358, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (denouncing claim constructions
that render phrases in claims superfluous). Consistent with Appellants'
Specification, the term "selection" is used to indicate that two available
options (BMC and OBMC) are both considered, from which a selection of
one of those modes is made:
[T]he present disclosure performs an adaptive pixel overlapped
block motion compensation with a reduced calculation volume
and an optimized selection of motion compensation for each
pixel by using dedicated BMC I OBMC determination criteria
in an encoder for determining the best motion compensation
method by pixel units of an image block, and has the encoder
assign a very small bit for generating information that can
identify the BMC I OBMC determination with respect to each
pixel of the block ....
(Spec. i-f 12 (emphases added).)
The Examiner, however, implicitly reads the claims as encompassing
availability of only one of the two modes (specifically, OBMC as taught by
both cited references), without requiring the ability "to perform a pixel-by-
pixel selection" between BMC and OBMC. (See Office Act. 4; Ans. 10.) In
so doing, the Examiner improperly reads the function of performing "pixel-
by-pixel selection" between two compensation modes entirely out of
6
Appeal2015-003757
Application 13/124,225
independent claim 1 (and similarly out of independent claims 4 and 7). (See
id.)
In short, we conclude the Examiner's rejection of independent claim 1
over Ramasastry is premised on the Examiner's erroneous claim
construction, and there is no finding that Ramasastry discloses the
"selection" requirement as recited. Accordingly, we do not sustain the
Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection over Ramasastry of (1) independent
claim 1; (2) independent claims 4 and 7, which recite similar "pixel-by-pixel
selection" limitations as recited in claim 1 (see App. Br. 15-16) and were
rejected on substantially the same basis as claim 1 (see Final Act. 3-5); and
(3) claims 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, and 9, which variously depend, directly or indirectly,
from independent claims 1, 4, and 7.
2. Woods
With regard to the Examiner's alternative rejection of claims 1-9
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) over Woods, the Examiner similarly makes no
findings that Woods discloses a "pixel-by-pixel selection" between BMC
and OBMC. (See Final Act. 7; Adv. Act. 2; Ans. 11-12.) At most, the
Examiner finds Woods teaches "hybrid spatial interpolation." (Final Act. 7
(citing Woods i-f 140 and Fig. 10).) As Appellants correctly note, however,
the Examiner does not make findings demonstrating that Woods' disclosure
of "hybrid" involves a pixel-by-pixel selection between BMC and OBMC.
(Reply Br. 10.) We further note other findings by the Examiner confirm the
Examiner reads Woods as applying only OBMC. (See Final Act. 7 (finding
the "scan mode setter" limitation of claim 1, which recites establishing a
mode that causes the "smallest number of transitions between the BMC and
7
Appeal2015-003757
Application 13/124,225
OBMC," is satisfied by Woods because Woods discloses using only OBMC,
which results in "zero transitions"); see also App. Br. 20; Ans. 12.)
In short, we conclude the Examiner's rejection of independent claim 1
over Woods is premised on the same erroneous claim construction that
underlies the Examiner's rejection over Ramasastry, and there is no finding
that Woods discloses the "selection" requirement as recited. Accordingly,
we do not sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection over Woods
of (1) independent claim 1; (2) independent claims 4 and 7, which recite
similar "pixel-by-pixel selection" limitations as recited in claim 1 (see App.
Br. 22-23) and were rejected on substantially the same basis as claim 1 (see
Final Act. 7-8); and (3) claims 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, and 9, which variously depend,
directly or indirectly, from independent claims 1, 4, and 7.
B. Claims 10-17
The Examiner provides no separate analysis of independent claims
10-17, but refers to the analysis for claims 1 and 4. (Final Act. 6.) We,
therefore, look to the Examiner's findings regarding claims 1 and 4 to
determine whether they support the Examiner's rejection of claims 10-17.
Independent claims 10 and 14 recite, inter alia, "interpreting
information ... on transitions between a block motion (BMC) or an
overlapped block motion compensation (OBMC) in the course of pixel-by-
pixel scanning .... " (App. Br. 30, 31 (Claims App'x) (emphasis added).)
In connection with claim 1 's recitation of "causing a smallest number of
transitions between the BMC and the OBMC ... ," the Examiner finds
Ramasastry and, alternatively, Woods, both disclose this limitation because
they each disclose "only OBMC [to] be performed," which "will also cause
8
Appeal2015-003757
Application 13/124,225
the least number of transitions as there [are] zero such transitions .... "
(Final Act. 4 (Ramasastry) (emphasis added); Final Act. 7 (Woods).)
Accordingly, the Examiner has not made findings that either
Ramasastry or Woods discloses "interpreting information ... on transitions
between a block motion (BMC) or an overlapped block motion
compensation (OBMC) in the course of pixel-by-pixel scanning," because
the Examiner's findings are premised on both references teaching only a
scenario that will, per the Examiner, result in "zero transitions."
Accordingly, we are constrained by this record to find the Examiner
erred, and we do not sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejections
over Ramasastry or, alternatively, Woods, of independent claims 10 and 14,
as well as claims 11-13 and 15-17, which variously depend, directly or
indirectly, from independent claims 10 and 14.
DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner's rejections of claims 1-17 are
reversed.
REVERSED
9