Ex Parte Kwan et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 7, 2013

11042366 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 7, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte BILL KWAN, ERIK SCHLANGER, CASEY KING, and
RAQUEL ROZAS
____________

Appeal 2010-009875
Application 11/042,366
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, MARC S. HOFF, and DANIEL N. FISHMAN,
Administrative Patent Judges.

FISHMAN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1-20. App. Br. 4.1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b). We reverse.

1 Throughout this opinion, we refer to (1) the Appeal Brief filed December
9, 2009 (“App. Br.”); (2) the Examiner’s Answer mailed March 29, 2010
(“Ans.”); (3) the Reply Brief filed June 1, 2010 (“Reply Br.”); and (4) the
Specification filed January 25, 2005 (“Spec.”).
Appeal 2010-009875
Application 11/042,366

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The invention generally provides apparatus and methodology for
piecewise decoding blocks of video data in macroblocks. In each
macroblock, piecewise processing provides an operation to perform overlap
smoothing and deblocking on selected block and sub-block boundaries in the
horizontal and vertical directions. A subsequent operation is performed
whereby the remaining vertical and horizontal block boundaries are overlap
smoothed and deblocked. See generally Spec. 4-6.
Claim 1 is illustrative with a key disputed term emphasized:
1. A method for decoding video data, comprising:
receiving at least a first macroblock of video data processed
with block transformations;
overlap smoothing and deblocking selected pixel data in said
macroblock to generate at least one first partially filtered block and at
least one first finished block; and
storing said first partially filtered block for use in overlap
smoothing and deblocking selected pixel data in a second macroblock.
THE REJECTION
The Examiner rejected all claims (1-20) under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) as anticipated by Hellman (US 2005/0259887 A1; published Nov.
24, 2005; filed Oct. 13, 2004). Ans. 3-6.
THE CONTENTIONS
The Examiner finds that Hellman discloses every feature of, for
example, independent claim 1 in the operation of elements 305, 311, 317,
319, and 321 in Hellman’s Fig. 3. Ans. 3-4. In particular, the Examiner reads
the “overlap smoothing and deblocking” step on operation of filter 311 of
Hellman’s Fig. 3. Ans. 3. The Examiner’s reading of this step on Hellman is
based on the Examiner’s interpretation of “overlap smoothing” as being
defined in paragraph 006 of the Specification such that Hellman’s filter 311
Appeal 2010-009875
Application 11/042,366

3
(of deblocker 301 of Fig. 3) is read as performing both “overlap smoothing”
and “deblocking” simultaneously. Ans. 8-9.
Appellants argue that the Examiner has misconstrued the term
“overlap smoothing”. App. Br. 5-8. Appellants argue that using a proper
definition of “overlap smoothing,” skilled artisans would understand that
“overlap smoothing” and “deblocking” are separate operations. Id.
Appellants, therefore, contend that Hellman does not show a step that
performs “overlap smoothing and deblocking” but rather shows only a
“deblocking” operation. App. Br. 9-10.

ISSUE
Has the Examiner incorrectly construed the term “overlap smoothing”
and thereby erred in rejecting the claims under § 102 by finding that
Hellman teaches the “overlap smoothing and deblocking” step?
ANALYSIS
CONSTRUING “OVERLAP SMOOTHING”
This appeal turns on a single question: Does the “overlap smoothing
and deblocking” step refer to two separate and distinct filter operations?
Appellants and the Examiner disagree as to the proper construction of this
claim term—and specifically disagree as to construction of the term “overlap
smoothing.”
Claims are not to be read in a vacuum, but must be given their
broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the Specification as it would be
interpreted by ordinary artisans. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1316
(Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). For claim construction purposes, the description
may act as a sort of dictionary, which explains the invention and may define
Appeal 2010-009875
Application 11/042,366

4
terms used in the claims. Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d
967, 979 (Fed. Cir. 1995). The caveat is that any special definition given to a
word must be clearly defined in the Specification. Id. at 980.
Though not specifically defined by the Specification, the terms
“overlap smoothing” and “deblocking” are used throughout the Specification
in reference to separate operations (though both relate to types of smoothing
of decompressed pixels at block boundaries). See, e.g., Spec. ¶¶ 006-009,
020-023, 029, 034-035, 039-040, and 042-043. We specifically note by way
of example paragraph 029 of the Specification stating (emphasis added):
For example, after decoding an 8x8 block in either luminance
or chrominance planes, all or part of the left and/or right
(vertical) edges are subjected to a smoothing filter process
(211). In addition or in the alternative, all or part of the top
and/or bottom (horizontal) edges of the block are subjected to a
smoothing filter process (212). In addition to overlap
smoothing, a deblocking filter process may be applied to all or
part selected horizontal boundary lines of the 8x8 blocks (213)
and/or to all or part selected horizontal boundary lines of the
8x4 sub-blocks (214). In addition or in the alternative, the
deblocking filter process may be applied to all or part selected
vertical boundary lines of the 8x8 blocks (215) and/or to all or
part selected vertical boundary lines of the 4x8 sub-blocks
(216).
Thus, we find that the Specification is consistent and clear that the processes
of “overlap smoothing” (i.e., also referred to as “smoothing filter”) and
“deblocking” are separate and distinct filter processes each applied to edges
between blocks of pixels.
Appellants also argue that skilled artisans would understand that the
terms “overlap smoothing” and “deblocking” refer to distinct filter processes
in light of the industry standards that define these processes stating:
Appeal 2010-009875
Application 11/042,366

5
Applicants' proposed interpretation is consistent with the
‘ordinary and customary meaning’ as evidenced by the
dictionary2 and other extrinsic reference evidence concerning
the meaning of the term ‘overlap smoothing’ which refers to a
filtering operation in the spatial domain that is performed across
edges of two neighboring Intra blocks (e.g., for both the luma
and chroma data), and that is separate from the ‘deblocking’
claim requirement. 8 See, Exhibits A-C at Appendix ‘C.’
App. Br. 8.3 See also App. Br. 6. Thus, Appellants argue that their
interpretation of “overlap smoothing” as separate and distinct from
“deblocking” is consistent with the ordinary and customary meaning of the
term of art as understood by skilled artisans. App. Br. 6-8. We agree.
The Examiner asserts that the noted industry standard definition of
“overlap smoothing” does not appear in the Specification and that it is
inconsistent with a definition by Appellants that the Examiner finds in the
Specification at ¶ 006. Ans. 8. Specifically, the Examiner asserts that the
Specification at ¶ 006 defines “overlap smoothing” as: “done only on the
8x8 block boundaries, starting with smoothing in the vertical direction then

2 We find no “dictionary” definitions provided in the Briefs for the terms
“overlap smoothing” and “deblocking.”
3 Exhibit A of Appendix C of the Appeal Brief is an excerpt from Proposed
SMPTE Standard for Television: VC-9 Compressed Video Bitstream Format
and Decoding Process, SMPTE CD xxxM, (2004). It appears that Exhibit A
(i.e., extrinsic evidence) was first submitted with the Appeal Brief and thus
may not be entered as evidence under 37 C.F.R §§ 41.37(c)(1)(ix) and
41.33(d)(2). However, we also note that the Specification incorporates by
reference the WMV9 standard. Spec. ¶ 003. Further, we understand that the
WMV9 standard was submitted by Microsoft to SMPTE for adoption and
was published in draft form as the standard attached (excerpted) as Exhibit
A of Appendix C. See, e.g., US 7,487,193 B2 col. 2, ll. 6-10. Regardless, we
find Exhibit A of Appendix C useful to evidence the understanding of
skilled artisans as regards the terms “overlap smoothing” and “deblocking.”
Appeal 2010-009875
Application 11/042,366

6
in the horizontal direction” and further suggests this definition is
inconsistent with the noted industry standard definition. Id.
We find no inconsistency between the cited quotation from ¶ 006 and
the plain (ordinary and customary) meaning based on the Specification and
based on industry standards that define the processes. The portion of ¶ 006
quoted by the Examiner merely describes exemplary processing performed
by “overlap smoothing” for a macroblock. It is not a definition of the
“overlap smoothing” process that is inconsistent with the plain meaning as
separate and distinct from “deblocking.” We note that the next sentence of
¶ 006 following the portion quoted by the Examiner specifically recites that
“deblocking” is performed next—i.e., after the separate and distinct overlap
smoothing process is completed for a particular block. We further find no
inconsistencies between the industry standard definition and the use of the
terms within the claims and the Specification as a whole (including ¶ 006).
The Examiner further asserts that claim 1 does not recite steps
between “overlap smoothing” and “deblocking” and thus the terms could be
interpreted as performed simultaneously by Hellman’s filter 311. Ans. 7.
Appellants agree that the steps of “overlap smoothing” and “deblocking”
may or may not be performed simultaneously within the scope of the claim.
Reply Br. 2. Regardless, the two steps are still understood to be separate
processes. Id. We agree. We note that Hellman refers to filtering “during
deblocking.” See, e.g., Hellman ¶ 0065. Since “deblocking” is understood by
skilled artisans to be a filtering process, we understand Hellman’s discussion
of filtering “during deblocking” to be a reference to the filtration process
that is “deblocking”—i.e., the filtering that takes place during deblocking—
rather than a reference to some additional form of filtering (e.g., “overlap
Appeal 2010-009875
Application 11/042,366

7
smoothing”) that is performed simultaneously with the “deblocking”
filtration process.
We therefore construe “overlap smoothing” in accordance with its
ordinary and customary meaning in the industry as a process separate and
distinct from “deblocking.”
ANTICIPATION BY HELLMAN
All claims were rejected as being anticipated by Hellman. “A claim is
anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in the claim is found,
either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior art reference.”
Verdegaal Bros., Inc. v. Union Oil Co. of Cal., 814 F.2d 628, 631 (Fed. Cir.
1987). “These elements must be arranged as in the claim under review, but
this is not an ‘ipsissimis verbis’ test.” In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 832 (Fed.
Cir. 1990) (citations omitted). “There must be no difference between the
claimed invention and the reference disclosure, as viewed by a person of
ordinary skill in the field of the invention.” Scripps Clinic & Research
Found. v. Genetech, Inc., 927 F.2d 1565, 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1991). Thus,
analysis of whether a claim is anticipated by prior art begins with a
determination of the scope of the claim. The properly interpreted claim must
then be compared with the prior art.
Here, based on a proper construction of the term “overlap smoothing”
as a filtering process separate from a “deblocking” filtering process, we find
that Hellman does not teach that “overlap smoothing and deblocking” is
performed for each block of a macroblock as recited in claim 1. Rather, we
find that Hellman shows only “deblocking” pixels within a macroblock. See
Hellman ¶ 0065. The Examiner has not shown, however, that Hellman
necessarily performs overlap smoothing and deblocking selected pixel data
Appeal 2010-009875
Application 11/042,366

8
as claimed. The weight of the evidence on this record therefore favors
Appellants’ position. Nevertheless, to the extent that this feature would have
been obvious over Hellman alone or in combination with other references is
a question not before us; nor will we speculate in that regard here in the first
instance on appeal.
Independent claims 10 and 18 recite features commensurate with
those of claim 1. These claims were rejected for essentially the same reasons
as claim 1 and we are similar persuaded of error in the rejection of claim 10
and 18. We are therefore persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting
independent claims 1, 10, and 18 and dependent claims 2-9, 11-17, and 19-
20.

ORDER
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-20 is reversed.

REVERSED

rwk