Ex Parte Lim et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 29, 2019

13516863 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Mar. 29, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/516,863 06/18/2012 Sung Chang Lim
96767 7590 04/02/2019
William Park & Associates LTD.
930 N. York Road, Suite 201
Hinsdale, IL 60521
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.
PA0725-0 1092
EXAMINER
ANYIKIRE, CHIKAODILI E
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2487
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/02/2019 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):
uspto.actions@wpapat.com
eofficeaction@appcoll.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED ST ATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SUNG CHANG LIM, JONG HO KIM,
HAE CHUL CHOI, HUI YONG KIM, HA HYUN LEE,
JIN HO LEE, SE YOON JEONG, SUK HEE CHO,
JIN SOO CHOI, JIN WOO HONG, and JIN WOONG KIM 1
Appeal2019-000233
Application 13/516,863
Technology Center 2400
Before MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, JON M. JURGOV AN, and
DAVID J. CUTITTAII, Administrative Patent Judges.
STRAUSS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Electronics and
Telecommunications Research Institute. See App. Br. 2.
Appeal2019-000233
Application 13/516,863
STATEMENT OF THE CASE2
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims
37, 41, 44, 45, 56, 58, and 59. We have jurisdiction under35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse. 3
THE INVENTION
The claims are directed to adaptive image encoding. Spec., Title.
Claim 3 7, reproduced below with a dispositive limitation emphasized in
italics, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
3 7. A video decoding device for decoding a decoding target
block in a current picture using inter prediction for the decoding
target block, the video decoding device comprising:
a receiving unit configured to receive a bitstream from an
external device, the bitstream including a referencing block
identifier and a coding method indicator; and
a control unit configured to perform adaptive decoding
based on the bitstream received, wherein the coding method
indicator indicates whether a motion vector, prediction direction
information, and a reference picture index of the decoding target
block are to be determined based on a motion vector, prediction
direction information and a reference picture index of a reference
block indicated by the referencing block identifier or not for the
inter prediction, and the adaptive decoding comprises:
2 Appellants indicate "No other related appeals and/ or interferences exist in
regards to the present application." App. Br. 2. However, we note, on
March 20, 2018, twenty-four days prior to filing their Appeal Brief in the
instant appeal, Appellants filed an appeal brief in the appeal of U.S. Pa tent
Application Serial Number 13/959,885 (Appeal No. 2018-008050) which is
a continuation application of the present application. Appellants are
reminded of the requirementto identify such related appeals. 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37( C )(1 )(ii).
3 We refer to the Specification, filed June 18, 2012 ("Spec."); Non-Final
Office Action, mailed October 24, 2017 ("Non-Final Act."); Appeal Brief,
filed April 13, 2018 ("App. Br."); Examiner's Answers, mailed August 7,
2018 ("Ans. 1 ") and September 14, 2018 ("Ans. 2"); and Reply Brief, filed
October 4, 2018 ("Reply Br.").
2
Appeal2019-000233
Application 13/516,863
determining one of a plurality of referencing
candidate blocks reconstructed previously as the reference
block for the decoding target block based on the
referencing block identifier when the coding method
indicator indicates that the motion vector, the prediction
direction information and the reference picture index of
the decoding target block are to be determined based on
the motion vector, the prediction direction information and
the reference picture index of the reference block, wherein
the referencing block identifier indicates the reconstructed
block to be used as the reference block, and
decoding the decoding target block using the inter
prediction based on the motion vector, the prediction
direction information and the reference picture index of
the reference block,
wherein the plurality of referencing candidate
blocks includes a block adjacent to an upper-left corner of
the decoding target block in the current picture, a block
adjacent to a left side of the decoding target block in the
current picture, a block adjacent to an upper side of the
decoding target block and a collocated block in a
previously reconstructed picture,
a position of the collocated block in the previously
reconstructed picture corresponds to a position of the
decoding target block in the current picture,
the referencing block identifier indicates a block to
be used as the reference block among the plurality of the
referencing candidate blocks, and
the motion vector, the prediction direction
information and the reference picture index of the
reference block are applied to the decoding target block.
App. Br. 15-16 (Claims Appendix)
REFERENCE
The following prior art is relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the
claims on appeal:
Park US 2010/0086051 Al Apr. 8, 2010
3
Appeal2019-000233
Application 13/516,863
REJECTION
The Examiner rejected claims 37, 41, 44, 45, 56, 58, and 59 under
pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Park. Non-FinalAct. 2---6.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants'
arguments and have concluded the Examiner has erred in rejecting
independent claims 37 and 56 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by
Park. We agree with Appellants' conclusions as to this rejection of the
claims.
The Examiner fmds paragraphs 48 through 59 of Park discloses a
plurality of referencing candidate blocks in the three locations relative to the
decoding target block recited by the claims, including positioned in the
argued upper-left comer of the decoding block. Non-Final Act. 4.
Appellants argue, inter alia,
in Park, neighbor blocks are "a block at a left, top or right top
side of the current block", and a block at a left top side (upper-
left) of the current block is not a neighbor block. Hence, Park
does not disclose "the plurality of referencing candidate blocks
includes a block adjacent to an upper-left comer of the
decoding target block in the current picture."
App. Br. 13-14. The Examiner responds, fmding "Park points to the blocks
that are left and top of the current block which includes blocks that are
upper-left. This is indicated through Park suggesting that the left most block
which would potentially be used (paragraph(s) [0048])." Ans. 1, p. 7;
Ans. 2, p. 7. Appellants reply, arguing "[a]ccordingto paragraph [0048] of
Park, the neighbor block is merely the block at a left, top or right top side of
the current block." Reply Br. 11.
4
Appeal2019-000233
Application 13/516,863
Appellants' argument is persuasive of Examiner error. For an
anticipation rejection, "every element of the claimed invention must be
identically shown in a single reference." In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 832
(Fed. Cir. 1990). The Examiner's citations to Park fail to include disclosure
of the argued block adjacent to an upper-left comer of the decoding target
block in the current picture. If it is the Examiner's position that it is
sufficient "Park suggest[ s] that the left most block ... would potentially be
used" to disclose the disputed block in the upper-left comer, then the
Examiner fails to explain why one skilled in the art would have known this
to be the case as a mere suggestion of a claimed element is inadequate to
support a rejection under35 U.S.C. § 102(e).
Because we agree with at least one of the arguments advanced by
Appellants, we need not reach the merits of Appellants' other arguments.
Therefore, for the reasons supra, we do not sustain the rejection of
independent claim 3 7 under 3 5 U.S. C. § 102( e) and, for the same reason, we
do not sustain the rejection of independent claim 56 which includes
substantially the same limitation, or the rejection of dependent claims 41, 44,
45, 58, and 59 which stand with their respective base claims.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's decision to reject claims 37, 41, 44, 45, 56,
58, and 59 under35 U.S.C. § 102(e).
REVERSED
5