Ex Parte Sato

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 31, 2018

14348097 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 31, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
14/348,097 03/28/2014 Kazushi Sato
60803 7590 10/31/2018
Paratus Law Group, PLLC
1765 Greensboro Station Place
Suite 320
Tysons Corner, VA 22102
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.
1946-0638 8995
EXAMINER
DANG, PHILIP
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2488
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/31/2018 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte KAZUSHI SATO
Appeal2018-000439
Application 14/348,097
Technology Center 2400
Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, CARLL. SILVERMAN, and
STEVEN M. AMUNDSON, Administrative Patent Judges.
DIXON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal2018-000439
Application 14/348,097
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims
1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We reverse.
The claims are directed to an image processing apparatus and method
capable of improving processing efficiency with pipeline processing in
encoding or decoding of a motion vector. (Abstract).
An image processing apparatus according to an aspect of the
present disclosure includes an adjacent motion vector
information setting unit which, when a spatial prediction
motion vector is generated with a prediction motion vector used
for decoding of a motion vector of a current block of an image
being as a target, prohibits use of a motion vector of a top right
block located adjacent to top right of the current block; a
prediction motion vector generation unit which generates a
spatial prediction vector of the current block, using a motion
vector other than the motion vector of the top right block which
is prohibited from being used by the adjacent motion vector
information setting unit, with a motion vector of a spatial
adjacent block located adjacent to the current block in terms of
space being as a target; and a motion vector decoding unit
which decodes the motion vector of the current block, using the
prediction motion vector of the current block.
(Spec. ,r 22). Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed
subject matter:
1. An image processing apparatus comprising:
a setting unit which, on a condition that a spatial
prediction motion vector is generated with a prediction motion
vector used for decoding of a motion vector of a current block
of an image being as a target, sets a motion vector of a top right
2
Appeal2018-000439
Application 14/348,097
block located neighboring to top right of the current block as
not available;
a prediction motion vector generation unit which
generates a spatial prediction vector of the current block, using
a motion vector other than the motion vector of the top right
block which is set as not available by the setting unit, with a
motion vector of a spatial neighboring block located
neighboring to the current block in terms of space being as a
target; and
a motion vector decoding unit which decodes the motion
vector of the current block, using the prediction motion vector
of the current block, wherein the setting unit, the prediction
motion vector generation unit, and the motion vector decoding
unit are each implemented via at least one processor.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Panusopone et al.
Lee et al.
Sato et al.
Zhou
US 2009/0129472 Al
US 2010/0080285 Al
US 2011/0103485 Al
US 2012/0177123 Al
May 21, 2009
Apr. 1, 2010
May 5, 2011
July 12, 2012
Benjamin Bross, "WD4: Working Draft 4 of High-Efficiency Video
Coding," Joint Collaborative Team on Video Coding (JCT-VC) of ITU-T
SGI6 WP3 and ISO/IEC JTC1/SC29/WG11, 6th Meeting: Torino, IT, 14-22
July, 2011, Document: JCTVC-F803 _ dL:
REJECTIONS
The Examiner made the following rejections:
Claims 1-6, 10-16, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Sato in view of Panusopone and further in view of
Lee.
3
Appeal2018-000439
Application 14/348,097
Claims 7 and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Sato, Panusopone, and Lee further in view of Zhou.
Claims 8, 9, 18, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Sato, Panusopone, Lee, and Zhou further in view of Bross.
ANALYSIS
With respect to independent claims 1, 10, 11, and 20, we find each of
the independent claims contain the similar limitations argued by Appellant
to be lacking in the prior-art combination. Therefore, we select independent
claim 1 as the illustrative claim and will address Appellant's arguments
thereto.
With respect to illustrative independent claim 1, Appellant's specific
contention is that none of the three prior-art references to Sato, Panusopone,
and Lee teaches or suggests the claimed "a setting unit which, on a
condition that a spatial prediction motion vector is generated with a
prediction motion vector used for decoding of a motion vector of a current
block of an image being as a target, sets a motion vector of a top right block
located neighboring to top right of the current block as not available." (App.
Br. 12-13; Reply Br. 4).
Appellant further contends that the prior art references applied against
the claimed invention are different in their disclosed processes and the
Examiner has conceded this, saying:
Appellant emphasizes that the prior art references are different
in their disclosed processes, especially in that none of the
references are actually setting, a motion vector of a neighboring
block, to be "unavailable." Furthermore, the Examiner has
conceded that this specific "setting" procedure is not discussed
in the prior art references, but the Examiner goes on to state on
4
Appeal2018-000439
Application 14/348,097
page 3 of the Advisory Action mailed March 16, 2017 that
"Any A VC/H.264 compliant encoder should support this claim
limitation," and on page 4 of the Advisory Action that, because
the prior art references check an availability status, then such
would "imply that the availability of the top right block should
be set by an A VC/H.264 compliant encoder."
(App. Br. 12). Appellant contends that "[a]lthough the prior art may
obtain information about availability, the prior art does not in fact
'set,' upon the satisfying of the particularly-recited condition, any
motion vector as 'not available."' (Reply Br. 5).
From our review of the Examiner's lengthy rejections (Ans. 3--44) and
Response to Argument section (Ans. 44---69), we find that the Examiner has
not specifically shown how the prior art relied upon in the grounds of the
rejection teaches or fairly suggests the claimed "setting unit" based upon the
condition as recited in the language of illustrative independent claim 1.
The Examiner maintains:
in response to Appellant's argument that the prior art references
are different in their disclosed processes, it has been held that a
prior art reference must either be in the field of applicant's
endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the
particular problem with which the applicant was concerned, in
order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed
invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443
(Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, the Sato, Panusopone, and Lee
references are all in the field of video coding, and all of them
disclose the motion estimation process, which analyzes and
generates the motion vectors of the neighboring blocks of the
current block for the inter prediction coding. Hence, these cited
references can be combined to reject the claimed invention.
(Ans. 44--45).
5
Appeal2018-000439
Application 14/348,097
We find the Examiner misses the point of Appellant's argument that
all of the references are different especially in not performing the recited
"setting" limitation. Appellant's proffered point of distinction is that even if
the three prior-art references which perform different functions were
combined, none of the three prior-art references teaches or suggests the
"setting a motion vector of the top right block located neighboring to the top
right of the current block is not available." (App. Br. 12). We agree with
the Appellant that none of the three prior-art references specifically teaches
the claimed "setting" step as recited in the language of independent claim 1.
As a result, we cannot sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejection of
claim 1.
With respect to independent claims 10, 11, 20, and dependent claims
2---6 and 12-16, Appellants rely upon the same argument advanced with
respect to independent claim 1. Because we found error in the Examiner's
rejection of illustrative independent claim 1, we find similar error in the
Examiner's rejection of independent claims 10, 11, 20, and dependent claims
2---6 and 12-16 because the claims contain similar limitations found to be
deficient in the rejection of claim 1.
With respect to dependent claims 7-9 and 17-19, the Examiner does
not identify how the Zhou or Bross references remedy the deficiency noted
above with respect to independent claim 1. As a result, we cannot sustain
the Examiner's obviousness rejections of claims 7-9 and 17-19.
6
Appeal2018-000439
Application 14/348,097
CONCLUSION
The Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-20 based upon obviousness
under 35 U.S.C. § 103
DECISION
For the above reasons, we reverse the Examiner's rejections of claims
1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
REVERSED
7