12428157 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 28, 2016)

Ex Parte Schwarz et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 28, 2016

12428157 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 28, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 12/428, 157 0412212009 24131 7590 03/30/2016 LERNER GREENBERG STEMER LLP PO BOX 2480 HOLLYWOOD, FL 33022-2480 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Reiko Schwarz 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. S&ZFH030507C4 8368 EXAMINER PEREZ FUENTES, LUIS M ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2481 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/30/2016 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): boxoa@patentusa.com docket@patentusa.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte REIKO SCHWARZ, DETLEF MARPE, and THOMAS WIEGAND Appeal2014--000568 Application 12/428, 157 Technology Center 2400 Before STEPHEN C. SIU, DAVID M. KOHUT, and ERIC B. CHEN, Administrative Patent Judges. KOHUT, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL 1 This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) of the Final Rejection of claims 1-29. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 Our Decision makes reference to Appellants' Appeal Brief ("App. Br.," filed May 23, 2013) and Reply Brief ("Reply Br.," filed September 30, 2013), the Examiner's Answer ("Ans." mailed July 30, 2013) and the Final Office Action ("Final Act.," mailed November 21, 2012). Appeal2014--000568 Application 12/428, 157 Il-.JVENTION The invention is directed to coding transform coefficients in picture and/or video coders and decoders. Spec. i-f 3. Claim 1 is illustrative of the invention and is reproduced below: 1. A method, performed on a processor, for coding transform coefficients wherein for blocks of (video) pictures containing transform coefficients being unequal to zero, a coding of transform coefficients takes place in such a way that, for each block, a significance map is coded, the significance map specifying the positions of transform coefficients being unequal to zero in the block in a scan order, and subsequently, the values (levels) of the transform coefficients being unequal to zero are coded by, in a reverse scan order - starting with the last transform coefficient being unequal to zero within the block- binary entropy coding bins of a binarization of a magnitude of the transform coefficients being unequal to zero in a context-dependent way using contexts depending on how many transform coefficients having a magnitude of greater than 1 have already been coded in the reverse scan order up to a respective currently coded transform coefficient with coding all bins of the binarization of the respective currently to be coded transform coefficient being unequal to zero before proceeding with coding the bins of the binarization of a - in the reverse scan order - succeeding transform coefficient being unequal to zero. 2 Appeal2014--000568 Application 12/428, 157 Auyeung Tsai Creusere Said ~T"""'1T"""'1T"""'1~T"""'1-...T"'T"""'1n Kl:1, !' 1::1, Kl:1, 1'\J L 1::1, ~ us 5,473,376 Dec. 5, 1995 us 5,818,877 Oct. 6, 1998 US 6,466,698 B 1 Oct. 15, 2002 US 7,190,840 B2 Mar. 13, 2007 REJECTIONS AT ISSUE2 Claims 1-11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Said and Creusere. Ans. 5-9. Claims 12-14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Said, Creusere, and Auyeung. Ans. 9-11. Claims 15-29 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Said, Creusere, Auyeung, and Tsai. Ans. 11-18. ISSUE3 2 Although not before us on appeal, we note that claims 1-19 were rejected, in a Non-Final Office Action (mailed Apr. 23, 2012), on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-23 of U.S. Patent 7,702,013 B2, claims 1-19 of Application 12/428,154, and claims 1-19 of Application 12/428,151. Prior to the mailing of the Non-Final Office Action, claim 20 was added by amendment and subsequent to the mailing of the Non-Final Office Action, claims 21-29 were added by amendment, however the double patenting rejection was not updated to include any of these claims. Should there be further prosecution, we leave it to the Examiner to decide whether claims 20-29 should be included in the double patenting rejection of record. 3 Appellants make additional arguments with respect to claims 1-29. App. Br. 11-25; Reply Br. 1-6. We do not address the additional issues, however, as the stated issue is dispositive of the Appeal. 3 Appeal2014--000568 Application 12/428, 157 Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Said, Creusere, Auyeung, and Tsai teaches or suggests coding nonzero transform coefficients based upon "how many transform coefficient having a magnitude of greater than 1 have already been coded in the reverse scan order," as required in independent claims 1, 10, 11, 12, 19, and 20?4 ANALYSIS The Examiner finds Said teaches coding transform coefficients in reverse scan order and determining a value for each nonzero transform coefficient in the block. See Final Act. 3; Ans. 5-6. The Examiner additionally finds that a symbol is generated for each nonzero coefficient indicating the determined value and whether the coefficient is the last nonzero coefficient in the block. See Final Act. 3; Ans. 5---6. The Examiner relies on this teaching to find that Said teaches coding nonzero transform coefficients based upon "how many transform coefficients having a magnitude of greater than 1 have already been coded in the reverse scan order," as recited in claim 1. Final Act. 3; Ans. 5---6. Appellants argue that Said's coding is not based on how many transfonn coefficients having a magnitude of greater than 1 have already been coded in reverse scan order. App. Br. 13; see Reply Br. 1-3. Rather, Appellants contend that Said's coding is based merely on the value of the immediately previously coded/decoded transform coefficient. App. Br. 13; see Reply Br. 1-3. 4 With respect to claims 2-29, Appellants' arguments present the same dispositive issue as independent claim 1. Except for our ultimate decision, these claims are not discussed further herein. 4 Appeal2014--000568 Application 12/428, 157 We agree with Appellants. The Examiner has not shown, nor do we find, how Said' s reverse coding takes into account coefficients that have already been coded in a reverse order and are greater than 1. Although the Examiner cites additional references in the Answer, the Examiner does not cite to the additional references to teach or suggest this limitation and we will not engage in any inquiry as to whether this additional reference cures the noted deficiencies. Therefore, we cannot sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-29. CONCLUSION The Examiner erred in finding that the combination of Said, Creusere, and Auyeung teaches or suggests coding nonzero transform coefficients based upon "how many transform coefficients having a magnitude of greater than 1 have already been coded in the reverse scan order," as required in independent claims 1, 10, 11, 12, 19, and20. DECISION The Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-29 is reversed. REVERSED 5