Ex Parte Srinivasan et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 6, 2016

10622841 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 6, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
10/622,841 07/18/2003 Sridhar Srinivasan
26119 7590 06/08/2016
KLARQUIST SPARKMAN LLP
121 S.W. SALMON STREET
SUITE 1600
PORTLAND, OR 97204
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.
3382-66126-01 4754
EXAMINER
ANYIKIRE, CHIKAODILI E
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2487
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/08/2016 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):
tanya.harding@klarquist.com
docketing@klarquist.com
usdocket@microsoft.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SRIDHAR SRINIVASAN,
POHSIANG HSU, THOMAS W. HOLCOMB,
KUNAL MUKERJEE, and BRUCE CHIH-LUNG LIN
Appeal2015-000377
Application 10/622,841
Technology Center 2400
Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, JOHN A. EVANS, and ALEX S. YAP,
Administrative Patent Judges.
YAP, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
final rejection of claims 1, 4--10, 48---54, 56--60, 64--66, 69-75, and 78-88. 2
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Microsoft Corporation.
(App. Br. 2.)
2 Claims 2, 3, 11--47, 55, 61---63, 67, 68, 76, 77, and 89-104 were previously
canceled. (App. Br. 4.)
Appeal2015-000377
Application 10/622,841
STATEivIENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellants' invention relates to "various techniques and tools for
encoding and decoding motion vector information for video images."
(Spec. 8.) Claim 1 is illustrative of Appellants' invention, and is reproduced
below:
1. In a computing device that implements a video encoder, a
method of encoding a video image in a video image
sequence, wherein the video image is partitioned into
macroblocks, the method comprising:
with the computing device that implements the video
encoder:
encoding a macroblock, including:
determining a value for a switch code, wherein the
value for the switch code indicates whether the macro block is
intra-coded or inter-coded; and
jointly coding the value for the switch code with
motion vector information for the macroblock and with a
terminal symbol indicating whether transform coefficient data
is encoded for the macroblock in a bit stream,
wherein a single instance of a single variable
length code represents a value combination for the value for the
switch code, the motion vector information and the terminal
symbol, the single instance of the single variable length code
being selected from a variable length code table of different
value combinations for the switch code, the motion vector
information and the terminal symbol, and wherein the single
instance of the single variable length code is coded at macro
block layer; and;
outputting the single instance of the single variable
length code in the bit stream.
2
Appeal2015-000377
Application 10/622,841
Rejections on Appeal
Claims 1, 5, 6, 48, 51-53, 69-71, 74, 75, and 78-84 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Machida
(US 7,486,734 B2; issued Feb. 3, 2009) ("Machida") and Matsumura et al.
(US 5,835,144; issued Nov. 10, 1998) ("Matsumura"). (See Final Office
Action (mailed August 6, 2013) ("Final Act.") 3-9.)3
Claims 4, 50, and 73 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Machida in view of Matsumura, and further in view of
Shimoda et al. (US 5,734,783; issued Mar. 31, 1998) ("Shimoda").
(See Final Act. 11.)
Claim 9 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Machida in view of Matsumura, and further in view of
Sugimoto et al. (US 5,650,829; issued July 22, 1997) ("Sugimoto").
(See Final Act. 12.)
Claims 49 and 72 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Machida in view of Matsumura, and further in view of
Tsukagoshi et al. (US 2002/0106025 Al; pub. Dec. 11, 2001)
("Tsukagoshi"). (See Final Act. 12-13.)
Claims 65 and 66 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Machida in view of Matsumura, and further in view of
what is well known in the art ("Official Notice"). (See Final Act. 13-14.)
3 Appellants indicate "that the final Office action does not appear to contain
a rejection of dependent claims 81 and 83." (Br. 17.) We observe that the
Examiner did intend to reject claims 81 and 83 and in fact listed these claims
in the cover page of the Final Office Action. (Final Act. 2.) Although the
Examiner inadvertently failed to address these claims in detail, we view the
Examiner's mistake as harmless error.
3
Appeal2015-000377
Application 10/622,841
Claims 7, 8, l 0, 54, 56-60, 64, and 85-88 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Machida in view of
Matsumura, and further in view of Puri et al. (US 5,227,878; issued July 13,
1993) ("Puri"). (See Final Act. 14--20.4)
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants'
arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants'
arguments.
Claims 1, 5, 6, 48, 51-53, 69-71, 74, 75, and 78---84
Machida In View Of Matsumura
Claim 1
Appellants argue that neither Machida nor Matsumura teaches the
following limitation of claim 1:
jointly coding the value for the switch code with motion vector
information for the macro block and with a terminal symbol ...
wherein a single instance of a single variable length code
represents a value combination for the value for the switch code,
the motion vector information and the terminal symbol. ..
(Br. 13-17, emphasis added.)
The Examiner relies on Machida as teaching:
jointly coding the value for the switch code (Fig 3 element 304
(inter/intra type control signal)) with motion vector information
(Fig 3 element 301 and 313) for the macroblock (column 8 line
64 - column 9 line 5) ... [and Matsumura as teaching] jointly
coding with a terminal symbol indicating whether transform
4 The Examiner inadvertently referred to Puri as Purl.
4
Appeal2015-000377
Application 10/622,841
coefficients data is encoded for the macroblock in a bit stream.
(Final Act. 4--5.)
We understand the Examiner's rejection to be based on the broadest
reasonable interpretation of the term 'jointly coding" to mean coding
together (1) the value for the switch code, with (2) motion vector
information for the macroblock, and with (3) a terminal symbol indicating
whether transform coefficient data is encoded for the macroblock in a bit
stream. (Id. at 4--5; Ans. 2-8, 18.) Appellants do not propose a different
construction for this term, but instead argue that neither Machida nor
Matsumura teaches the limitation. (Br. 13-16.) We are not persuaded that
the Examiner's interpretation is either overbroad or unreasonable, and we
agree with, and adopt as our own, the Examiner's findings regarding the
teachings in Machida and Matsumura. (See Final Act. 4--5; Ans. 2-8, 18;
Machida, Fig. 3, 8:64--9:5; Matsumura, Fig. 19, 5:4--6, 8:21--47, 12:61-
13:4.)
Appellants further contend that because
Matsumura describes a variable length code table (Fig. 19) where
a given code has a different meaning depending on where the
code is used in the bitstream. . . . [Matsumura] does not teach or
suggest the joint coding of claim 1 that uses "a single instance of
a single variable length code" to represent a value combination
for "the value for the switch code, the motion vector information
and the terminal symbol."
(Br. 14--15.) We are not persuaded by this argument. As the Examiner
explains, even though Appellants "point[] to the codeword meaning
something on a block layer[,] the Matsumura reference also gives meaning
on macro block layer as well and therefore meets the claims." (Ans. 18,
5
Appeal2015-000377
Application 10/622,841
emphasis added; see also iviatsumura, 14:23-30.) Furthermore, even if a
given code has a different meaning depending on where the code is used in
the bitstream, the information is nevertheless still coded in the bitstream.
Claim 51
Appellants further contend that neither Machida nor Matsumura
teaches "the motion information comprises motion vector information for a
differential motion vector for the macroblock," as recited in claim 51. Here,
the Examiner points to column 8, lines 30-40, of Machida as satisfying the
limitation of these claims:
... [t]he prediction error calculating means 303 calculates the
difference of the macro block of the entered present frame and
the output of the predicted image combining means 315 in the
pixel unit, and issues as prediction error ... this prediction error
... are entered into the intra/inter judging means 304 ...
(emphasis added; see Final Act. 7.) Appellants do not point to any error in
Examiner's findings other than arguing that the "section of Machida cited by
the Examiner only describes computing a prediction error for the
macroblock, and does not mention motion vector differential information."
(Br. 16-17.) The crux of Appellants' argument is that the cited portions of
Machida do not recite the claim language. (See Br. 17 .) Appellants do not
explain why the Examiner erred in equating "computing a prediction error
for the macro block" with "motion vector differential information." Thus,
we are not persuaded the Examiner erred.
As discussed above, because we are not persuaded by Appellants'
contentions with respect to claims 1 and 51, we sustain the rejections of
claim 1, other independent claims 5, 48, 69, 70, 71, and 82, as well as
6
Appeal2015-000377
Application 10/622,841
dependent claims 6, 52, 53, 73-75, 78-81, 83, and 84, which are not argued
separately.
Claims 4, 9, 49, 50, 72, and 73
Machida In View Of Matsumura, Shimada, Sugimoto, or Tsukagoshi
Appellants do not make any separate, substantive patentability
arguments regarding dependent claims 4, 9, 49-50, and 72-73, but instead
rely solely on their arguments with respect to independent claims 1, 48, and
71. Accordingly, we also sustain the Examiner's rejection of dependent
claims 4, 9, 49-50, and 72-73.
Claims 65 and 66
Machida In View Of Matsumura And Official Notice
Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting dependent
claims 65 and 66 for the reasons discussed above regarding independent
claim 48. (Br. 19-20) For the reasons discussed above, we are not
persuaded by Appellants' contention.
Appellants further contend that the "features that the Examiner cites
as being well-known in the art do not relate to variable length coding and
decoding of motion information, and they are even further from teaching or
suggesting decoding of a code that reflects joint encoding as recited in claim
48." (Br. 20.) Claim 65 recites:
The method of claim 48 wherein the macro block includes four
blocks each comprising an 8x8 array of luminance pixels, and
four blocks each comprising a 4x8 array of chrominance pixels.
Claim 66 similarly recites:
The method of claim 48 wherein the macro block includes four
blocks each comprising an 8x8 array of luminance pixels, and
four blocks each comprising an 8x8 array of chrominance
pixels.
7
Appeal2015-000377
Application 10/622,841
The Examiner finds that iviachida does not teach applying "different coding
methods to different formats of the luminance and chrominance signals"
(claims 65 and 66) but
it would have been obvious for one having skill in the art at the
time of the invention to modify the invention of Pur[i] with the
well known of [sic] art of applying a coding method with
different formats of the luminance and chrominance signal
[whereby t ]he advantage is that the coding system applies to a
wider range of video formats that are used today.
(Final Act. 14.) We agree with the Examiner's findings. See KSR Int'! Co.,
v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007) ("The combination of familiar
elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does
no more than yield predictable results"). Therefore, we sustain the
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims 65 and 66.
Claims 7, 8, 10, 54, 5 6-60, 64, and 85---88
Machida In View Of Matsumura And Puri
,LA~ppellants contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting dependent
claims 7, 8, 10, 54, 56---60, 64, and 85-88 for the reasons discussed above
regarding independent claims 1, 5, 48, and 82. (Br. 20-21.) As discussed
above, we are not persuaded by Appellants' contention.
With regard to claim 54, Appellants further contend that the Examiner
erred in relying on:
Puri's description of a block classification signal (col. 12, lines
60-67) as describing the terminal symbol language [because the]
block classification signal of Puri appears to indicate whether
inter or intra coding is used [and] does not indicate a "terminal
symbol indicating whether transform coefficient data is encoded
for the macro block in a bit stream," as recited by claim 1 (or the
similar terminal symbol language of claims 5, 48, and 82).
8
Appeal2015-000377
Application 10/622,841
(Br. 20.) Claim 54 recites that "determmmg [whether transform coefficient
data for the macro block is included in the bit stream] is based on the
terminal symbol." The Examiner finds that a "terminal symbol is already
known in the art and commonly used as shown in Pur[i]." (Final Act. 17.)
The Examiner further finds that the block classification signal 43 in Puri is a
terminal symbol and is used to determine whether transform coefficient data
for the macro block is included in the bit stream. (Id.; Puri, 12:60-67 .)
According to Puri:
The block classification signal on line 43 is transmitted to the
buffer 25 by the encoder and multiplexer [24] for insertion into
the output bit stream on line 26. The block classification signal
is used by a decoder to create an image in accordance with the
video input signal on line 10.
(Puri, 13:29--34.) We agree with the Examiner's finding that Puri teaches a
terminal symbol (block classification signal 43) that is used to determine
whether transform coefficient data for the macroblock is included in the bit
stream. Appellants further contend that even if Puri were to disclose
determining whether transform coefficient data for the macro block is included
in the bit stream is based on the terminal symbol, the "cited references still do
not teach or suggest joint coding of the recited elements using a single code."
(Br. 21.) This is similar to the arguments that was addressed above and for
the reasons discussed above, we are not persuaded by Appellants' contentions.
Therefore, we sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims 7, 8, 10, 54,
56-60, 64, and 85-88.
9
Appeal2015-000377
Application 10/622,841
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1, 4--10, 48-54, 56--60,
64--66, 69-75, and 78---88 is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
10