13680636 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 22, 2017)

Ex Parte Wilkins et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 22, 2017

13680636 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 22, 2017)

United States Patent and Trademark Office 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 APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 13/680,636 11/19/2012 Paul Wilkins GOGL-107-C 3981 7590 09/26/201797818 Google Inc. Young Basile Hanlon & MacFarlane P.C. 3001 West Big Beaver Road Suite 624 Troy, MI 48084-3107 EXAMINER PRINCE, JESSICA MARIE ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2486 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/26/2017 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): docketing @ youngbasile. com audit @ youngbasile. com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte PAUL WILKINS, JAMES BANKOSKI, and YAOWU XU Appeal 2017-005977 Application 13/680,636 Technology Center 2400 Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, ERIC B. CHEN, and JEREMY J. CURCURI, Administrative Patent Judges. THOMAS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1—5 and 7—19. Claims 6 and 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form. See Claim Appendix and Final Act. 12. We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. The present invention relates generally to a method for decoding compressed video information. See Abstract. Appeal 2017-005977 Application 13/680,636 Claim 1 is illustrative: 1. A method for decoding compressed video information, comprising: receiving a compressed video stream, the compressed video stream including compressed video information, the compressed video information including a plurality of frames, each frame from the plurality of frames including a plurality of blocks; reading, from the compressed video information, a segment map associating at least some of the plurality of blocks in a first frame of the plurality of frames with at least one segment identifier; reading, from the compressed video information, a current block to be decoded by a decoder; reading, from the segment map, a segment identifier that is associated with the current block; reading, from the compressed video information, at least one segment parameter associated with the segment identifier that is associated with the current block; decoding, by a processor in response to instructions stored on a non- transitory computer readable medium, the current block using the at least one segment parameter associated with the segment identifier that is associated with the current block; and outputting the decoded current block for presentation. Appellants appeal the following rejections: Rl. Claims 1, 7, 8, 10, and 16—18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Prakash (US 7,085,319 B2, Aug. 1, 2006); R2. Claims 2—5, 9, 11, 12, 14, 15, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Prakash and Sethuraman (US 2002/0034245 Al, Mar. 21, 2002); R3. Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Prakash and Jang (US 2009/0161767 Al, June 25, 2009). We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues identified by Appellants, and in light of the arguments and evidence 2 Appeal 2017-005977 Application 13/680,636 produced thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential). ANALYSIS Issue: Did the Examiner err in finding that Prakash discloses a “segment map associating at least some of the plurality of block . . . with at least one segment identifier,” as set forth in claim 1? We have reviewed Appellants’ arguments in the Briefs, the Examiner’s rejection, and the Examiner’s response to the Appellants’ arguments. We concur with Appellants’ conclusion that the Examiner erred in finding that Prakash discloses associating blocks in a first frame with at least one segment identifier (see App. Br. 9). The Examiner finds that “since Prakash discloses that the reference frame is segmented with identifiers . . . (exposed areas). . . and Prakash further discloses that the exposed areas can be performed in block-base[d] coding . . . Prakash more than fairly teaches and suggest to apply the teaching of segmentation with block coding/decoding as well” (Ans. 8). In essence, the Examiner concludes that because Prakash discloses a segment-based system that allows areas of the reference frame to be associated with segment identifiers (see Prakash 7:55—57), and also discusses block-based systems as well in various sections {id. at 3:43—51), Prakash teaches/suggests applying identifiers to blocks as well. However, we find that the Examiner’s position, which is based on what is purportedly suggested in the art, is more germane to obviousness determinations — not anticipation. 3 Appeal 2017-005977 Application 13/680,636 Furthermore, we highlight that to establish anticipation, the claimed subject matter must be met by the disclosure of a single embodiment in the disclosure, not by a combination of different embodiments. See Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2008); Karsten Mfg. Corp. v. Cleveland Golf Co., 242 F.3d 1376, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Here, the Examiner has not shown that Prakash’s block-based embodiment associates blocks with segment identifiers, as required by the claims. The Examiner has merely shown that Prakash’s segment-based system uses segment identifiers. Although Prakash discloses that “[t]he exposed area filling process . . . can be used in a segment-based system . . . [and] can also be used in a block-based system” (see Prakash 18:4—11), we find that such a disclosure does not necessarily mean that the block-based system would also use segment identifiers. We find that the Examiner is engaging in speculation and hindsight. It is impermissible to make guesses in an anticipation rejection. Therefore, we find that the Examiner has not set forth a sufficient initial showing of anticipation, and we find that Appellants have shown error in the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of independent claims 1, 10, and 18. Further, the Examiner has not found any of the other references of record, i.e., Sethuraman and Jang, teach this feature. Since we agree with at least one of the arguments advanced by Appellants, we need not reach the merits of Appellants’ other arguments. Accordingly, we will not sustain the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of claims 1, 7, 8, 10, and 16—18; nor the obviousness rejections of claims 2—5, 9, 11—15, and 19. DECISION 4 Appeal 2017-005977 Application 13/680,636 We reverse the Examiner’s § 102(b) and § 103(a) rejections Rl—R3. REVERSED 5