Goedeken, Richard Edwin.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Aug 21, 2020

14008366 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Aug. 21, 2020)

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.
14/008,366 09/27/2013 Richard Edwin Goedeken PU100075-US 2706
12905 7590 08/21/2020
Jack Schwartz & Associates, PLLC
6165 Jericho Turnpike
Commack, NY 11725
EXAMINER
ITSKOVICH, MIKHAIL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2483
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/21/2020 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):
jack@jschwartzesq.com
pat.verlangieri@technicolor.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte RICHARD EDWIN GOEDEKEN
Appeal 2019-001471
Application 14/008,366
Technology Center 2400
Before: JAMES R. HUGHES, MICHAEL M. BARRY, and
SCOTT RAEVSKY, Administrative Patent Judges.
HUGHES, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Claims 1 and 3–20 are pending, stand rejected, are appealed by
Appellant,1 and are the subject of our decision under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a).
See Final Act. 1; Appeal Br. 2.2 We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).

1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Thomson
Licensing. Appeal Br. 2.
2 Throughout our decision we refer to Appellant’s Specification (“Spec.”)
filed Sept. 27, 2013 (claiming benefit of PCT/US2011/000578, filed Mar.
31, 2011); Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.”) filed Sept. 14, 2018; Supplemental
Appeal Brief (“Supp. Appeal Br.”) filed Oct. 4, 2018; and Reply Brief
(“Reply Br.”) filed Dec. 10, 2018. We also refer to the Examiner’s Final
Appeal 2019-001471
Application 14/008,366

2
We REVERSE.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The invention “generally relates to video data decoders and encoders,
and more particularly to techniques for optimizing such decoders and
encoders” (Spec. 1:5–6) and, more specifically, decoding according to the
H.264 standard using the context-adaptive binary data arithmetic coding
(CABAC) process. Spec. 1:9–3:11; Abstract. Claims 1 (reciting a method
for decoding), 12 (reciting a computer readable medium), and 13 (reciting a
video data decoder apparatus) are independent. Claim 1, reproduced below,
is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method for decoding transform coefficients,
comprising:
[A] decoding consecutive bits of an input compressed
bitstream using a CABAC decoder, said decoding comprising
computing a minimum number of consecutive most probable
symbol bits, wherein said minimum number of consecutive most
probable symbol bits, mpbits, being greater or equal to two,
wherein mpbits=(range - offset - l )/subrange, wherein range and
offset define a range and offset of a current state of the CABAC
decoder, and the subrange is calculated using the range and
context values of the current state of the CABAC decoder, and
said decoding further comprising determining a decoded value of
said consecutive bits according to said minimum number of
consecutive most probable symbol bits;
[B] computing a first symbol value by adding one to the
decoded value of said consecutive bits; and one of
[C] returning the first symbol value, if a total number of
the decoded bits is less than a specified bit count; and
[D] computing a second symbol value as a function of
the first symbol value, if the total number of the decoded bits

Office Action (“Final Act.”) mailed Apr. 16, 2018 and Answer (“Ans.”)
mailed Oct. 31, 2018.
Appeal 2019-001471
Application 14/008,366

3
equals the specified bit count, and returning the second symbol
value, wherein determining said decoded value further
comprises, for the minimum number of consecutive most
probable symbol bits, decoding most probable symbol bits with
a same CABAC context and without checking the value of each
most probable symbol bit.
Appeal Br. 23 (Claims App.) (bracketed claim limitation designations
added).
REJECTIONS3
1. The Examiner rejects claims 1 and 3–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 101
as being directed to patent-ineligible subject matter. See Final Act. 4–7.
2. The Examiner rejects claims 1 and 3–12 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art
(“AAPA”) and Wei Yu et al., A High Performance CABAC Decoding
Architecture, Vol. 51, No. 4, 1352–59, IEEE Transactions on Consumer
Electronics, Nov. 2005 (“Yu”). See Final Act. 8–16.
3. The Examiner rejects claims 13–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over AAPA, Yu, and Shim et al. (US 2007/0009047 A1),
filed Jan. 11, 2007 (“Shim”). See Final Act. 16–17.
ANALYSIS
Subject Matter Eligibility—35 U.S.C. § 101
Under 35 U.S.C. § 101, a patent may be obtained for “any new and
useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new

3 The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”), Pub. L. No. 112–29, 125
Stat. 284 (2011), amended 35 U.S.C. § 103. Because the present application
has an effective filing date (Mar. 31, 2011) prior to the AIA’s effective date,
this decision refers 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Appeal 2019-001471
Application 14/008,366

4
and useful improvement thereof.” The Supreme Court has “long held that
this provision contains an important implicit exception: Laws of nature,
natural phenomena, and abstract ideas are not patentable.” Alice Corp. Pty.
Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 216 (2014) (quoting Association for
Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 569 U.S. 576, 589 (2013)).
The Supreme Court, in Alice, reiterated the two-step framework
previously set forth in Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc.,
566 U.S. 66, 77–80 (2012). “[F]or distinguishing patents that claim laws of
nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that claim patent-
eligible applications of those concepts.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 217. The
framework requires us first to consider “whether the claims at issue are
directed to one of those patent-ineligible concepts.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 217.
If so, we then examine “the elements of [the] claim both individually and ‘as
an ordered combination’ to determine whether the additional elements
‘transform the nature of the claim’ into a patent-eligible application.” Alice,
573 U.S. at 217 (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 78, 79). That is, we examine the
claim for an “inventive concept,” “an element or combination of elements
that is ‘sufficient to ensure that the patent in practice amounts to
significantly more than a patent upon the [ineligible concept] itself.’” Alice,
573 U.S. at 217–18 (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72–73).
The Patent Office has published revised guidance concerning this
framework and the application of § 101. USPTO’s 2019 Revised Patent
Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (Jan. 7, 2019)
(hereinafter “2019 Revised Guidance”). Under that guidance, we first look
to whether the claim recites:
Appeal 2019-001471
Application 14/008,366

5
(1) any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of
abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, mental processes, or
certain methods of organizing human activity such as a
fundamental economic practice or managing personal behavior
or relationships or interactions between people) (hereinafter
“Step 2A, prong 1”); and
(2) additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into
a practical application (see MPEP § 2106.05(a)–(c), (e)–(h))
(hereinafter “Step 2A, prong 2”).4
See 2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 51–52, 55.
A claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application
applies, relies on, or uses the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a
meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a
drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception. See 2019
Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 54. When the judicial exception is so
integrated, then the claim is not directed to a judicial exception and is patent
eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. See 2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg.
54.
Only if a claim (1) recites a judicial exception and (2) does not
integrate that exception into a practical application, do we then evaluate
whether the claim provides an inventive concept. See 2019 Revised
Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 56; see also Alice, 573 U.S. at 217–18.
For example, we look to whether the claim:
(3) adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that
is not “well-understood, routine, conventional” in the field (see
MPEP § 2106.05(d)); or

4 All references to the MPEP are to the Ninth Edition, Revision 08–2017
(rev. Jan. 2018).
Appeal 2019-001471
Application 14/008,366

6
(4) simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional
activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high
level of generality, to the judicial exception.5
See 2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 56.
With these principles in mind, we turn to the merits of the § 101
rejection. The Examiner rejects Appellant’s claims 1 and 3–20 as being
directed to patent-ineligible subject matter. See Final Act. 4–7; Ans. 5–6, 8–
12. Appellant does not separately argue the claims with specificity and,
instead, argues the claims together for this rejection. See Appeal Br. 9–13.
Accordingly, we address the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1
and the claims not separately argued by Appellant as a group based on claim
1, as permitted by 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2018). We further address
the rejection of Appellant’s claim 1 with respect to whether the claim recites
a judicial exception (an abstract idea), which is dispositive of the patent-
eligibility issue.
Statutory Subject Matter
Claim 1 recites a “method” (supra). Appellant’s “method” uses a
CABAC decoder to perform the delineated functionality for decoding
transform coefficients. Appeal Br. 23 (Claims App.) (claim 1).
Accordingly, we analyze Appellant’s method as a process, which is a
statutory category of invention (subject matter) (USPTO’s Step 1).

5 Items (3) and (4) are collectively referred to as “Step 2B” hereinafter and
in the 2019 Revised Guidance.
Appeal 2019-001471
Application 14/008,366

7
Abstract Idea
The Examiner rejects Appellant’s claim 1 as being directed to patent-
ineligible subject matter. See Final Act. 4–7; Ans. 5–6, 8–12. Specifically,
the Examiner concludes claim 1 and Appellant’s other pending claims
“appear to be directed toward an abstract idea”—“conversion of numerical
information based on a count of a number of bits and comparison to pre-
specified values, in the context of processing video data” similar to
RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., Ltd., 855 F.3d 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2017)
and Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 67 (1972). Final Act. 5. The
Examiner further explains “the present claims are directed entirely to
mathematically processing data (computing a symbol value by counting the
number of bits in the symbol) without application to particular
transformative methodology or even to a specific field of use” (Ans. 5), and
this “abstract idea (formula / calculation of a number of bits) combined with
a well-established abstract idea (CABAC algorithm that calculates a number
of bits) is still . . . an abstract idea and it is not eligible under section 101”
(Ans. 6). See Ans. 5–6.
Appellant contends the Examiner erred in rejecting the claims as
being directed to patent-ineligible subject matter. See Appeal Br. 8–13;
Reply Br. 3–5. Specifically, Appellant contends, inter alia, that “claim 1 is
directed to a method of optimizing decoding transform coefficients by
accelerating the execution of a CABAC decoding process using a CABAC
decoder” (Appeal Br. 9) and “[t]he features of claim[] 1 . . . provide
improvements in the functioning of a decoder device itself over the prior art
and thus should not be considered an abstract idea” (Appeal Br. 10).
Appellant further explains that the “context used by the CABAC decoder” is
Appeal 2019-001471
Application 14/008,366

8
“tightly linked to the type of encoded data” and, therefore, “contrary to the
assertion in the Examiner’s Answer, is not a pure mathematic
solution/abstract idea.” Reply Br. 3–4.
We conclude Appellant’s claim 1 (and, therefore, the other pending
claims) recite abstract ideas under the 2019 Revised Guidance, as follows.
Claim 1 (Appeal Br. 23 (Claims App.)) recites “decoding transform
coefficients” by “decoding consecutive bits of an input compressed
bitstream using a CABAC decoder,” where the decoding comprises
“computing a minimum number of consecutive most probable symbol bits”
and wherein the minimum number of consecutive most probable symbol bits
(“mpbits”) is determined as “being greater or equal to two,” using an
algorithm, and the “decoding further comprising determining a decoded
value of said consecutive bits according to said minimum number of
consecutive most probable symbol bits” (limitation A). The algorithm of
limitation A is defined as: “mpbits=(range - offset - l )/subrange, wherein
range and offset define a range and offset of a current state of the CABAC
decoder, and the subrange is calculated using the range and context values of
the current state of the CABAC decoder.” Claim 1 further recites
“computing a first symbol value by adding one to the decoded value of said
consecutive bits” (limitation B) and “returning the first symbol value, if a
total number of the decoded bits is less than a specified bit count” (limitation
C). Alternately, instead of returning the first symbol value, the decoding
may comprise “computing a second symbol value as a function of the first
symbol value, if the total number of the decoded bits equals the specified bit
count” and “returning the [computed] second symbol value.” And, the
determining of the “decoded value further comprises, for the minimum
Appeal 2019-001471
Application 14/008,366

9
number of consecutive most probable symbol bits, decoding most probable
symbol bits with a same CABAC context and without checking the value of
each most probable symbol bit” (limitation D).
In summary, claim 1 recites a process of decoding transform
coefficients by computing various values contingent on various computation
results. Hereinafter, we refer to this process as the “transform coefficient
decoding process.”
Appellant contends that the decoding process uses the state of the
CABAC decoder, that the context used in the decoding process is dependent
on the encoded data and, accordingly, the process is not entirely
mathematical—i.e., using a CABAC decoder “is not a pure mathematic
solution” (Reply Br. 3). See Reply Br. 3–4. We disagree. Appellant’s claim
1 requires calculations that are contingent on other calculations—“the
subrange is calculated using the range and context values of the current state
of the CABAC decoder” (limitation A), “computing a first symbol value”
but “returning the first symbol value” only if “a total number of the decoded
bits is less than a specified bit count” (limitations B and C), or instead
“computing a second symbol value” “and returning the second symbol
value” “if the total number of the decoded bits equals the specified bit
count” (limitation D). Although some non-mathematical operations are
recited (the claim does not recite only an abstract algorithm and
calculations)—for example, inputting the CABAC decoder state (including
the context, range, and offset)—the majority of the recited
operations/functions are mathematical concepts and the focus of the claim is
to decoding (an abstract mathematical concept). See RecogniCorp, 855 F.3d
at 1326 (“standard encoding and decoding” are “an abstract concept”).
Appeal 2019-001471
Application 14/008,366

10
As set forth in the USPTO’s October 2019 Update: Subject Matter
Eligibility, § II.A (available at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/
files/documents/peg_oct_2019_update.pdf) (“October 2019 Update”), a
“claim recites a mathematical concept” when it recites a “mathematical
relationship,” a mathematical “formula or equation” (e.g., an algorithm), or
“a mathematical calculation.” October 2019 Update 2–3. A “claim does not
recite a mathematical concept (i.e., the claim limitations do not fall within
the mathematical concept grouping), if it is only based on or involves a
mathematical concept.” October 2019 Update 3 (citing Thales Visionix Inc.
v. U.S., 850 F.3d 1343, 1348–49 (Fed. Cir. 2017)). Here, however, unlike
the claims in Thales, Appellant’s claim 1 recites only incidental data
acquisition (inputting the state of the CABAC decoder) to make the recited
calculations. See Thales, 850 F.3d at 1348–49. Appellant’s claim 1
calculates mbits using the delineated algorithm, compares (performs
functionality that evaluates the mathematical relationship between) the total
number of decoded bits and the specified bit count (i.e., determines if the
decoded bits are “less than” or “equal to” the specified bit count), and
returns either the first or second symbol based on the result.
Thus, Appellant’s claim 1 (as well as the other pending claims)
recites mathematical concepts.
In summary, we conclude Appellant’s claim 1 recites a judicial
exception (USPTO’s Step 2A, Prong 1; see 2019 Revised Guidance).
Specifically, claim 1 recites a process of decoding transform coefficients—
the transform coefficient decoding process—by decoding consecutive bits of
an input compressed bitstream using a CABAC decoder, computing symbol
values, and returning the a particular symbol value based on a comparison of
Appeal 2019-001471
Application 14/008,366

11
the total number of the decoded bits and a specified bit count, as discussed
supra. The transform coefficient decoding process recites mathematical
concepts. See 2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 52.
Practical Application
Having determined that Appellant’s claim 1 recites an abstract idea,
we next determine, under Step 2A, Prong 2 of the 2019 Revised Guidance,
whether the claims are directed to that abstract idea, or whether the claims
integrate the abstract idea into a practical application of that abstract idea.
See 2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 54. In doing so, we evaluate the
claim as a whole to determine whether the claim “integrate[s] the [abstract
idea] into a practical application, using one or more of the considerations
laid out by the Supreme Court and the Federal Circuit.” 2019 Revised
Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 55; see also October 2019 Update 12 (discussing the
practical application analysis). That is, we consider any additional elements
recited in the claim along with the limitations that recite an abstract idea to
determine whether the claim integrates the abstract idea into a practical
application. See October 2019 Update 12.
Claim 1 recites an additional element beyond the abstract transform
coefficient decoding process (the judicial exception). The additional
element in claim 1 includes a “CABAC decoder.” Appeal Br. 23 (Claims
App.) (claim 1).
Appellant’s Specification describes “context-adaptive binary data
arithmetic coding (CABAC)” (Spec. 1:19) and performing the “CABAC
decoding process . . . during the transform coefficients decoding process”
(Spec. 1:25–26) “by running a loop on a general-purpose CABAC bit
Appeal 2019-001471
Application 14/008,366

12
decoding function until a specified bit count . . . is encountered (Spec. 2:5–
6).
Appellant characterizes the recited transform coefficient decoding
process as a technical improvement over existing decoding functionality and
contends claim 1 (as well as the other pending claims) “provide
improvements in the functioning of a decoder device itself over the prior art
and thus should not be considered an abstract idea.” Appeal Br. 10; see
Appeal Br. 9–12; Reply Br. 4–5. In other words, Appellant contends the
claims recite a technological improvement that amounts to more than simply
utilizing a computer as a tool to accomplish the asset management process.
Appellant’s contentions correspond to the reasoning in MPEP § 2106.05(a),
where additional elements integrate the judicial exception into a practical
application.
We find Appellant’s contentions, i.e., that the claim integrates the
abstract idea into a practical application, persuasive. As explained by
Appellant (see Appeal Br. 9–12) and described in Appellant’s Specification
(see Spec. 4:11–22; 4:29–5:6), the transform coefficient decoding process of
claim 1 includes additional functionality beyond the standard CABAC
decoding function (supra). “In order to speed-up the decoding process, the
present claimed arrangement advances the state machine of the CABAC
decoder for several consecutive bits having the same value in the received
bitstream.” “Hence, instead of handling explicitly each bit by
calling/executing a decoding function, [the recited transform coefficients
decoding process] handle[s] several consecutive bits of the bitstream via the
calling of one function.” Appeal Br. 10.
Appeal 2019-001471
Application 14/008,366

13
Although Appellant’s claim 1 recites abstract mathematical concepts
(supra) and standard CABAC decoder functionality, when evaluated as a
whole the claim integrates the abstract transform coefficient decoding
process into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful
limit on the judicial exception, such that it is more than a drafting effort
designed to monopolize the exception. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 221–24 (citing
Mayo, 566 U.S. at 78–85); Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 55.
Appellant’s claim 1 (and the other pending claims) are similar to the
patent-eligible claims in McRO directed to “a specific means or method that
improves the relevant technology” (McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games
Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2016)).
Although Appellant’s claim 1 involves “standard encoding and
decoding, an abstract concept long utilized to transmit information”
(RecogniCorp, 855 F.3d at 1326), the claim recites a specific
implementation of decoding using a CABAC decoder, also using the current
state information from the CABAC decoder, and returning the a particular
symbol value based on a comparison of the total number of the decoded bits
and a specified bit count in order to advance the state of the CABAC
decoder. Thus, Appellant’s claim 1 is also similar to the patent-eligible
claims in Gemalto (Koninklijke KPN NV v. Gemalto M2M GmbH, 942 F.3d
1143 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“Gemalto”)). In Gemalto, the Federal Circuit found
the claims recited “a sufficiently specific implementation . . . of an existing
tool . . . that improves . . . detecting systematic errors in data transmissions.”
Gemalto, 942 F.3d at 1151. “Importantly, the claims do not simply recite,
without more, the mere desired result of catching previously undetectable
systematic errors, but rather recite a specific solution for accomplishing that
Appeal 2019-001471
Application 14/008,366

14
goal—i.e., by varying the way check data is generated by modifying the
permutation applied to different data blocks.” Id. Here, similar to the
claims in Gemalto, Appellant’s claim 1 is “limited to a specific improvement
in computer functionality.” Gemalto, 942 F.3d at 1152.
In summary, we conclude Appellant’s claim 1 recites a judicial
exception, but integrates the judicial exception into a practical application.
Accordingly, Appellant’s claim 1 and the other pending claims are not
directed to an abstract idea. For at least the reasons above, we are persuaded
of Examiner error in the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Thus,
we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection under § 101 of independent claim
1, independent claims 12 and 13, which recite commensurate limitations,
and claims 3–11 and 14–20, which depend from claims 1 and 13,
respectively.
Obviousness Rejection of Claims 1 and 3–12
The Examiner rejects independent claim 1 (as well as dependent
claims 3–12) as being obvious over Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art (AAPA)
and Yu. See Final Act. 8–12; Ans. 6–8, 12–15. Appellant contends that the
AAPA and Yu do not teach the disputed limitations of claim 1. See Appeal
Br. 13–19; Reply Br. 5–6. Specifically, Appellant contends, inter alia, that
the AAPA does not teach mbits (most probable symbol bits) or computing
the minimum number of consecutive most probable symbol bits, and Yu
does not teach determining a decoded value of consecutive bits, or more
specifically, determining the minimum number of consecutive most probable
symbol bits. See Reply Br. 5–6.
We agree with Appellant that the Examiner-cited portions of the
AAPA and Yu (see Final Act. 9–12 (citing Spec. 1:9–2:24 and Yu 1353)) do
Appeal 2019-001471
Application 14/008,366

15
not teach or suggest determining the minimum number of consecutive most
probable symbol bits as required by Appellant’s claim 1. See Appeal Br.
14–19; Reply Br. 5–6. The Examiner cites Appellant’s Specification (Spec.
1:9–2:24) for teaching CABAC decoding and the other features of claim 1,
with the exception of computing a minimum number of consecutive most
probable symbol bits (mbits). See Final Act. 8–12; Ans. 6–8, 12–15. The
Examiner relies on Yu (1353) to teach this feature—“Yu teaches the above
claim embodiment in the context of variable length video coding: The state
value is used as an index of the estimated probability value of the least
probable symbol ‘LPS’ with (code register C which marks the lower bound
of the interval[)]” (Final Act. 11; see also Ans. 7–8 (quotation marks and
internal citations omitted). The Examiner cited portion of Yu, however,
describes a least probable symbol, not the minimum number of consecutive
most probable symbol bits (mbits), much less most probable symbol bits
calculated and decoded as recited in claim 1 (computed according to the
algorithm in claim 1 and decoded using the same CABAC context without
checking the value of each bit). The Examiner does not explain sufficiently
how the cited portions of the AAPA in combination with Yu at least suggest
the disputed computation of the minimum number of consecutive most
probable symbol bits and decoding the most probable symbol bits as
required by claim 1.
Consequently, we are constrained by the record before us to find that
the Examiner erred in finding that the combination of AAPA and Yu renders
obvious Appellant’s claim 1. Claims 3–12 depend from and stand with
claim 1.
Appeal 2019-001471
Application 14/008,366

16
Obviousness Rejection of Claims 13–20
The Examiner rejects dependent claims 13–20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being obvious over AAPA, Yu, and Shim. See Final Act. 16–17.
The Examiner does not suggest Shim cures the deficiencies of AAPA
and Yu (supra). Therefore, we reverse the Examiner’s obviousness rejection
of dependent claims 13–20 for the same reasons set forth for claim 1
(supra).
CONCLUSION
For the reasons discussed above, we determine that claims 1 and 3–20
are not directed to an abstract idea. We also determine that claims 1 and 3–
20 are not rendered obvious in view of the cited prior art. Appellant has
shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1 and 3–20 under 35
U.S.C. § 101. Appellant has also shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claims 1 and 3–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). We, therefore, do not sustain
the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 and 3–20.
Appeal 2019-001471
Application 14/008,366

17
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/
Basis
Affirmed Reversed
1, 3–20 101 Patent-
Eligibility
1, 3–20
1, 3–12 103 AAPA, Yu 1, 3–12
13–20 103 AAPA, Yu,
Shim
13–20
Overall
Outcome
1, 3–20
REVERSED