Hyung Joon. Kim

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 2, 2020

13542171 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Sep. 2, 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.
13/542,171 07/05/2012 Hyung Joon Kim TI-70570 8228
23494 7590 09/02/2020
TEXAS INSTRUMENTS INCORPORATED
P O BOX 655474, MS 3999
DALLAS, TX 75265
EXAMINER
BELAI, NAOD W
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2481
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/02/2020 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):
uspto@ti.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte HYUNG JOON KIM
____________________

Appeal 2019-000624
Application 13/542,1711
Technology Center 2400
____________________

Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, MARC S. HOFF, and
JOHN P. PINKERTON, Administrative Patent Judges.

HOFF, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a final rejection of
claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 11, and 12.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
Appellant’s invention is a method and apparatus for image data
transfer. The method includes performing pre-analysis on a reduced version

1 The term “Appellant” is used herein to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant states the real party in interest is Texas Instruments
Incorporated. Appeal Br. 2.
2 Claims 2, 4, 7–10, and 13 have been cancelled.
Appeal 2019-000624
Application 13/542,171

2
of an image, and using the predictions from the pre-analysis to reduce the
amount of data transfer required. See Spec. ¶¶ 3–5.
Claim 1 is exemplary of the claims on appeal:
1. A method comprising:
performing, with a digital processor having an internal
memory, motion estimation on a decimated version of a frame
to generate a first set of motion vectors based on a first set of
search areas;
determining, with the digital processor, a second set of
search areas for a plurality of blocks in an original resolution of
the frame based on the first set of motion vectors, the second set
of search areas being different than the first set of search areas;
transferring reference data from an external memory to
the internal memory of the digital processor based on the
second set of search areas; and performing, with the digital
processor, motion estimation for the original resolution of the
frame based on the second set of search areas and the
transferred reference data to generate a second set of motion
vectors.

Appeal Br. 13 (Claims Appendix).

The Examiner relies upon the following prior art in rejecting the
claims on appeal:
Suzuki et al. US 2006/0188021 Al Aug. 24, 2006
Li et al. US 2008/0212679 Al Sept. 4, 2008
Bossen et al. US 2011/0080954 Al Apr. 7, 2011
Au et al. US 2011/0293012 Al Dec. 1, 2011

Claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 11, and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)
as being anticipated by Suzuki.
Appeal 2019-000624
Application 13/542,171

3
Claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 11, and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a)
or 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph (pre-AIA), as failing to comply with the
written description requirement. Final Act. 2.
Throughout this decision, we make reference to the Appeal Brief
(“Appeal Br.,” filed Apr. 24, 2018), the Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed Oct.
2, 2018), and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed Aug. 1, 2018) for their
respective details.

ISSUES
Appellant’s arguments present us with the following issues:
1. Does Suzuki teach determining a second set of search areas for a
plurality of blocks, the second set of search areas being based on the first set
of motion vectors?
2. Does the specification provide support for the claimed first set of
search areas and second set of search areas?
PRINCIPLES OF LAW
“A rejection for anticipation under section 102 requires that each and
every limitation of the claimed invention be disclosed in a single prior art
reference.” See In re Buszard, 504 F.3d 1364, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2007)
(quoting In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1478-79 (Fed. Cir. 1994)).
Anticipation of a claim requires a finding that the claim at issue reads on a
prior art reference. Atlas Powder Co. v. IRECO, Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1346
(Fed. Cir. 1999) (quoting Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775,
781 (Fed. Cir. 1985)).
Under the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112, the
disclosure of the application relied upon must reasonably convey to one of
Appeal 2019-000624
Application 13/542,171

4
ordinary skill in the art that, as of the filing date of the application, the
inventor had possession of the later-claimed subject matter. Vas-Cath Inc. v.
Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1563 (Fed. Cir. 1991). “One shows that one is
‘in possession’ of the invention by describing the invention, with all its
claimed limitations, not that which makes it obvious.” Lockwood v.
American Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (emphasis in
original).

ANALYSIS
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)
Independent claims 1 and 3 recite, inter alia, generating a first set of
motion vectors based on a first set of search areas; determining a second set
of search areas being different than the first set of search areas; and
transferring reference data from an external memory to the internal memory
of the digital processor based on the second set of search areas.
The Examiner finds that determining a second set of search areas
based on a first set of motion vectors is taught by Suzuki. Ans. 10. The
Examiner finds that Suzuki teaches, first, detecting an “approximate motion
vector” using reduced images. Ans. 10; Suzuki ¶ 40. The Examiner then
finds that Suzuki teaches acquiring the original image search region “with
reference to the approximate motion vector.” Id. Thus, the Examiner
reasons, acquisition of the original image search region, with reference to the
approximate motion vector, occurs before “detecting the motion vector.” Id.
Appellant argues, and we agree, that Suzuki does not teach acquiring
search region 64a based on the approximate motion vector of Suzuki. Reply
Br. 2. We agree with Appellant that the phrase “with reference to the
Appeal 2019-000624
Application 13/542,171

5
approximate motion vector” relates to the detection of the motion vector, not
to the acquisition of the predetermined search region, which occurs prior to
the determination of the approximate motion vector. Id. Other examples of
Suzuki’s use of this phrase support Appellant’s understanding. “A rough
motion vector (which will be referred to as an ‘approximate motion vector’
hereafter) at a low resolution is detected based upon the reduced image.
Subsequently, the motion vector is detected based upon the original image at
a high resolution with reference to the approximate motion vector.” Suzuki
¶ 32. “[F]irst, the approximate motion vector is detected based upon a
reduced image at a low resolution. Then, the motion vector is detected based
upon the image at a high resolution with reference to the approximate
motion vector.” Suzuki ¶ 38.
Suzuki also makes clear that region 64a “is set to the search region”
before the reduced images are created. Suzuki ¶¶ 39, 40. In the description
of the “detection procedure for the motion vector according to the present
embodiment,” the first step is that “a reduced image of the search region 64a
is created.” Suzuki ¶ 42. Necessarily, then, search region 64a is established
before the reduced image is created.
We find that the Examiner erred in finding that search region 64a
corresponds to the claimed “second set of search areas” because search
region 64a is not “based on the first set of motion vectors.” Therefore, the
Examiner erred in finding that Suzuki teaches all the limitations of
Appeal 2019-000624
Application 13/542,171

6
independent claims 1 and 3. We do not sustain the § 102(e) rejection of
claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 11, and 12 as being anticipated by Suzuki.

Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112
Appellant argues that the Examiner erred in rejecting the claims as
failing to provide written description support for the claimed “first set of
search areas” and “second set of search areas.” Appeal Br. 11; Final Act. 2.
Appellant points to paragraph 17 as support for “first set of search areas”
and to paragraph 18 as support for “second set of search areas.” Id.
We agree with Appellant. The Specification describes that a “search
area on 4:1 domain can be determined based on available data transfer
bandwidth and internal memory use.” Spec. ¶ 17. Appellant’s Specification
further describes a “[s]earch area on 1:1 domain [that] is determined for each
16x16 block using crude motion vector.” Spec. ¶ 18.
We find that the Specification conveys to one of ordinary skill in the
art that, as of the filing date of the application, Appellant had possession of
the claimed subject matter. Vas-Cath, 935 F.2d at 1563. We do not sustain
the Examiner’s § 112 rejection of the claims.

CONCLUSIONS
1. Suzuki does not teach determining a second set of search areas for a
plurality of blocks, the second set of search areas being based on the first set
of motion vectors.
2. The specification provides support for the claimed first set of search
areas and second set of search areas.

Appeal 2019-000624
Application 13/542,171

7
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/
Basis
Affirmed Reversed
1, 3, 5, 6, 11,
and 12
112 Written
description
1, 3, 5, 6, 11,
and 12
1, 3, 5, 6, 11,
and 12
102(e) Suzuki 1, 3, 5, 6, 11,
and 12
Overall
Outcome

1, 3, 5, 6, 11,
12

ORDER
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 11, and 12 is
reversed.

REVERSED