2020001197 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 2, 2021)

Imagination Technologies Limited

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardJul 2, 2021

2020001197 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 2, 2021)

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. 14/823,629 08/11/2015 Steven John Fishwick 2645-0144US02 8639 125968 7590 07/02/2021 Potomac Law Group PLLC (IMGTEC) 8229 Boone Boulevard Suite 430 Vienna, VA 22182 EXAMINER VO, TUNG T ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2425 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 07/02/2021 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): Eofficeaction@appcoll.com Patents@potomaclaw.com vdeluca@potomaclaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte STEVEN JOHN FISHWICK and STEPHEN MORPHET Appeal 2020-001197 Application 14/823,629 Technology Center 2400 Before JASON V. MORGAN, IRVIN E. BRANCH, and PHILLIP A. BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges. BRANCH, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–5. See Final Act. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. 1 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Imagination Technologies Limited. Appeal Br. 1. Appeal 2020-001197 Application 14/823,629 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to object tracking using momentum and acceleration vectors in a motion estimation system. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A method for motion estimation in a sequence of video images, comprising: selecting a best match motion vector for a block in a current video field or frame from a set of candidate motion vectors based on a best match of a candidate motion vector to a block in a previous video field or frame; determining a position in memory corresponding to a block in a next video field or frame by applying the best match vector to the block in the current video field or frame; storing a prediction candidate vector equal to the best match vector at the determined position in memory; and using the stored prediction candidate vector to perform motion estimation in said next video field or frame. REFERENCES AND REJECTIONS The Examiner relies on the following references: Name Reference Date Olivieri US 6,996,175 B1 Feb. 7, 2006 Mellot US 2006/0159177 A1 July 20, 2006 Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis 1–3, 5 102(b) Olivieri 4 102(b) Mellot OPINION Claim 1 recites, in relevant part, “determining a position in memory corresponding to a block in a next video field or frame by applying the best match vector to the block in the current video field or frame; [and] storing a Appeal 2020-001197 Application 14/823,629 3 prediction candidate vector equal to the best match vector at the determined position in memory.” Spec. 14 (emphasis added). Appellant contends: There is no disclosure anywhere in Olivieri of determining any position in memory MEM corresponding to a block in a next video field or frame by applying a best match vector to the block in the current video field or frame, and storing a best match vector at that determined position in memory MEM. Appeal Br. 10 (underlining omitted). The Examiner finds, “Olivieri teaches a memory (MEM of fig. 1) for storing at least four prediction vectors (PV) in the memory (MEM of fig. 1) so the memory inherently has at least four locations for the four prediction vectors.” Ans. 9. We are persuaded that the Examiner errs in rejecting claim 1 as anticipated by Olivieri. Specifically, we do not find an adequate explanation for how any of Olivieri’s four memory locations for storing position vectors correspond to a block in a next video field or frame as required by claim 1. Accordingly, on this record, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 as anticipated by Olivieri or of claim 5, which includes a similar recitation, or of claims 2 and 3, which depend from claim 1. Appellant argues claim 4 on similar grounds, namely “Mellot does not store vectors in a position corresponding to a block in the next field or frame as required by claim 4.” Appeal Br. 12. We agree with Appellant and find the Examiner’s response, that “locations or positions in memory are inherently defined,” unavailing. Like claim 1, claim 4 requires that the position in memorycorrespond to a block in the next video field or frame. That Mellot’s positions in memory are inherently defined does not Appeal 2020-001197 Application 14/823,629 4 persuasively explain how the position in memory corresponds to a block in the next video field or frame. Accordingly, on this record, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 4 as anticipated by Mellot. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1–3, 5 102(b) Olivieri 1–3, 5 4 102(b) Mellot 4 Overall Outcome 1–5 REVERSED