Panasonic Intellectual Property Corporation of America

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jul 27, 2021

2020002492 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 27, 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.
13/652,643 10/16/2012 Toshiyasu SUGIO 2012-5250A 2209
125044 7590 07/27/2021
Wenderoth, Lind & Ponack, L.L.P.
1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW
Suite 500
Washington, DC 20036
EXAMINER
HESS, MICHAEL J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2481
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/27/2021 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):
eoa@wenderoth.com
kmiller@wenderoth.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte TOSHIYASU SUGIO, TAKAHIRO NISHI, YOUJI
SHIBAHARA, KYOKO TANIKAWA, HISAO SASAI, TORU
MATSUNOBU, and KENGO TERADA
____________________

Appeal 2020 -002492
Application 13/652,643
Technology Center 2400
____________________

Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, MARC S. HOFF, and CATHERINE
SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judges.

HOFF, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a Final Rejection of
claims 10, 16−18, 20, and 21.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
Appellant’s invention is a picture coding method. Three derivation
processes are performed in order to derive first, second, and third merging

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as SUN
PATENT TRUST. App. Br.2
2 Claims 1−9, 11−15, and 19 have been cancelled.
Appeal 2020-002492
Application 13/652,643

2
candidates. The first merging candidate includes a candidate set of a first
prediction direction number, a motion vector, and a reference picture index.
A merging candidate is selected from among the first, second, and third
merging candidates. A total number of first merging candidates is selected
so as not to exceed a predetermined number. The second derivation process
is performed when the total number of first merging candidates is less than a
predetermined maximum number of merging candidates. Abstract.
Claim 10 is reproduced below:
10. A picture decoding method for decoding, on a block-by-block
basis, a coded image included in a bitstream, the method comprising:
performing a third derivation process for deriving third merging
candidates, each of the third merging candidates including a candidate
set of a third prediction direction number, a third motion vector, and a
third reference picture index for use in decoding of a current block,
the third motion vector and the third reference picture index being
used for decoding another block, the other block being decoded before
the current block is decoded, and the other block being different from
the current block;
performing a first derivation process for deriving a first
merging candidate which includes a candidate set of a first prediction
direction number which indicates bi-predication, a first motion vector,
a first reference picture index, a fourth motion vector, and a fourth
reference picture index for use in the decoding of the current block,
the first motion vector and the first reference picture index being
included in one of the third merging candidates, the fourth motion
vector and the fourth reference picture index being included in another
one of the third merging candidates;
performing a second derivation process for deriving a second
merging candidate which includes a candidate set of a second
prediction direction number, a second motion vector, and a
second reference picture index for use in the decoding of the current
block, the second motion vector being a zero motion vector;
obtaining an index from the bitstream; and
selecting, based on the obtained index, a merging candidate to
be used in the decoding of the current block from among the first
Appeal 2020-002492
Application 13/652,643

3
merging candidate, the second merging candidate, and the third
merging candidates,
wherein in the performing of a first derivation process, the first
derivation process is performed so that a total number of the first
merging candidates does not exceed a first predetermined number,
the second derivation process is performed when a total number
of the first to third merging candidates is less than a second
predetermined number, the second predetermined number being a
maximum number of the merging candidates, and
the second predetermined number is different from the first
predetermined number when the second derivation process is
performed.

The prior art relied upon by the Examiner as evidence is:
Name Reference Date
Zheng et al. US 2012/0320969 A1 Dec. 20, 2012

Claims 10, 16−18, 20, and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Zheng.
Throughout this decision, we make reference to the Appeal Brief
(“App. Br.,” filed Sept. 23, 2019), the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed
Dec. 9, 2019), and the Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed February 7, 2020) for
their respective details.
ISSUE
Does Provisional Application No. 61/509,007 disclose support for
language in Zheng that suggests the limitation “the first motion vector and
the first reference picture index being included in one of the third merging
candidates, the fourth motion vector and the fourth reference picture index
being included in another one of the third merging candidates”?
Appeal 2020-002492
Application 13/652,643

4
ANALYSIS
Independent claim 10 recites, in pertinent part, “performing a third
derivation process for deriving third motion candidates, each of the third
merging candidates including a candidate set,” and “performing a first
derivation process for deriving a first merging candidate which includes a
candidate set”, “the first motion vector and the first reference picture index
being included in one of the third merging candidates, the fourth motion
vector and the fourth reference picture index being included in another one
of the third merging candidates.” Independent claim 18 recites an analogous
limitation. Appellant argues, and the Examiner does not contest, that this
claim limitation recites that one candidate motion vector is derived from
multiple spatially neighboring blocks. Appeal Br. 6.
The Examiner rejected the claims as being obvious over Zheng. Final
Act. 4. Zheng has a United States filing date of June 4, 2012, later than
Appellant’s priority date of October 19, 2011. Zheng claims priority to three
provisional applications: 61/499,114, filed June 20, 2011; 61/506,558, filed
July 11, 2011; and 61/509,007, filed July 18, 2011.
The Examiner cited Zheng as teaching the disputed limitation, and
finds that the ‘007 Application discloses support for the paragraphs of Zheng
relied upon. Ans. 8. The Examiner cited to Zheng as being “drawn to
merging motion information from neighboring blocks.” Ans. 9. “Paragraphs
[0047] and [0048] explain that rather than directly signaling three pieces of
information that constitute motion information, i.e. the motion vector (mv),
reference frame index (refldx), and prediction direction (pred_dir), a merge
mode advantageously signals a single piece of information, i.e. an index.
According to paragraph [0048], merge mode builds a set of candidate
Appeal 2020-002492
Application 13/652,643

5
motion predictions, and from that set, the encoder selects a best prediction.
The encoder signals that choice to the decoder in the form of an index into
the candidate set.” Id.; Zheng ¶¶ 47, 48.
The Examiner next finds that the ‘007 application “similarly explains
motion information is made up of mv, refldx, and pred_dir and explains how
merge mode reduces the information needed to transmit such predictions to a
single candidate index value.” ‘007 Application, ¶ 5.
The ‘007 Application discloses that “in MRG mode, a candidate set is
also built by including the spatial and temporal neighboring blocks . . . .
Figure 2 shows an example of the neighboring blocks that are included by
the candidate set of MRG mode.” Id. The Examiner then finds that the
provisional application describes “deriving a candidate set from multiple
neighboring blocks” and “selecting a single candidate (from the set)
represented by a single spatially neighboring block.” Ans. 10.
Appellant argues that the Examiner confuses the term “candidate set”
as used in the ‘007 Application with the claim language “deriving a first
merging candidate which includes a candidate set.” Reply Br. 3. Appellant
responds that the ‘007 Application discloses that “motion vector candidates
will be found from the neighboring blocks that match the reference list . . .
and reference index. . . . For example, the candidate set includes at most
three candidates, the left one is the first refIdx and refList matched block at
left along the search direction, the top one is the first refIdx matched block at
top along the search direction, and one temporal one with the same refIdx as
shown in Figure 1.” Reply Br. 3; ‘007 Application ¶ 4.
Appellant argues, and we agree, that the “candidate set” of the ‘007
Application refers to a set of distinct candidates, and that each distinct
Appeal 2020-002492
Application 13/652,643

6
candidate of the disclosed “candidate set” is derived from only one
neighboring block – either the block at left along the search direction, the
block at top along the search direction, or the temporal block with the same
refIdx. Reply Br. 3−4. Thus, we find that the ‘007 Application does not
provide support for a system in which a (single) candidate motion vector is
derived from multiple spatially neighboring blocks. As a result, Zheng is not
entitled to the benefit of the ‘007 Application’s 2011 filing date concerning
the disputed limitation. For essentially the reasons argued by Appellant, as
discussed above, , we do not sustain the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of
claims 10, 16−18, 20, and 21.
CONCLUSION
Provisional Application No. 61/509,007 does not disclose support for
language in Zheng that suggests the limitation “the first motion vector and
the first reference picture index being included in one of the third merging
candidates, the fourth motion vector and the fourth reference picture index
being included in another one of the third merging candidates.”
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/
Basis
Affirmed Reversed
10, 16−18,
20, 21
103 Zheng 10, 16−18,
20, 21

ORDER
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 10, 16−18, 20, and 21 is
reversed.

Appeal 2020-002492
Application 13/652,643

7
REVERSED