SONY CORPORATIONDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardAug 30, 20212021001842 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 30, 2021) Copy Citation 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. 14/902,266 12/30/2015 James Alexander GAMEI 463901US8X PCT 2604 22850 7590 08/30/2021 OBLON, MCCLELLAND, MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. 1940 DUKE STREET ALEXANDRIA, VA 22314 EXAMINER ITSKOVICH, MIKHAIL ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2483 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/30/2021 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): OBLONPAT@OBLON.COM iahmadi@oblon.com patentdocket@oblon.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ________________ Ex parte JAMES ALEXANDER GAMEI and KARL JAMES SHARMAN ________________ Appeal 2021-001842 Application 14/902,266 Technology Center 2400 ________________ Before BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, JASON V. MORGAN, and DAVID J. CUTITTA II, Administrative Patent Judges. MORGAN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 2, 4–21, and 25–29.1 Claims 3 and 22–24 are canceled. Appeal Br. 18, 22 (Claims App’x). An oral hearing was held July 21, 2021, and a transcript of the hearing has been added to the record. 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 Sony Corporation as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 1. Appeal 2021-001842 Application 14/902,266 2 SUMMARY OF THE DISCLOSURE Appellant’s claimed subject matter relates to a process of encoding data based on Golomb-Rice coding wherein a parameter for the Golomb- Rice coding is varied based on the data that is encoded. Spec. 63–66. ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM Illustrative claim 1 reproduced below (disputed limitations emphasized and bracketing added). 1. A data decoding method for decoding an input data stream representing a set of data values of video content, the method comprising: decoding a first portion of each data value from one or more data sets indicative of first portions of predetermined magnitude ranges, the one or more data sets being included in and encoded to the input data stream using binary encoding; decoding a second portion of at least those data values not fully encoded by the data sets, a number of bits of the second portion depending upon a value n, where n is an integer, and data defining the second portion being included in the input data stream; decoding a remaining third portion of a data value that has not been fully decoded by the respective first and second portions, the remaining third portion being from the input data stream; [1] detecting, for a subset of the data values, (i) a number of data values in which the third portion has been encoded and is required at a higher value of n, and (ii) a number of data values for which the second portion has been encoded and which are fully encodable by first and second portions using a lower value of n; in response to detecting the (i) number and the (ii) number, generating a cumulative count equal to a sum of the (i) number and the (ii) number; and Appeal 2021-001842 Application 14/902,266 3 changing the value of n based on the cumulative count, the decoding the second portion of subsequent data values being performed using the changed value of n, wherein the video content is formed from the decoded first, second, and third portions of each data value, and subsequently displayed on a display. REFERENCES The Examiner relies on the following references: Name Reference Date Perron et al. (“Perron”) US 5,140,621 Aug. 18, 1992 Burns US 5,956,429 Sept. 21, 1999 Lee et al. (“Lee”) US 2007/0065023 A1 Mar. 22, 2007 Appellant’s Admitted Prior Art (“AAPA”), Spec. 1:23–24 REJECTIONS2 The Examiner rejects claims 1, 2, and 4–21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Perron and Burns. Final Act. 14–24. The Examiner rejects claims 25–28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Perron, Burns, and Lee. Final Act. 24–26. The Examiner rejects claim 29 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Perron, Burns, and Appellant’s Admitted Prior Art (“AAPA”). Final Act. 26–27. 2 The Examiner withdraws a 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection of claims 1, 2, 4–21, and 26–28. Ans. 3. Appeal 2021-001842 Application 14/902,266 4 ANALYSIS In rejecting claim 1 as obvious, the Examiner finds that Perron’s classification of words in a series of data words into classes based on their significant bits teaches or suggests recitation [1]: detecting, for a subset of the data values, (i) a number of data values in which the third portion has been encoded and is required at a higher value of n, and (ii) a number of data values for which the second portion has been encoded and which are fully encodable by first and second portions using a lower value of n. Final Act. 15 (citing Perron 1:34–50, 15:5–7; Ans. 6–7). Appellant contends the Examiner erred because “Perron describes only that the data to be encoded includes a plurality of blocks, each made of a fixed number of words of n bits, and that the words are classified into different classes and encoded (or decoded).” Appeal Br. 13. Appellant argues “[t]here is no description of counting the number of words in each class and adding the number of words in each class together in order to arrive at a cumulative count.” Id.; Reply Br. 6 We agree with Appellant that the Examiner erred. Perron classifies data words based on their most significant bits so that the data words can be classified into blocks. Perron 1:34–37. For example, if three bits were chosen, then Perron would classify the data words into seven blocks (i.e., into data words starting with the bits 001, 010, . . . 111, with data words starting with the bits 000 not illustrated in Perron). Perron 2:18–32 (cited in Appeal Br. 13); see also id. Figs. 4a–c (illustrating subsets of a data set for three classifications). For each block, the data words are encoded using their relative addresses (skipping already encoded data words) and the least significant bits, omitting the most significant bits corresponding to their Appeal 2021-001842 Application 14/902,266 5 classification. Id. at 2:18–32 (cited in Appeal Br. 13); see also id. Fig. 2 (illustrating the order of scanning). We are unable to discern, based on the Examiner’s findings or the teachings of Perron, how this data word classification process relates to the claimed detection. As Appellant notes, “Perron describes only determining the address of each data word” in a data classification block. Reply Br. 6. The data classification blocks themselves merely represent data words sharing the same most significant bits rather than either encoded data values that required more second-portion bits to avoid being encoded using a third portion or encoded data values that could have been encoded without a third portion even with fewer second-portion bits. Therefore, we agree with Appellant that the Examiner’s findings do not show that Perron teaches or suggests recitation [1]. The Examiner alternatively finds that Burns—by detecting whether the number of bits required to encode a maximum value is fewer than the number of bits allowed by a current activity mode—teaches or suggests recitation [1] . Final Act. 17 (citing Burns 73:44–46); Ans. 5. The cited portion of Burns is limited to detecting whether the number of bits allowed to be encoded by an activity mode is more than what is required to encode a maximum value and whether a lower activity mode would be sufficient. Burns 7:44–47. The claimed invention, however, does not recite detecting whether a single maximum value alone can be encoded 3 The Examiner erroneously cited column 9 instead of column 7. Although Appellant, quoting from column 9, expressed confusion caused by this error (Appeal Br. 14 (“the portion of Burns relied upon does not describe what is asserted in the Office Action”)), the Examiner did not clarify the record (Ans. 5). Appeal 2021-001842 Application 14/902,266 6 using fewer bits. Rather, recitation [1] recites that for some subset of data values (plural), detecting both: (i) a number of data values encoded using a third portion that would be required even for a higher number of second- portion bits and (2) a number of data values encoded using the second portion that would have been fully encodable with first and second portions using a lower number of second-portion bits. That is, recitation [1] counts, for a plurality of data values, the number of encoded data values that either required more second-portion bits to avoid being encoded using a third portion and the number of encoded data values that could have been encoded without a third portion even with fewer second-portion bits. The limited teaching of the cited portion of Burns is similar to recitation [2] to the extent Burns relates to determining that the bits available for encoding a data value are more than needed. But Burns is limited to making this determination for a single maximum value without counting a number of encoded data values for which the available bits were more than needed. Moreover, the cited portion of Burns is silent about counting a number of encoded data values for which more bits than were available were needed. Therefore, the Examiner’s findings do not show that Burns cures the noted deficiency of Perron. The Examiner also does not show that Lee cures the noted deficiency of Perron and Burns. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claim 1, and the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 2, 4–21, and 25–29, which contain similar recitations. Appeal 2021-001842 Application 14/902,266 7 CONCLUSION In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 2, 4–21 103 Perron, Burns 1, 2, 4–21 25–28 103 Perron, Burns, Lee 25–28 29 103 Perron, Burns, AAPA 29 Overall Outcome 1, 2, 4–21, 25–29 REVERSED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation