SONY CORPORATION

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Aug 30, 2021

2021001842 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 30, 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.
14/902,266 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