SONY CORPORATION

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jul 9, 2021

2020002344 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 9, 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.
14/902,761 01/04/2016 Shinobu Hattori 1946-0836 6165
60803 7590 07/09/2021
Paratus Law Group, PLLC
1765 Greensboro Station Place
Suite 320
Tysons Corner, VA 22102
EXAMINER
ANYIKIRE, CHIKAODILI E
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2487
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/09/2021 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
________________

Ex parte SHINOBU HATTORI,
OHJI NAKAGAMI, and
MITSUHIRO HIRABAYASHI
________________

Appeal 2020-002344
Application 14/902,761
Technology Center 2400
________________

Before JASON V. MORGAN, JEREMY J. CURCURI, and
RUSSELL E. CASS, Administrative Patent Judges.

MORGAN, 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, 3–16, and 33, which are all of the claims currently
pending. Misc. Commc’n (Nov. 19, 2019); Amend. 2 (Jan. 9, 2019). 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 Sony Corporation. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2020-002344
Application 14/902,761

2

SUMMARY OF THE DISCLOSURE
Appellant’s claimed subject matter relates to an “image decoding
device capable of recognizing performance necessary for decoding more
accurately.” Abstract. In particular, the image decoding device makes use of
“decoding load information . . . included in supplemental enhancement
information . . . of an independently decodable partial region.” Spec. ¶ 13.
The decoding load information includes “a size of the partial region . . . and
a level indicating a magnitude of a load of a decoding process of the partial
region.” Id. ¶ 15. When decoding, the decoding load information is acquired
and used to control decoding of acquired coded data. Id. ¶ 22.
ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
(disputed limitations emphasized and bracketing added)
1. An image decoding device comprising:
[1] a control unit configured to control decoding of coded data,
which has been transmitted from an image coding device and
received by the image decoding device and in which an image
is coded, [2] based on information indicating a size of a partial
region of the image and a level indicating a load of a decoding
process of the partial region, [3] the information indicating the
size of the partial region of the image and the level indicating
the load of the decoding process of the partial region both also
having been transmitted from the image coding device together
with the coded data and received by the image decoding device;
and
a decoding unit configured to decode the coded data under
control of the control unit,
wherein the partial region is an independently decodable region
of the image that is less than an entirety of the image, and the
entirety of the image has associated therewith a respective level
set for decoding that is different than the level indicating the
load of the decoding process of the partial region.
Appeal 2020-002344
Application 14/902,761

3

REFERENCES
The Examiner relies on the following references:
Name Reference Date
Oneda et al. (“Oneda”) US 2004/0151385 A1 Aug. 5, 2004
Kawashima et al.
(“Kawashima”)
US 2007/0189735 A1 Aug. 16, 2007
REJECTIONS2
The Examiner rejects claims 1, 3–16, and 33 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
obvious over Kawashima and Oneda. Final Act. 9–15.
ANALYSIS
Claim 1 recites [1] “a control unit configured to control decoding of
coded data, which has been transmitted from an image coding device and
received by the image decoding device and in which an image is coded.” The
decoding is [2] “based on information indicating a size of a partial region of
the image and a level indicating a load of a decoding process of the partial
region.” Claim 1 further recites that [3] “the information indicating the size
of the partial region of the image and the level indicating the load of the
decoding process of the partial region both also having been transmitted
from the image coding device together with the coded data and received by
the image decoding device.”
In rejecting claim 1 as obvious, the Examiner finds that Kawashima’s
decoder-side load detection unit combined with Oneda’s coder-side load
measurement unit teaches or suggests recitations [1]–[3]. Final Act. 9–10

2 The Examiner withdraws a previously entered 35 U.S.C. § 102 rejection of
claims 1, 3–16, and 33 as anticipated by Kawashima. Ans. 9.
Appeal 2020-002344
Application 14/902,761

4

(citing Kawashima ¶¶ 24–27, 30; Oneda ¶¶ 64–67); Ans. 8–9 (further citing
Oneda ¶ 46).
Appellant contends the Examiner erred because Kawashima’s decoder
calculates load rather than relying on information received from an image
coding device. Reply Br. 6. Appellant argues Oneda fails to cure the deficiency
of Kawashima because “Oneda’s load measurement part 16 has nothing to do
with any load level information that is transmitted to a decoder.” Id.; Appeal
Br. 18.
We agree with Appellant that the Examiner erred. Rather than relying
on transmitted decoding load information, the processing load detection unit
of Kawashima’s decoding apparatus detects load through the “combination
of the usage rate of the [micro processing unit] 6 (or the data processor 10)
and the usage rate of the [read only memory] 8.” Kawashima ¶ 26. Moreover,
the Examiner does not identify and we are unable to find a teaching or
suggestion in Oneda regarding transmission of information indicating a load
of a decoding process of a partial region. Rather, Oneda uses the results of its
load measurement unit to increase or decrease a frame rate or to make an image
quantization level finer or rougher. Oneda ¶¶ 69–70. Thus, we agree with
Appellant that the Examiner’s findings and analysis fail to show that the
combination of Kawashima and Oneda teaches or suggests recitations [1]–
[3].
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103
rejection of claim 1, and claims 3–16 and 33, which have similar recitations.
Appeal 2020-002344
Application 14/902,761

5

CONCLUSION
Claim(s)
Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 3–16, 33 103 Kawashima, Oneda 1, 3–16, 33
REVERSED