Electronics and Telecommunications Research Institute

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Aug 31, 2020

2019002250 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 31, 2020)

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.
14/220,962 03/20/2014 Se Yoon Jeong 022096.0017C1 6187
89980 7590 08/31/2020
NSIP LAW
P.O. Box 65745
Washington, DC 20035
EXAMINER
SULLIVAN, TYLER
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2487
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/31/2020 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):
pto.nsip@gmail.com
pto@nsiplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte SE YOON JEONG, SUNG-CHANG LIM, HAHYUN LEE,
JINHO LEE, JONGHO KIM, HAE-CHUL CHOI, SUKHEE CHO,
HUI YONG KIM, JIN SOO CHOI, and JIN WOO HONG

Appeal 2019-002250
Application 14/220,962
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before JAMES B. ARPIN, GREGG I. ANDERSON,
and MICHAEL M. BARRY, Administrative Patent Judges.

BARRY, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 2, 27–35, and 37–44, which are all
the pending claims. See Final Act. 1; Appeal. Br. 12–24. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

1 We use “Appellant” to refer to the “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as “Electronics and
Telecommunications Research Institute, an organization of the Republic of
Korea.” Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2019-002250
Application 14/220,962

2
Introduction
Appellant describes the invention as particularly related “to an intra
coding method and apparatus based on a super macro block that is not
conventionally used for intra coding.” Spec. ¶ 3. Appellant describes intra
coding methods that provide for alternative handling of multiple blocks
contained within a super macro block based on an “intra_smb_flag,” which
allows handling contained blocks individually for intra prediction or else
together as a single unit during intra prediction the super macro block. See,
e.g., Spec. ¶¶ 10–18, 57–58, 93–100, Figs. 3, 8.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative:
1. A method of performing video decoding for a first
block using intra prediction, the method comprising:
receiving a bit stream comprising a first indicator
indicating whether the first block is a unit for intra prediction or
each of four second blocks in the first block is a unit for intra
prediction;
in response to the first indicator indicating that the first
block is a unit for intra prediction, performing intra prediction
for the first block; and
in response to the first indicator indicating that each of
the four second blocks is a unit for intra prediction, respectively
performing intra predictions for the four second blocks, wherein
a size of the first block is 16x16, 32x32, 64x64, or
128x128,
a parameter extracted from the bit stream other than the
first indicator is used for a decoding for the first block in
response to the first indicator indicating the first block is a unit
for intra prediction, and
the parameter other than the first indicator is commonly
used for decoding for the four second blocks in response to the
first indicator indicating that each of the four second blocks is a
unit for intra prediction.
Appeal 2019-002250
Application 14/220,962

3
Appeal Br. 20 (Claims App’x 1).
The Pending Rejections
The rejections rely on the following references:
Name Reference Date
Park WO 2009/028922 A2 Mar. 5, 2009
Chen2 US 2010/0086029 A1 Apr. 8, 2010
Chen ’631 US Prov. Appl. No. 61,166,631 Apr. 3, 2009
Chen ’357 US Prov. Appl. No. 61/144,357 Jan. 13, 2009
Takahashi US 2009/0110070 A1 Apr. 30, 2009
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 2, 27–35, 37, 38, and 41–44 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over the combined teachings of Park, Chen,
Chen ’631, and Chen ’357. Final Act. 8–23; Adv. Act. 5–19.3
The Examiner rejected claims 39 and 40 under § 103 as obvious over
the combined teachings of Park, Chen, Chen ’631, Chen ’357, and
Takahashi. Final Act. 23–25; Adv. Act. 20–21.
ANALYSIS
Appellant argues the error in the rejection of the independent claims
as a group, based on claim 1, and does not substantively and separately
argue the dependent claims. See Appeal Br. 13–19. Thus, all claims stand
or fall with claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection in light of Appellant’s
contentions of reversible error. We disagree with Appellant’s conclusions.

2 Chen incorporates by reference (and claims the benefit of having earlier
filed) the Chen ‘631 and Chen ’357 provisional applications. Chen ¶ 1.
3 An Advisory Action mailed Aug. 25, 2018 (in response to a Post-Final
Amendment filed July 25, 2018) confirmed and elaborated on the § 103
rejections from the Final Action.
Appeal 2019-002250
Application 14/220,962

4
Instead, as consistent with our discussion below, we adopt the Examiner’s
findings and reasons as set forth in the Final Office Action from which this
appeal is taken and as set forth in the Answer. We highlight the following
for emphasis.
Appellant’s arguments are based on claim 1’s last two limitations:
a parameter extracted from the bit stream other than the
first indicator is used for a decoding for the first block in
response to the first indicator indicating the first block is a unit
for intra prediction, and
the parameter other than the first indicator is commonly
used for decodings for the four second blocks in response to the
first indicator indicating that each of the four second blocks is a
unit for intra prediction.
The Examiner finds Chen ’631, in combination with Park, teaches these
limitations. Final Act. 9 (citing Park Figs. 1–2; Chen ’631 ¶¶ 75, 85–88, 92–
94, Figs. 2–3); Adv. Act. 5–7 (same citations; emphasis modified). In
particular, the Examiner finds Chen ’631’s quantization parameter for
previous pixel macroblocks (QPY,PREV) teaches the recited “parameter
extracted from the bit stream other than the first indicator,” and that this
parameter is “commonly used for decoding for [] four second blocks,” as
recited. Id. Appellant’s contentions of Examiner error are based on these
findings. Appeal Br. 13–18.
parameter extracted from the bit stream
Appellant argues “QPY and QPY,PREV are merely values computed or
derived using a specific equation as presented in paragraph [0086] of Chen
’631 by an encoder and/or a decoder, and are not values extracted from a bit
stream.” Appeal Br. 15 (emphasis omitted). The Examiner responds by
explaining paragraph 88 of Chen ’631 specifically teaches including QPY in
Appeal 2019-002250
Application 14/220,962

5
the bitstream used by its embodiments. Ans. 8. Appellant replies that,
although Chen ‘631 teaches including the QPY parameter in the bitstream, it
“does not teach that ‘the parameter is extracted from the bit stream.’” Reply
Br. 8. This reply is unpersuasive, because teaching an encoder that includes
QPY in the bitstream teaches a decoder that extracts QPY from the bitstream.
See Ans. 7–9; see also, e.g., Chen ’631 ¶¶ 41–43.
commonly used for decoding for the four second blocks
Appellant also argues the Examiner errs because QPY,PREV is not
“commonly used for decoding for the four second blocks,” as recited. See
Appeal Br. 17–18. The Examiner responds that Appellant construes this
disputed limitation too narrowly, and, as recited, “the use of a previous QP
value[] is common to all macroblocks processed in which the sequence of
deltas applie[s] to a base QP value (as would be understood to one of
ordinary skill in the art).” Ans. 10.
During examination, we interpret claim terms using “the broadest
reasonable meaning of the words in their ordinary usage as they would be
understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, taking into account whatever
enlightenment by way of definitions or otherwise that may be afforded by
the written description contained in the applicant’s specification.” In re
Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997). “Absent claim language
carrying a narrow meaning,” however, we “should only limit the claim based
on the specification or prosecution history when those sources expressly
disclaim the broader definition.” In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir.
2004). Thus, “while it is true that claims are to be interpreted in light of the
specification and with a view to ascertaining the invention, it does not follow
that limitations from the specification may be read into the claims.” Sjolund
Appeal 2019-002250
Application 14/220,962

6
v. Musland, 847 F.2d 1573, 1581 (Fed. Cir. 1988). As the court explained in
In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321 (Fed. Cir. 1989), the rationale for this
approach to claim interpretation is that “during patent prosecution when
claims can be amended, ambiguities should be recognized, scope and
breadth of language explored, and clarification imposed.”
The Specification does not define (or use the word) “commonly.” An
artisan of ordinary skill would have understood ordinary meanings of
“belonging to or shared by two or more individuals or things or by all
members of a group” and “belonging equally to two or more mathematical
entities”4 are both consistent with the use of “commonly,” as recited. Under
either of these definitions, we agree with the Examiner that artisans of
ordinary skill would have understood Chen ’631’s disclosure (of using a
QPY,PREV value as a baseline value to encode four 32x32 partitions of a
64x64 macroblock (see ¶ 86)) teaches the QPY,PREV value is “commonly
used.” Although encoding each partition applies a delta value to the baseline
QPY,PREV that results in “an individualized quantization parameter for each
partition” (id.), because the same QPY,PREV value is used in the same way for
decoding each partition (along with individual delta values also being used
for each partition), the QPY,PREV value is commonly used for the decoding of
each partition.
CONCLUSION
We affirm the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 1, 2,
27–35, and 37–44.

4 See Merriam-Webster (www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/commonly
(last accessed Aug. 17, 2020)
Appeal 2019-002250
Application 14/220,962

7
In summary:
Claims
Rejected 35 U.S.C. §
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 2, 27–35,
37, 38, 41–44 103
Park, Chen,
Chen ’631,
Chen ’357
1, 2, 27–
35, 37, 38,
41–44

39, 40 103 Park, Chen, Takahashi 39, 40
Overall
Outcome
1, 2, 27–35, 37–44
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED