Ex Parte Bossen

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 5, 2016

12570383 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 5, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 12/570,383 0913012009 79510 7590 BGL/NTT DoCoMo, Inc P.O. Box 10395 Chicago, IL 60610 08/05/2016 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Frank Jan Bossen 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 ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 9683/316 1055 EXAMINER TORRES, JOSE ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2667 MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE 08/05/2016 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 FRANK JAN BOSSEN Appeal2015-002313 Application 12/570,383 Technology Center 2600 Before CATHERINE SHIANG, JOHN P. PINKERTON, and NATHAN A. ENGELS, Administrative Patent Judges. PINKERTON, Administrative Patent Judge DECISION ON APPEAL .6. .... ,1 .... ,....,-TTr'1.r-"\ l\-1,....Al/'\.r'" , .. T"""1 â€¢ -, Appeuant' appeals unaer j) u.~.L. s U4~aJ rrom me bxammer s Final Rejection of claims 2-9, which are the only claims pending in the application. Claim 1 is canceled. App. Br. 16 (Claims App'x). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). We affirm. 1 Appellant identifies NTT DOCOMO Inc. as the real party in interest. App. Br. 2. Appeal2015-002313 Application 12/570,383 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction Appellant's disclosed and claimed invention relates generally to the encoding and decoding of data sequences in a reduced complexity bound manner. Spec. 1.2 Claim 4 is illustrative and reproduced below (with the disputed limitations emphasized): 4. A video encoder for coding a picture, comprising a processor of a computer system and a memory that stores programs executable by the processor to implement: an arithmetic encoder that compresses events representative of a coded picture to information pieces for decoding thereof at a video decoder, wherein compressing the events is constrained such that a number of the events does not exceed a threshold proportional to a number of the information pieces resulting from compressing the events, wherein the video decoder comprises an arithmetic decoder configured to decompress the information pieces back to events for further decoding of the coded picture, under a constraint that a number of the events resulting from decompressing the information pieces does not exceed the threshold proportional to a number of the information pieces. 2 Our Decision refers to the Final Action mailed May 10, 2012 ("Final Act."); Appellant's Appeal Brief filed Apr. 15, 2013 ("App. Br."); the Examiner's Answer mailed Oct. 4, 2013 ("Ans."); and, the original Specification filed Sep. 30, 2009 ("Spec."). 2 Appeal2015-002313 Application 12/570,383 Rejections on Appeal Claims 2--4 and 6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Benamara (US 6,128,413; issued Oct. 3, 2000). Final Act. 2- 4. Claims 5 and 7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Benamara and Rorie (US 6,677,869 B2; issued Jan. 13, 2004). Final Act. 4--5. Claims 8 and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Benamara and Sako (US 6,643,405 Bl; issued Nov. 4, 2004). Final Act. 5-7. ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner's rejection in light of Appellant's arguments in the Appeal Brief and are not persuaded the Examiner erred. Unless otherwise noted, we agree with, and adopt as our own, the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Final Action from which this appeal is taken (Final Act. 2-7), and in the Answer in response to Appellant's Appeal Brief (Ans. 7-12), and we concur with the conclusions reached by the Examiner. For emphasis, we consider and highlight specific arguments as presented in the Briefs. Appellant contends "there is nothing in Benamara which teaches the claimed arithmetic encoding or decoding performed under a constraint that the number of the events does not exceed a threshold proportional to the number of the information pieces." App. Br. 12-13. In particular, Appellant argues Benamara compares the amount of the information pieces resulting 3 Appeal2015-002313 Application 12/570,383 from the arithmetic coding with the bit budget and the coding stops if the amount of information pieces reaches the bit budget, but "the bit budget has nothing to do with the number of the events" as it is "a predetermined threshold for the amount of the information pieces resulting from the arithmetic coding." Id. at 13. Referring to independent claims 2--4, 6, 8, and 9, Appellant also argues the claims define a constraint in which a number of the events is compared to a threshold proportional to a number of the information pieces, but Benamara is silent "about whether the ... number of events is compared with the number of information pieces resulting from the arithmetic coding of the events or whether the arithmetic coding is somehow regulated based [on] the comparison result." Id. Thus, Appellant argues claims 2--4 and 6 are not anticipated by Benamara. Id. Regarding Rorie and Sako, Appellant argues each of these references is "totally silent about the claimed limitation which requires that a number of the events resulting from decompressing the information pieces does not exceed a threshold proportional to a number of the information pieces," as recited in claims 8 and 9. Id. at 14--15. Thus, Appellant argues none of claims 2-9 is obvious in view of Benamara, Rorie, and Sako, alone or in combination. Id. The Examiner finds the disputed limitations are taught by Benamara: With respect to the compression of events constrained such that a number of the events does not exceed a threshold proportional to a number of the information pieces resulting from compressing the events, Benamara disclose that the number of the events (i.e., size of the original data set 110) will not exceed the determined bit budget 240, see Benamara at col. 5 lines 60- 63 and col. 8 lines 1-20. This bit budget being proportional to the number of the information pieces (number of bits of the 4 Appeal2015-002313 Application 12/570,383 compressed data set 150) resulting from the compression of the original data set (See for example, the comparison made after each working threshold is determined such that the predetermined output data size is reached, col. 8 lines 22-60). * * * With respect to the video decoder comprising an arithmetic decoder configured to decompress the information pieces back to events for further decoding of the coded picture, under a constraint that a number of the events resulting from decompressing the information pieces does not exceed the threshold proportional to a number of the information pieces, Benamara disclose[ s] that the decoding used in decoder 250, for example, uses the same entropy coding algorithm as used in the entropy encoding module 230 (col. 5 line 63 through col. 6 line 3). Ans. 8-10. Appellant did not file a Reply Brief and has not presented persuasive evidence or argument to rebut the Examiner's findings. Thus, for the reasons set forth by the Examiner, we agree with the Examiner's findings and adopt them as our own. Furthermore, we are not persuaded by Appellant's argument "the bit budget has nothing to do with the number of the events" (see App. Br. 13) because, consistent with the Examiner's findings, we note Benamara teaches that the number of the events (i.e., the size of the original data set) and a target compression ratio are used to determine a bit budget for the compressed data. See Ans. 8; Benamara 5:56- 63). We further note Benamara teaches that "the size of the original data set, together with a target compression ratio, is used to determine the size of a compressed data set representing the original data set, thereby determining a 5 Appeal2015-002313 Application 12/570,383 'bit budget' for the compressed data" (see Benamara 2:41--44) and that the data compression process continues until the size of the output data set (the information pieces) reaches the pre-determined bit budget (see Benamara 2:50-58). Accordingly, we do not find error in: (1) the Examiner's findings that Benamara teaches or suggests the disputed limitations; (2) the Examiner's finding that claims 2--4 and 6 are anticipated by Benamara; (3) the Examiner's conclusion that dependent claims 5 and 7 are obvious over the combination of Benamara and Rorie; or (4) the Examiner's conclusion that claims 8 and 9 are obvious over the combination of Benamara and Sako. For these reasons, and on this record, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 2--4 and 6 for anticipation under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 102(b). For the same reasons, we also sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 5 and 6-9 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a). DECISION We affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 2--4 and 6 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 102(b). We affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 5 and 7-9 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a). No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED 6