Ex Parte Gordon

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 7, 2012

10871657 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 7, 2012)

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.
10/871,657 06/17/2004 Stephen Gordon 14528.00090 1500
16378 7590 11/07/2012
Broadcom/BHGL
P.O. Box 10395
Chicago, IL 60610
EXAMINER
LEE, Y YOUNG
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2485
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/07/2012 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 STEPHEN GORDON
____________

Appeal 2010-007035
Application 10/871,657
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, BARBARA A. BENOIT, and
JAMES B. ARPIN, Administrative Patent Judges.

JEFFERY, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1-16. Claims 17-31 have been withdrawn from
consideration. App. Br. 2; Reply Br. 2. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm-in-part.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant’s invention encodes video data by using selected reference
data blocks based on determined match costs to encode current video data
Appeal 2010-007035
Application 10/871,657

2
blocks, which are then communicated to a receiving entity. See generally
Abstract; Spec. ¶¶ 38-61; Fig. 2. Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A method for encoding video information, the method comprising:
defining a plurality of regions within a search area, where each region
comprises a plurality of video data blocks;
determining a respective match quality for at least one of the plurality
of video data blocks from at least one of the plurality of regions;
selecting, based at least in part on respective match quality, a set of
regional video data blocks comprising at least one of the plurality of video
data blocks in at least one of the plurality of regions;
determining a respective match cost for at least one of the set of
regional video data blocks;
selecting a reference video data block from the set of regional video
data blocks, based at least in part on the determined match costs; and
utilizing the reference video data block to encode video information.

THE REJECTION
The Examiner rejected claims 1-16 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Chow (US 6,292,589 B1; Sept. 18, 2001). Ans. 3-4.1

CONTENTIONS
The Examiner finds that Chow’s video encoding method has every
recited feature of representative claim 1 including (1) defining regions
within a “search area” , where each region has video data blocks; (2)
selecting, based at least in part on respective match quality, a set of “regional
video data blocks”, where these blocks comprise at least one video data
block in a region; and (3) selecting a “reference video data block” from the

1 Throughout this opinion, we refer to (1) the Appeal Brief filed October 19,
2009 (“App. Br.”); (2) the Examiner’s Answer mailed January 6, 2010
(“Ans.”); and (3) the Reply Brief filed March 5, 2010 (“Reply Br.”).
Appeal 2010-007035
Application 10/871,657

3
regional video data blocks, based at least in part on determined “match
costs.” Ans. 3-5.
Appellant argues that, Chow does not (1) define a region, much less
plural regions within a search area, (2) select a set of regional video data
blocks comprising at least one block from a region; and (3) select a reference
video data block from the set of regional video data blocks based least in
part on determined match costs, as claimed. App. Br. 7-9, 11-12; Reply Br.
3-5. Appellant also argues various other limitations summarized below.
App. Br. 13-20; Reply Br. 7-14.

ISSUES
Under § 102, has the Examiner erred by finding that Chow:
(1)(a) defines plural regions within a search area, where each area
comprises plural video data blocks; (b) selects, based at least in part on
respective match quality, a set of regional video data blocks comprising at
least one video data block in at least one region; and (c) selects a reference
video data block from the set of regional video data blocks based at least in
part on determined match costs, as recited in claim 1?
(2) defines plural regions within a search area comprises defining the
regions such that plural video data blocks in a region have substantially
similar respective match costs, as recited in claim 2?
(3) determines a respective match cost for a regional video data block
comprises determining an indication of the number of bits required to
communicate a data vector comprising motion information corresponding to
the regional video data block based on motion side information for a
previous video data block, as recited in claim 4?
Appeal 2010-007035
Application 10/871,657

4
(4) selects a reference video data block from the set of regional video
data blocks based at least partly on determined (a) match cost, and (b) match
quality for the selected block, as recited in claim 5?
(5)(a) determines a respective rating for each regional video data
block, where the rating comprises (i) information of a difference between
current and regional video data blocks, and (ii) information of an amount of
data required to encode the current video data block using the regional video
data block, and (b) selects the reference video data block by comparing the
respective ratings for the regional video data blocks, as recited in claim 6?
(6) determines at least part of the respective match cost(s) after
completing encoding of all reference video data blocks used to encode the
current video data block, as recited in claim 8?
(7) discloses a communication module that communicates information
of the encoded current video data block to a remote receiver, as recited in
claim 15?
(8) discloses the four modules recited in claim 16?

ANALYSIS
Claims 1, 7, and 9
On this record, we find no error in the Examiner’s anticipation
rejection of representative claim 1 which recites, in pertinent part,
(1) defining plural regions within a search area, where each area comprises
plural video data blocks; (2) selecting, based at least partly on respective
match quality, a set of regional video data blocks comprising at least one
video data block in at least one region; and (3) selecting a reference video
Appeal 2010-007035
Application 10/871,657

5
data block from the set of regional video data blocks based at least partly on
determined match costs.
Although the Examiner’s mapping the above disputed features to
Chow’s disclosure is not a model of clarity, the Examiner nonetheless
indicates that the recited regions correspond to “objects” within a “search
area,” – namely, the search area is the previous frame 69A in Chow’s Figure
6C. Ans. 3. The Examiner refers to these “objects” in connection with a
person which, as shown in Figure 6C, corresponds to the depicted image of a
person’s head, shoulders, and tie. Accord Ans. 5 (referring to an “object of a
person” to obtain reference blocks comprising head, shoulder, and tie blocks
in connection with Figure 6C). A partial detail view of Chow’s Figure 6C
showing an image of a person’s head, shoulders, and tie is reproduced
below:

Image of a person’s head, shoulders, and tie in Chow’s Figure 6C
Based on this discussion, the Examiner finds that Chow defines plural
regions in Figure 6C, namely, the image’s head, shoulder, and tie regions,
within the previous frame or “search area.” See Ans. 3, 5. Not only does the
Appeal 2010-007035
Application 10/871,657

6
person “object” as a whole correspond to a region within the “search area”
(as does the region that does not contain this “object”), but the individual
object features (head, shoulders, and tie) likewise correspond to respective
regions within the search area.
We, therefore see no error in the Examiner’s position, for each
respective image region in Chow at least partially contains associated “video
data blocks,” namely, macroblocks. As shown in Figure 6C, the image, as a
whole, at least partially includes six blocks, where the image’s head region
at least partially includes four blocks (including macroblock 71), and the
shoulder and tie regions each at least partially include two blocks. See
Chow, Fig. 6C. Appellant’s contention that Chow’s “single search area”
(previous frame 69A) has only a “single region” which is likewise said to
correspond to frame 69A (App. Br. 9) is unavailing, for this contention
ignores the Examiner’s reliance on the multiple “object”-based regions
within this “search area” that correspond to the person’s head, shoulders, and
tie noted above.
Nor do we find error in the Examiner’s position that Chow selects a
set of the best-matched “regional video data blocks” that correspond to the
depicted person’s head, shoulders, and tie regions in Figure 6C. Ans. 3-5.
Notably, Chow’s selection is not only based at least partially on respective
block match quality—namely the best match quality according to block
matching function 66 which identifies macroblocks in previous and/or
successive frames which have “the best match of pixel values to the
macroblock of interest in the current frame” (col. 10, ll. 41-43)—but also
includes “video data blocks” (i.e., macroblocks) in the head, shoulder, and
Appeal 2010-007035
Application 10/871,657

7
tie regions. See Chow, col. 10, l. 37 – col. 11, l. 18; col. 11, ll. 39-57; Figs.
6B-6C.
Appellant’s argument that Chow does not select “a set of regional
video data blocks” (App. Br. 7, 11-12) is unavailing because it is not
commensurate with the scope of the claim. First, “a set of regional video
data blocks” does not preclude one such block according to Appellant’s
Specification. See Spec. ¶ 50 (noting that selecting a set of regional video
data blocks in step 250 of Appellant’s Figure 2 comprises at least one video
data block from at least one region). See also id. (“For example, step 250
may comprise selecting one or more video data blocks from one or more
regions.” (emphases added)). Second, even if “a set of regional video data
blocks” requires more than one “regional video data block,” as Appellant
suggests (see App. Br. 7, 11-12; Reply Br. 4-5) (which it does not); nothing
in the claim precludes Chow’s selecting plural best-matched regional video
data blocks corresponding to the respective head, shoulder, and tie regions to
depict the images in Figure 6C noted above. Accord Ans. 5 (noting that a set
of best-matched data blocks is selected in previous frame 69A that match
blocks in current frame 69B).
Nor do we find error in the Examiner’s finding that Chow selects a
“reference video data block” from the set of “regional video data blocks”
based at least partly on determined match costs. Ans. 3, 5. The Examiner
finds that Chow’s determining a respective match cost includes “bit rate,
error, energy, etc.” and refers to a “best match” in connection with this
match cost determination. Ans. 3 (emphasis added). We emphasize “error”
here because a key aspect of Chow’s block-matching technique is finding
Appeal 2010-007035
Application 10/871,657

8
blocks that best minimize error in luminance data between frames. See
Chow, col. 10, ll. 36-52, col. 10, l. 65 – col. 11, l. 18; col. 11, ll. 54-57.
Based on this functionality, we find no error in the Examiner’s finding
that Chow selects at least one “reference data block” including block 71
identified by the Examiner (Ans. 3) from the set of “regional video data
blocks” that correspond to the image’s head, shoulder, and tie regions.
Accord Ans. 5 (noting that “the set of reference blocks comprising the head
blocks, shoulder blocks, tie blocks, etc. would have been correspondingly
selected from the Previous Frame each based on a best matched block”
(emphases added)). That Appellant’s description of “match costs” in the
Specification is replete with exemplary, permissive, and open-ended terms,2
only bolsters the Examiner’s finding that “match costs” correspond to those
in connection with Chow’s minimizing error to determine best-matched
blocks.
We, therefore, are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting
representative claim 1, and claims 73 and 9 not separately argued with
particularity.4

2 See Spec. ¶ 53 (“For example and without limitation step 260 may
comprise determining any of a large number of indications of match cost.
Various exemplary match costs may, for example, comprise an amount of
data in a resulting encoded block, amount of distortion resulting from an
encoded block, degree of difference between a resulting motion vector and
one or more reference motion vectors, extent of difference between a
resulting set of motion side information and one or more reference sets of
motion side information, etc.” (emphases added)).
3 Despite grouping claim 7 with claims 6 and 8, Appellant does not
separately argue claim 7 with particularity to show error in the Examiner’s
rejection of that claim. See App. Br. 17-18; Reply Br. 13. Because claim 7
depends from claim 1, we group claim 7 here for clarity.
Appeal 2010-007035
Application 10/871,657

9

Claims 2, 3, 10, and 11
We also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of representative claim 2
reciting defining plural regions within a search area comprises defining the
regions, such that plural video data blocks in a region have substantially
similar respective match costs. Despite Appellant’s arguments to the
contrary (App. Br. 13-14; Reply Br. 7-8), nothing in claim 2 precludes
Chow’s defining plural object-based regions, such that data blocks 71 and 70
in the depicted object’s head region in Figure 6C, have substantially similar
match costs because they are best matched as the Examiner indicates. Ans.
5. Appellant’s contention that current frame 69B is not part of the search
area (Reply Br. 7) is unavailing, for it is not commensurate with the scope of
the claim.
We, therefore, are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting
representative claim 2, and claims 3, 10, and 11 not separately argued with
particularity.

Claims 4 and 12
We do not, however, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 4
reciting determining a respective match cost for a regional video data block

4 Although Appellant argues that the Examiner did not address Appellant’s
arguments regarding independent claim 9 (Reply Br. 4), the Examiner’s
findings in the rejection nonetheless apply to both the system of independent
claim 9, as well as the method of claim 1. See Ans. 3 (noting that Chow
discloses the same system and method for encoding video information
specified in claims 1-16). In any event, to the extent that Appellant argues
claim 9 separately from claim 1, we are unpersuaded by these arguments for
the reasons indicated regarding claim 1.
Appeal 2010-007035
Application 10/871,657

10
comprises determining an indication of the number of bits required to
communicate a data vector comprising motion information corresponding to
the regional video data block based on motion side information for a
previous video data block. The Examiner’s reliance on Chow’s energy
calculation and target bit allocation 420 (Ans. 4-5) to teach the recited match
cost determination is unavailing. Notably, Chow (1) calculates energy in
step 68 after matching blocks and generating motion vectors in the previous
steps in Figure 6B (Chow, col. 12, ll. 57-64), and (2) allocates target bits to
establish a quantization value used during frame compression (Chow, col.
22, ll. 60-63; col. 24, ll. 19-43; Fig. 18). Even assuming that these processes
determine “match costs,” as the Examiner contends, we fail to see—nor has
the Examiner shown—that reference video data blocks are selected based on
these “match costs,” as required by claim 1 from which claim 4 depends,
because energy calculation and target bit allocation occur after the recited
selection according to the Examiner’s position noted above. Appellant’s
point in this regard is well taken. App. Br. 14-16; Reply Br. 8-9.
We, therefore, are persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 4, and claim 12 which recites commensurate limitations.

Claims 5 and 13
We, however, sustain the Examiner’s rejection (Ans. 4) of
representative claim 5 reciting, in pertinent part, selecting a reference video
data block from the set of regional video data blocks based at least partly on
determined (1) match cost, and (2) match quality for the selected block.
First, our previous discussion regarding the recited selection being
based at least partly on “match cost” in connection with claim 1 applies here
Appeal 2010-007035
Application 10/871,657

11
as well. Second, we find no error in the Examiner’s reliance on Chow’s
best-matched block determination based on minimized error in Figure 6C
(Ans. 6) as teaching the recited “match quality” determination, particularly
since Appellant’s description of “match quality” in the Specification—like
the description of “match costs”—is replete with exemplary, permissive, and
open-ended terms that do not preclude the Examiner’s interpretation.5
We, therefore, are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting
representative claim 5, and claim 13 not separately argued with particularity.

Claim 6
We do not, however, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 6
reciting (1) determining a respective rating for each regional video data
block, where the rating comprises (a) information of a difference between
current and regional video data blocks, and (b) information of an amount of
data required to encode the current video data block using the regional video
data block, and (2) selecting the reference video data block by comparing the
respective ratings for the regional video data blocks.
Even assuming, without deciding, that Chow’s block-matching
determination somehow yields some sort of “rating” in terms of how closely
blocks are matched as the Examiner contends (Ans. 6), we still fail to see
how this “rating” necessarily includes both recited types of information,

5 See Spec. ¶ 46 (“Match quality may, for example and without limitation,
comprise information of difference between a potential reference video data
block and a current video data block that is to be encoded. In an exemplary
video scenario, determining a respective match quality may comprise
comparing the video data in a video data block to video data in a current
video data block that is to be encoded.” (emphasis added)).
Appeal 2010-007035
Application 10/871,657

12
including information of an amount of data required to encode the current
video data block using the regional video data block, as Appellant indicates.
Reply Br. 12. Although Appellant contests this particular aspect of the
recited rating for the first time in the Reply Brief, this argument is
nonetheless reasonably tied to Appellant’s original argument regarding the
rating itself, for the very terms of the claim require that the rating have the
two recited pieces of information noted above. Compare App. Br. 17-18
with Reply Br. 11-12. Accordingly, Appellant’s argument in the Reply Brief
is not waived as untimely6 and is persuasive of error in the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 6.

Claim 8
We likewise do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 8
reciting, in pertinent part, determining at least part of the respective match
cost(s) after completing encoding of all reference video data blocks used to
encode the current video data block.
As Appellant indicates (App. Br. 19; Reply Br. 13), apart from merely
referring to actual bit usage in connection with Chow’s Figure 18 (Ans. 4),
the Examiner does not explain how or why this necessarily determines at
least part of a match cost after encoding all reference video data blocks as
claimed. Nor will we speculate in that regard here, in the first instance, on
appeal. We, therefore, are persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 8.

6 See Ex parte Borden, 93 USPQ2d 1473, 1474 (BPAI 2010) (informative)
(“[T]he reply brief [is not] an opportunity to make arguments that could
have been made in the principal brief on appeal to rebut the Examiner’s
rejections, but were not.”).
Appeal 2010-007035
Application 10/871,657

13

Claims 14 and 16
We will, however, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 14 and
16. First, despite grouping claim 14 with claims 15 and 16, Appellant does
not separately argue claim 14 with particularity to show error in the
Examiner’s rejection of that claim. See App. Br. 19-20; Reply Br. 14-15.
Second, although the Examiner does not explicitly identify the four modules
recited in claim 16, the Examiner nonetheless addresses their corresponding
functionality (i.e., match quality determination, regional block selection,
match cost determination, and reference block selection), as noted above.
And, as noted above, the Examiner’s findings in the rejection apply to
both the system of independent claim 9, as well as the method of claim 1.
See Ans. 3 (noting that Chow discloses the same system and method for
encoding video information specified in claims 1-16). Because there must
be some sort of “module” to effect these functions in Chow’s system, we
find no error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 16.7

7 To the extent that the recited memory and modules in claims 9-16 fail to
recite sufficient structure to avoid functional claiming under § 112, sixth
paragraph is a question not before us. We, therefore, leave that question to
the Examiner should prosecution reopen after this decision, as well as the
question of whether the Specification discloses sufficient corresponding
structure in the specification, so that skilled artisans can reasonably ascertain
the scope of the invention to render the claims definite under § 112, second
paragraph. See Aristocrat Techs. Austl. Pty Ltd. v. Int’l Game Tech., 521
F.3d 1328, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2008); see also Finisar Corp. v. DirecTV Group,
Inc., 523 F.3d 1323, 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2008); Supplementary Examination
Guidelines for Determining Compliance with 35 U.S.C. § 112 and for
Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 Fed. Reg. 7162,
7167-68 at Part 1, § III.C (Feb. 9, 2011).
Appeal 2010-007035
Application 10/871,657

14
Claim 15
We do not, however, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 15
reciting a communication module that communicates information of the
encoded current video data block to a remote receiver. Even assuming,
without deciding, that Chow’s network interface 22 in Figure 2 is a “remote
receiver” as the Examiner asserts (Ans. 6), the Examiner does not explain
how or why this interface necessarily receives information of the encoded
current video data block, as claimed. Although (1) the interface is coupled
to I/O bus 20 to interface the CPU with other CPUs in the network,8 and (2)
the bus is connected to the video compression/decompression unit 24
(Chow, col. 5, ll. 60-67; Fig. 2), we cannot say—nor has the Examiner
shown—that this interface necessarily receives information of the encoded
current video data block: a crucial requirement for inherent anticipation. See
In re Robertson, 169 F.3d 743, 745 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“Inherency . . . may not
be established by probabilities or possibilities. The mere fact that a certain
thing may result from a given set of circumstances is not sufficient.”
(citations omitted)).
Appellant (App. Br. 14; Reply Br. 20), therefore, has persuaded us
that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 15.

8 Although the network interface 22 appears to be also connected to other
devices via the double arrows labeled “23” in Chow’s Figure 2, the
Examiner has not shown that the network interface necessarily receives an
encoded current video data block via this connection. Nor will we speculate
in that regard here, in the first instance, on appeal.
Appeal 2010-007035
Application 10/871,657

15
CONCLUSION
Under § 102, the Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1-3, 5, 7, 9-
11, 13, 14, and 16, but erred in rejecting claims 4, 6, 8, 12, and 15.

ORDER
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-16 is affirmed-in-part.
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-IN-PART

babc