Ex Parte Jeon

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 8, 2013

11889261 (P.T.A.B. May. 8, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ________________ Ex parte BYEONG MOON JEON ________________ Appeal 2011-000962 Application 11/889,261 Technology Center 2400 ________________ Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, JASON V. MORGAN, and STACEY G. WHITE, Administrative Patent Judges. WHITE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2011-000962 Application 11/889,261 2 SUMMARY Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 1, 3, and 4. Claim 2 has been cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. STATEMENT OF CASE Appellant’s claims are directed to methods for enhancing coding efficiency in a moving picture coding system. (Spec. 0003). Claim 1 is illustrative and is reproduced below (disputed limitation in italics): 1. A method of decoding a current image block, the method performed by a moving picture coding system and comprising; obtaining, by the moving picture coding system, reference picture information; determining, by the moving picture coding system, at least one reference picture of the current image block from a plurality of pictures stored in a reference buffer based on the reference picture information, the at least one reference picture having a co-located image block with respect to the current image block, the reference picture information indicating a reference picture type of the reference picture, the reference picture type being one of long term and short term, the reference picture type characterizing a temporal distance of the reference picture with respect to the current image block; obtaining, by the moving picture coding system, at least one motion vector of the current image block according to the reference picture type, the obtaining step including, obtaining a motion vector of the co-located image block, and Appeal 2011-000962 Application 11/889,261 3 generating the motion vector of the current image block based on the motion vector of the co-located image block and the reference picture type; and decoding, by the moving picture coding system, the current image block by motion-compensating the current image block using the motion vector of current image block. REJECTION Claims 1, 3, and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as unpatentable over T. Wiegand, Working Draft Number 2, Revision 2 (WD- 2), Joint Video Team (JVT) of ISO/IEC MPEG and ITU-T VCEG, Geneva, Switzerland, February 2002 (hereinafter “WD2”) and Panusopone (U.S. Patent No. 6,647,061B1, Nov. 11, 2003). ISSUE Appellant’s response to the Examiner’s rejection presents the following issue: Did the Examiner err in finding that the WD2 discloses “the reference picture type being one of long term and short term, the reference picture type characterizing a temporal distance of the reference picture with respect to the current image block” as required by independent claim 1? ANALYSIS Appellant argues that the Examiner is incorrect in finding that the WD2 discloses long-term and short-term type reference pictures required by claim 1. (Br. 25-26). The Examiner finds that the long-term and short-term types are disclosed by WD2’s intra and inter coded images. (Ans. 6-7 (citing WD2 §§ 7.2, 7.4, and 7.4.2); Ans. 9-10). According to the Examiner, intra coded images, which are decoded without a reference picture, disclose Appeal 2011-000962 Application 11/889,261 4 long-term types and inter coded images, which are decoded based on previously decoded images, disclose short term types because the intra coded images must be decoded before inter coded images may be decoded. (Ans. 9). The Appellant argues that this is incorrect and we agree. (Reply Br. 5-7). The claim requires the long and short term types to “characterize[] a temporal distance of the reference picture with respect to the current image block.” The intra/inter coded distinction does not inform a skilled artisan regarding the temporal distance between these images as is required by the claim language. As such, we reverse the § 103(a) rejection of claim 1 and its dependent claims 3 and 4. DECISION The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 3, and 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is reversed. REVERSED tj