Ex Parte Monro

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardJun 27, 2016

11678479 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 27, 2016)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte DONALD MARTIN MONRO ____________ Appeal 2013-004113 Application 11/678,479 Technology Center 2400 ____________ Before DENISE M. POTHIER, ANDREW J. DILLON, and BRETT C. MARTIN, Administrative Patent Judges. POTHIER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–65, which constitute all the claims pending in this application. App. Br. 11.1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. 1 Throughout this opinion, we refer to (1) the Final Action mailed March 8, 2012, (2) the Appeal Brief (App. Br.) filed August 7, 2012, (3) the Appeal 2014-04113 Application 11/678,479 2 Invention Appellant’s invention relates to techniques for coding or decoding image data employing video coding with embedded motion. See Spec., Abstract. Illustrative claim 1 is reproduced below with emphasis: 1. A method, comprising: identifying one or more basis functions representative of image data; and associating motion data with the basis functions. The Examiner relies on the following as evidence of unpatentability: Sekiguchi US 2003/0179825 A1 Sept. 25, 2003 Valente US 2007/0019723 A1 Jan. 25, 2007 The Rejections Claims 1–22, 24–28, 30–37, and 39–65 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Sekiguchi. Final Act. 5–22. Claims 23, 29, and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Sekiguchi and Valente. Final Act. 22. THE ANTICIPATION REJECTION OVER SEKIGUCHI All independent claims are argued as a group. App. Br. 12–18. We select claim 1 as representative. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). Regarding claim 1, Appellant argues that Sekiguchi does not teach the “associating” step. App. Br. 12–18. In particular, Appellant acknowledges that Sekiguchi discusses “atoms” (e.g., a basis function) and “motion” but that the reference does not discuss a functional association or relationship between the two. Examiner’s Answer (Ans.) mailed November 26, 2012, and (4) the Reply Brief (Reply Br.) filed January 25, 2013. Appeal 2014-04113 Application 11/678,479 3 App. Br. 15–16. Rather, in Appellant’s view, these words are at best “textually co-located.” App. Br. 17 (bolding omitted); see also Reply Br. 2. Appellant additionally argues claims 62–65 as group (App. Br. 18– 20), and we select claim 62 as representative. Specifically, Appellant contends that Sekiguchi’s discussion of a parallel shift vector, a vector representing an affine model, or a vector representing a perspective transform model do not teach a “displacement of one of the basis functions from an image frame to another image frame,” as recited in claim 62. App. Br. 20–21. ISSUES Under § 102, has the Examiner erred by finding that Sekiguchi discloses: (1) “associating motion data with the basis functions,” as recited in claim 1? (2) “the associating motion information with the basis functions includes identifying a motion vector as indicating displacement of one of the basis functions from an image frame to another image frame,” as recited in claim 62? ANALYSIS Claims 1–22, 24–28, 30–37, and 39–61 The crux of the Appellant’s arguments hinges on how the phrase “associating motion data with the basis function” in claim 1 is construed. We thus begin with construing this key disputed limitation. During examination of a patent application, a claim is given its broadest Appeal 2014-04113 Application 11/678,479 4 reasonable construction and read “in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art.” In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). Based on this guidance, the Examiner referred to the disclosure and determined that “a ‘basis function’ can be represented is [sic] at least an ‘atom’ which is representing video data.” Ans. 5. We agree. The disclosure states “a particular basis function . . . may be described as being associated with, or as representing video data. This may be referred to as an ‘atom.’” Spec. ¶ 13, cited in Final Act. 2 and Ans. 4. Thus, just like claim 1 recites, an identified basis function represents video data, including images. Appellant similarly refers to this portion of the disclosure as well as paragraph 39, which describes identified “[a]toms” as representative of portions of an image.” Spec. ¶ 39, cited in App. Br. 5. A basis function is also referred to as an atom. See id. As such, a broad, but reasonable construction for the phrase, “basis function” in the claims includes information associated with video data or a function representing video data, such as an image frame. Given this understanding, the Examiner finds Sekiguchi teaches the “associating” step in numerous ways. Ans. 5–7. Of particular interest and disputed by Appellant (App. Br. 16; Reply Br. 5–6), Sekiguchi discloses a motion vector and an atom parameter are “multiplexed” to a bitstream and transmitted to a decoder. Sekiguchi ¶ 125, cited in Final Act. 4 and Ans. 5, 7. Appellant contends that “multiplexing” as discussed in Sekiguchi does not indicate a functional Appeal 2014-04113 Application 11/678,479 5 relationship between motion data and basis functions but rather that the motion vector and atom parameter are transmitted using a common channel. Reply Br. 5–6. We are not persuaded. Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary defines “associate” as “to join or connect together: combined” but also “to bring together or into relationship in any of various intangible ways.”2 Appellant acknowledges Sekiguchi’s motion vectors and atom parameters are transmitted within a common channel or share a single communications channel. Reply Br. 5–6. As such, Sekiguchi discloses that the motion vectors 306 and atom parameters 313 are brought together or have a relationship in that both use the same single or common communications channel. Sekiguchi ¶ 125, Fig. 12. Additionally, at least one ordinary meaning of “multiplexing” includes “[t]he combining of two or more signals into a single wave (the multiplex wave) from which the signals can be individually recovered.”3 Thus, Sekiguchi’s “multiplexing” of motion vectors and atom parameters could also be understood by one skilled in the art to mean combining the signals into a single wave form– yet another relationship between motion data and basis functions. The motion data and basis functions in Sekiguchi are also related in other ways. For example, we turn to Figures 1 and 12. Sekiguchi ¶ 66, cited in Final Act. 5 and App. Br. 15 and Sekiguchi ¶ 125, cited in Final Act. 4 and Ans. 5, 7. Here, Sekiguchi describes and shows a prediction residual signal 8 (Fig. 1) or 307 (Fig. 12) generated by using motion data. Sekiguchi 2 Definitions [3] and [4] of Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, available at http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/associate (last visited June 6, 2016). 3 The Authoritative Dictionary of IEEE Standard Terms, 7th ed. 716 (2000). Appeal 2014-04113 Application 11/678,479 6 ¶¶ 59–66, 121–23, Figs. 4, 13, cited in part at Final Act. 5. Each of residual signal 8 and 307 containing “motion data,” which in turn, is used to determine the basis functions at 13 (Fig. 1) and 109 (Fig. 12) and then encoded at 110 (Fig. 12). See Sekiguchi ¶¶ 66, 71–73, 115, and 123; Figs. 1, 5, and 12. Thus, motion data is used to determine basis functions, which is then encoded. See id. Sekiguchi also teaches an inter frame prediction mode information (e.g., information that identifies a similar image or represents an image and predicts motion between frames and the similar image) together with the motion vector (e.g., motion data) are outputted as output information 10, which enters rate buffer 5 along with basis functions. See Sekiguchi ¶¶ 61, 64, Fig. 1. As such, Sekiguchi discloses other relationships between the motion data and basis functions, such that the motion data has been associated with the basis functions as claimed. Even more so, as previously discussed and as broadly recited, a basis function can simply be represented as video data, such as image frame information. Spec. ¶¶ 13, 39. Motion vectors in Sekiguchi represent video data or have image frame information (Sekiguchi ¶ 61 (discussing the vector as information to identify an image, cited in Final Act. 20–21) and include motion data (Sekiguchi ¶¶ 61–62, cited in Final Act. 5, 20–21 (discussing using a motion compensation predictor or predicting motion between frames to from the motion vector). As such, Sekiguchi’s motion vectors themselves also describe a relationship between (e.g., an association with) motion data and basis functions, as broadly as recited. Accordingly, we disagree that the Examiner has not stated a relationship between the “motion data” and the “basis function” in Sekiguchi. See App. Br. 17–18. Appeal 2014-04113 Application 11/678,479 7 Independent claims 9, 14, 19, 24, 30, 34, 39, 43, 51, and 56 recite limitations similar those in representative claim 1. App. Br. 13–15, 25–33, Claims App’x. Appellant relies on the same arguments as those discussed above for claim 1. See App. Br. 12–18. We are not persuaded for the above stated reasons. For the foregoing reasons, Appellant has not persuaded us of error in the rejection of (1) independent claims 1, 9, 14, 19, 24, 30, 34, 39, 43, 51, and 56 and (2) claims 2–8, 10–13, 15–18, 20–22, 25–28, 31–33, 35–37, 40–42, 44–50, 52–55, and 57–61 not separately argued with particularity (App. Br. 21–22). Claims 62–65 Appellant separately argues that Sekiguchi fails to teach “the associating motion information with the basis functions includes identifying a motion vector as indicating displacement of one of the basis functions from an image frame to another image frame” as recited in claim 62. App. Br. 18–21 (citing Sekiguchi ¶¶ 61, 77). Specifically, Appellant contends that the cited discussion does not show the displacement of one of the basis functions from an image frame to another image frame. App. Br. 22; Reply Br. 7–8. Rather, Appellant asserts that the mapped vector represents the motion of the image itself and that basis functions are not images. Reply Br. 8. We are not persuaded. As previously discussed, a basis function can be represented as video data as described in the disclosure (see Spec. ¶ 13), and motion vectors are one example of this type of representation of video data (see Sekiguchi ¶¶ 61–62). Thus, motion vectors themselves, which represent video data (e.g., information that identifies a similar image and Appeal 2014-04113 Application 11/678,479 8 thus represents video data) and contain motion data, describe a relationship or an association between a basis function and motion data. See id. Moreover, Sekiguchi teaches the motion vector is used to perform motion compensation prediction (e.g., displacement) that predicts motion between image frames and set of identified similar images. See Sekiguchi ¶ 61.Thus, just as the Examiner determines (Ans. 7), the vector identified in Sekiguchi (e.g., a parallel shift vector) indicates a displacement of a basis function (e.g., information that represents video data) from one image frame to another frame as recited. Additionally, the information obtained during this prediction process, including the motion vector that identifies displacement, is also associated with other basis functions (e.g., results from a basis search) later on in Sekiguchi’s process. See Sekiguichi, Figs. 1, 12. That is, Sekiguchi further discloses the encoded information representing each frame or code parameters (e.g., basis functions) along the motion vector (e.g., an identified motion vector that indicates frame displacement of a basis function) are multiplexed into a bitstream. Sekiguchi ¶¶ 56, 58, 64, 72, and 125, cited in part Final Act. 3–5. As such, Sekiguchi teaches an association between basis functions and motion data that includes identifying a motion vector that indicates a basis function’s displacement as broadly as recited. For the foregoing reasons, Appellant has not persuaded us of error in the rejection of claims 62–65. THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION Dependent claims 23, 29, and 38 are rejected under § 103 based on Sekiguchi and Valente. Final Act. 22. Appellant relies on the arguments Appeal 2014-04113 Application 11/678,479 9 presented for independent claims 19, 24, and 34 for which claims 23, 29, and 38 respectively depend. App. Br. 22. Appellant also argues that Valente fails to cure the purported deficiency of Sekiguchi. Id. We are not persuaded for the reasons previously discussed when discussing independent claims 19, 24, and 34. Accordingly, we sustain this rejection. CONCLUSION The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1–22, 24–28, 30–37, and 39–65 under § 102 and claims 23, 29, and 38 under § 103. DECISION The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–65 is affirmed. 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 Notice of References Cited Application/Control No. Applicant(s)/Patent Under Patent Appeal No. Examiner Art Unit Page 1 of 1 U.S. PATENT DOCUMENTS * Document Number Country Code-Number-Kind Code Date MM-YYYY Name Classification A US- B US- C US- D US- E US- F US- G US- H US- I US- J US- K US- L US- M US- FOREIGN PATENT DOCUMENTS * Document Number Country Code-Number-Kind Code Date MM-YYYY Country Name Classification N O P Q R S T NON-PATENT DOCUMENTS * Include as applicable: Author, Title Date, Publisher, Edition or Volume, Pertinent Pages) U V W X *A copy of this reference is not being furnished with this Office action. (See MPEP § 707.05(a).) Dates in MM-YYYY format are publication dates. Classifications may be US or foreign. U.S. Patent and Trademark Office PTO-892 (Rev. 01-2001) Notice of References Cited Part of Paper No.