Ex Parte Prakash et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 23, 2017

11452125 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 23, 2017)

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.
10006.002041
(A1419CIPC1)
2090
EXAMINER
VO, TUNG T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2486
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/452,125 06/12/2006
15610 7590 01/24/2017
Okamoto & Benedicto LLP
PO Box 641330
San Jose, CA 95164-1330
Adityo Prakash
01/24/2017 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 ADITYO PRAKASH and ENIKO FODOR
Appeal 2016-005953
Application 11/452,125
Technology Center 2400
Before MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, JEREMY J. CURCURI, and
JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, Administrative Patent Judges.
CURCURI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1—3, 5—10, and 12—18. Claims 4, 11, 19, and 20 are
canceled. App. Br. Claims Appendix. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
Claims 1—3, 5—10, and 12—18 are rejected on the ground of non-
statutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over
claims 1—16 of Prakash (US 7,085,319 B2; Aug. 1, 2006). Final Act. 3.
Claims 1—3, 5—10, and 12—18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over Yokoyama (US 6,005,625; Dec. 21, 1999) and Kondo (US
5,576,772; Nov. 19, 1996). Final Act. 3-10.
We affirm.
Appeal 2016-005953
Application 11/452,125
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ invention relates to compression of video data. Spec. 12.
Claim 1 is illustrative and reproduced below, with the key disputed
limitations emphasized:
1. An apparatus for encoding uncompressed video data to form
compressed video data, wherein the video data comprises a plurality of
image frames including a set of reference frames and a set of nonkey frames,
wherein the set of nonkey frames are encoded with reference at least to a
segmentation of at least one of the image frames in the set of reference
frames, and further wherein the segmentation is an assignment of some or all
of the pixels of the reference frame to at least one segment based on at least
one of a color value or a location of the pixels in the reference frame, the
apparatus comprising:
a frame compressor configured to encode a first reference frame;
a segmenter configured to segment the first reference frame into a
first set of segments, a second set of segments, and a third set of segments,
wherein the first set, the second set, and the third set form a hierarchy of
segments and each segment encloses a simply connected set of pixels of the
first reference frame, wherein segments of the second set of segments are
formed by grouping segments of the first set of segments, and wherein
segments of the third set of segments are formed by grouping segments of
the second set of segments;
a matcher configured to match segments of the hierarchy of segments
to pixels of a nonkey frame so as to generate a hierarchy of motion vectors;
and
an output scheduler configured to encode into the compressed video
data a representation of the nonkey frame according to motion vectors from
the matcher.
ANALYSIS
The Obviousness-Type Double Patenting Rejection of Claims 1-3,5-
10, AND 12-18
The Examiner finds claims 1—3, 5—10, and 12—18 are rejected on the
ground of non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting as being
unpatentable over claims 1—16 of Prakash. Final Act. 3.
2
Appeal 2016-005953
Application 11/452,125
Appellants do not present arguments with respect to this ground of
rejection. See App. Br. 7—11, Reply Br. 2-A.
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s obviousness-type double
patenting rejection of claims 1—3, 5—10, and 12—18.
The Obviousness Rejection of Claims 1-3,5-10, and 12-18 over
Yokoyama and Kondo
The Examiner finds Yokoyama and Kondo teach all limitations of
claim 1. Final Act. 3—5. The Examiner finds Yokoyama teaches all
limitations of claim 1, except for the recited segmenter, for which the
Examiner relies on Kondo. Final Act. 5 (citing Kondo Figs. 9A—9C); see
also Ans. 12—14. The Examiner reasons:
[I]t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to
modify the teachings of Kondo into the encoding system of
Yokoyam[a] to provide an improved method capable of precisely
detecting motion vectors from two successive video frames
through the use of a hierarchical motion estimation approach and
encoding the picture quality.
Final Act. 5.
Appellants present the following principal arguments:
i.
Figs. 9A-9C of Kondo do[] not teach or suggest the
claimed hierarchy of segments. Rather, they teach a hierarchy of
resolutions of motion vectors. As explained by Kondo, “The
resolution or accuracy of motion vectors detected differs in each
hierarchical stage. In this example, the resolution of the third
hierarchical stage motion vector is four pixels in the horizontal
direction and four lines in the vertical direction. The resolution
of the second hierarchical stage motion vector is two pixels in
the horizontal direction and two lines in the vertical direction.
The resolution of the first hierarchical stage motion vector is one
3
Appeal 2016-005953
Application 11/452,125
pixel in the horizontal direction and one line in the vertical
direction.” (Emphasis added.)
Hence, Kondo teaches a hierarchy of resolutions, not the
claimed hierarchy of segments. Appellant respectfully submits
that a hierarchy of image segments and a hierarchy image
resolutions are substantially different in function, structure and
use. For at least this reason, the rejection of claim 1 should be
reversed.
App. Br. 9; see also Reply Br. 3^4.
ii. “[T]he motion estimator 13 [(Yokoyama)] does not use a
hierarchy of segments to generate a hierarchy of motion vectors.” App.
Br. 10.
We are persuaded by Appellants that the Examiner erred in finding
Yokoyama and Kondo teach the key disputed limitations.
Regarding Appellants’ argument (i), the key disputed limitations in
claim 1 recite a hierarchy of segments. See claim 1. Kondo discloses:
“FIGS. 9A-9C are diagrams illustrating the values representing a block in
the first, second and third hierarchical stages, respectively, of production of
a motion vector according to the present invention[.]” Kondo col. 6,11. lb-
19; see also Kondo col. 8,1. 13 — col. 9,1. 57 (motion vector detection in a
multi-stage operation) and Kondo Abstract (“Using a multi-stage operation,
a motion vector is detected between a base block in a present frame and the
best matching position of an inspection block in a reference frame.”).
In short, we agree with Appellants. Although Kondo’s Figs. 9A—9C
illustrate hierarchical stages, Kondo discloses resolving a motion vector
between a base block and an inspection block. Kondo col. 8,1. 13 — col. 9,1.
57. Kondo discloses a hierarchy of resolutions for the motion vector —
4
Appeal 2016-005953
Application 11/452,125
Kondo does not disclose a hierarchy of segments (and also does not disclose
a hierarchy of motion vectors). See id.
Regarding Appellants’ argument (ii), we agree with Appellants that
motion estimator 13 in Yokoyoma does not generate a hierarchy of motion
vectors because Yokoyama and Kondo, singly or in combination, do not
teach the recited hierarchy of segments.
We, therefore, do not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of
claim 1, or of claims 2, 3, 5—7, and 12—16, which depend from claim 1.
Independent claim 8 recites:
a segmenter configured to segment the first reference
frame into a first set of segments, a second set of segments, and
a third set of segments, wherein the first set, the second set, and
the third set form a hierarchy of segments and each segment
encloses a simply connected set of pixels of the first reference
frame, wherein the segmenter is further configured to divide
segments from the first set of segments to form the second set of
segments, and divide segments from the second set of segments
to form the third set of segments;
a matcher configured to match segments of the hierarchy
of segments to pixels of a nonkey frame so as to generate a
hierarchy of motion vectors[.]
These limitations of claim 8 are similar to the key disputed limitations
of claim 1. For the same reasons as discussed above, we also do not sustain
the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claim 8, or of claims 9 and 10,
which depend from claim 8.
Independent claim 17 recites:
means for segmenting the first reference frame into a first
set of segments;
means for grouping segments of the first set of segments
to form a second set of segments;
5
Appeal 2016-005953
Application 11/452,125
means for grouping segments of the second set of
segments to form a third set of segments, wherein the first set,
the second set, and the third segment form a hierarchy of
segments and each segment encloses a simply connected set of
pixels of the first reference frame;
means for matching segments of the hierarchy of segments
to pixels of a nonkey frame so as to generate a hierarchy of
motion vectors[.]
These limitations of claim 17 are similar to the key disputed
limitations of claim 1, and correspond to segmenter 220 and motion matcher
206 in Fig. 2 (encoder). For the same reasons as discussed above, we also
do not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claim 17, or of claim
18, which depends from claim 17.
CONCLUSION
We sustain the Examiner’s obviousness-type double patenting
rejection of claims 1—3, 5—10, and 12—18.
We do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—3, 5—10, and
12-18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Since at least one rejection encompassing all claims on appeal is
sustained, the decision of the Examiner 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).
AFFIRMED
6